less money should be spent on education k-12 by the federal government

"federal spending doesn't give schools supplies, so con hasn't really addressed whether federal spending is excess. why do you think even with all that federal spending, that con had a poor upbringing from a poor school? we see con is relatively young, so one would think all that money would have made a difference if it's like con argues." I never claimed that federal spending provides school supplies, I said that it works to set standards of education across the nation. "con asks that i show money goes to bureocracy instead of actual education. i showed common core and all the policies of the department. they have lawyers and lots of persennel to maintain all that. that's burocracy." I would argue that common core and many of the policies that they have set are having a positive influence on the education of the next generation, and are well worth the money. This is because if schools did not have standards that they were required to live up to, they would not strive to perform as well. ""Wouldn't the most logical fix for such a decentralized education system be raising the funding of federal education, so it can cover more costs for the local schools?" i might actually invite some redistribution by the feds. but federal money doesn't go to things like supplies and teachers and concrete things like that. it goes to common core and other policies of the feds." Yes, of course the federal supplies do not go to supplies and teachers, as those things are currently being covered by the locals. Having the federal government pay for them as well would be redundant. I think that the best solution is to take the burden off of local communities, and leave it entirely to the federal government to fund. ""Please provide an argument supporting the claim that holding educators to a higher standard is "unnessaary"." ive shown how costly it is. we can have standards that dont cost so much money. it's like the republican thinking that any spending cuts to the military are automatically bad, and increases automatically good. you have to look at the actual spending to determine if it is good or not." Please demonstrate a method that the US government could use to have the same standards we have, but also make it cost less money. ""That claim you have made is ridiculous. All Leaving education to the free market would do is keep the rich smart and successful, while dooming everyone else to much poorer educations. It is the responsibility of the state to provide an education for those who live in it." again, fed money doesn't go to supplies or cause any redistribution. but we know the free market will take care of itself. it will get the education it needs. when we throw so much money at the stuggling students by such indirect means, we're at best just creating a better educated populace for the sake of a better edcuated populace." That statement that you quoted me on was not a response to the idea that we should lower federal education spending, but to your statement that we should leave education to the free market. Pro makes the claim that "the free market will take care of itself", but when looking at almost all matters left to the free market, we can see that the rich are getting a far better deal then the poor. Education should be a massive equalizer among the populace; allowing the free market to determine the way it works will only serve to increase the gap between rich and poor. "im not saying leave education to the free market. there should be intervention to give people equal access, an equal shot. but tha tdoesn't mean spending excessively to do it." Once again, I ask Pro to demonstrate that the amount that the federal government spends is "excessive". All that Pro has previously shown on this topic is that the federal government sets standards for schools, which is not in any way excessive. "what i did say is the free market will ensure adquate education to function as a free market. a business man who needs someone with math skills would teach them math if he had to, for example." That businessman would probably prefer it if the person he was hiring was already educated in mathematics so that he could save money by not educating him himself.