That doesn't mean that that money is managed well, though.

I totally agree, but any discussion of approaches that might improve the efficacy of the spend, e.g. more competition via charters/vouchers, or creating a merit pay system for teachers, is not permitted in polite society.

The only solution in elite policy circles is to spend more. The reality is we spend plenty, but we have a structure that makes it difficult to experiment. The problem is exacerbated because the most influential members of the upper classes can bypass the problem by either paying for private schools or by taking advantage of our neo-feudal school districting system and buy into exclusive neighborhoods with "public schools" — which are open to anyone who can swing a $1M mortgage!

Nor does it specifically help men. Currently the education system is geared to helping women and some of the policies actually punish men.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-gap-boys-lagging/

Add in the fact that blue collar jobs are declining, most men are going to ask what is the point of trying. The answer they get back from society is one that they are unneeded.

The US also spends more per person on healthcare, yet has worse outcomes[1]. Cost is not always a good indicator of quality.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-comparison-20...

Are you arguing the US Educational System is rigged to maximize corporate profits? Don't we largely have "single-payer" education? Is the issue local control? Do we need to federalize it? Nationalize Addison-Wellesley so they no longer profit from producing text books and curriculum packs?

I don't know. I suppose my comments on a rigged system were premature since I don't know the US educational system enough to know if it is rigged. The main point I was trying to convey is that often times, spending is not a good indicator of quality. I've edited my old post, thanks for the comment.