Final answer:
The phrase "short of funds" suggests that money is available but not sufficient, making option C the best choice. It is generally a softer way to describe financial deficiency without implying complete lack of funds or poverty. The correct option is C.
Step-by-step explanation:
The phrase "short of funds" is employed by the author to articulate the state of a budget that is inadequate for its intended purposes. When taking into account the context provided, the most appropriate choice for the use of this phrase is C) to make the district’s need for money seem less severe. This term is often used to suggest that while there is some money available, it is not enough to meet all the needs or plans that the subject (in this case, the district or individual) intends to fulfill. It is not as alarming as being completely without funds, which would align more with option B, while it does highlight a problem without being as critical as option A might suggest. This usage also doesn't specifically reveal new information unknown to the readers, making option D less likely.
Furthermore, this expression is not only found in reference to school district budgets but is also used when discussing whole economies or individuals' finances, as seen in the provided quotations. It hints at a situation where the financial resources are limited and might be just enough to cover the basic necessities, without the capability for investment in further development or additional benefits, such as the human and physical capital investments mentioned.
In essence, "short of funds" serves as a diplomatic means of outlining financial constraints that signify a state of reduced financial flexibility. It is often a euphemism that avoids invoking the harsher connotations of poverty or bankruptcy.