The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
joetheripper117
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 326 times Debate No: 77068
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

on average, they spend about 1500 per child in those grades. might not sound like a lot but if you look at it like a class of 100 and they spend 150000. schools are mostly funded by local taxes. so the money the feds spend is cake. don't you think the school could benefit from 150000? it goes to support a burocracy, not helping to further education, at least not very efficiently. perhaps the feds can have a role in helping out, but as it sits, most of it should be just cut. .
joetheripper117

Con

I would first like to thank Pro for bringing up this debate. I will be making the argument that the education budget of the US should not be cut. This is because education is one of the most important services provided by the government, and lowering the amount of education given to students is the last thing we want to do.

Education is one of the most important things that a government provides because it assures the long term well-being of a nation. The more the children are educated, the better they will be at doing work, innovating, and being an overall help to society. If we lowered the funding of education, we would soon see a decrease in the knowledge of future generations, as well as a decrease in the prosperity of society.

As someone who has gone through public school in the past, and knows people who still are going through public education, I have noticed the poor funding that schools already get. Across the country, schoolteachers have very limited supplies with which to educate the students, and cultural classes are losing funding left and right. Considering the already poor funding that schools get, taking away the money necessary to educate the next generation is the last thing that we as a society want to do.

Pro makes the claim that the majority of the money spent on schooling "goes to support a burocracy, not helping to further education". I expect my opponent to cite evidence of the majority of school funding going to a "burocracy".

I look forward to Pro's arguments, and expect this to be an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con mostly just talks about the value of education. that doesn't mean excess spending is going to do anything to promote education. and con doesn't even provide any examples of the feds doing anything helpful that isn't done by locality. 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.

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.

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.

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.

and even the more fudamentally good aspects arent that great. the free market will ensure the required level of education. 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.
joetheripper117

Con

"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.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.
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.
joetheripper117

Con

"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.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.