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

"con mostly just talks about the value of education. that doesn't mean excess spending is going to do anything to promote education." The amount of spending that we have is in no way excess spending. Like I said earlier, schools have no excess of supplies, to the contrary, they are frequently running out of them. And of course I talk about the value of education, as that is the thing that you are trying to take funding away from. By showing the importance of education, I have shown the importance of keeping education funded. " and con doesn't even provide any examples of the feds doing anything helpful that isn't done by locality." If you would like to see what the federal government does to improve education in the US, look at this link to their website: http://www2.ed.gov... Cutting the federal department of education's budget will stop it from doing many of these tasks. And if you want the federal department of education to be able to do more for education, it will need more funding, not less. "the core of schooling is provided by the local level. that is why pro had a poor upbringing. but we can see that the federal government with all that spending did nothing to change his upbringing. the money went to burocracy instead." Once again, I would like to ask that Pro provided some form of evidence that the entirety of the US federal department of education's budget is going to the "burocracy", and not towards the educations of students. "as examples. in ohio, common core comes with a seven hundred million dollar price tag if the states deny doing it. ive seen first hand the excesses they use in scoring that material. standards can be placed, but they shouldn't and needn't come at hefty price tags." It seems reasonable that all states be held to a higher standard of education, and punished if they fail to meet it. here is a break down of the department of educaiton.... ""The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."[11] The Department of Education does not establish schools or colleges.[12] The Office of the Inspector General conducts audits and investigation in connection to the Department's programs. Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation, over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control." 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? "The Department's mission is: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.[13] Aligned with this mission of ensuring equal access to education, the Department of Education is a member of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness,[14] and works with federal partners to ensure proper education for homeless and runaway youth in the United States." some of those things are good, keepting statistics, helping homeless and runaways etc. but things like no child left behind or race to the top or common core, unnessaary." Please provide an argument supporting the claim that holding educators to a higher standard is "unnessaary". "and even the more fudamentally good aspects arent that great. the free market will ensure the required level of education." 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. "it will function just fine. we're throwing money at problems like runaways when in the bigger picture, that is a problem that has only local consequences, local to that kid. the free market will be just fine. at a time of record debt, sometimes hard choices have to be made." Please provide justification to support why leaving education to the free market would solve the problems, as it seems completely counter intuitive to me.