> The budget woes are a myth. The US spends more on education than most other countries in exchange for middle of the pack results comparable to less developed countries with far lower budgets.
Educational spending covers a different set of domains in the US than it does in other countries. There's a lot of backfill in the social services area, for example.
That doesn't mean schools are under-funded. If it's true it implies schools are over-funded and some of their budgets should be transferred to social services.
Then what's your benchmark for "underfunded"? How are we to determine whether we're getting value for our investment, or whether it's something other than funding that's handicapping the outcomes?
A really easy benchmark would be to check whether funding pays for basic classroom supplies (tissues, chalk, paper for assignments, etc.), or if teachers commonly pay for that stuff out-of-pocket. In the US the latter is common.
Read the thread, this is not a problem of funding but allocation of funds. I know schools that can't find $50 for supplies still find $80,000 each for 3 assistant principals who don't do any work, even in theory.
Educational spending covers a different set of domains in the US than it does in other countries. There's a lot of backfill in the social services area, for example.