In this paper, the authors begin by classifying the arguments that assert American schools are relatively inefficient into two categories: the "long-term trend argument" and the "international comparison argument." Their focus herein is on the latter of these two. They then describe two frameworks for approaching either of these arguments: "cost efficiency" and "production efficiency." The authors explain that the typical spending/outcome model used to make the case that the United States is a relatively inefficient nation is wholly unsuitable for drawing these or any conclusions. Accounting for differences in student populations is helpful, but still inadequate for building a model that can be used to assess a country's relative efficiency. Evaluating education inputs such as teacher wages and class sizes can further refine comparisons between nations; however, it is unlikely that even these refinements are enough to conduct analyses that can credibly back claims about the relative efficiency of America's education system. That said, an appropriately limited analysis can still inform our understanding of how the U.S public education system compares with systems in other countries.