Agreed. Which is why public education wasn't supposed to be enacted at the federal level. It is a state concern, or, more appropriately, a private one.
Edit: US perspective
Edit: US perspective
History as a subject I can understand localized curriculum.
Or are you arguing that funding can't be moved through central vehicles? Is this because if an area is better off (NY, CA, WA, IL) in their funding shouldn't help to fund ensure states worse off (MS, TX, OK, etc.)? I mean, I get the "F-u-i-got-mine" crowd but certainly there are national security/defense reasons to ensure a base level of education, such as science and finance, if only to ensure people aren't gullible to populism or, if financially irresponsible, open to manipulation by foreign states.
Accepting funds from the federal government tends to come with strings attached, and such attachments tend not to work well over the generalization of the entire population (see the OP's about standards being added/dropped for everyone when it probably should have been considered from a local or hyperlocal perspective).
The strings-attached conditionality shifts power to the federal government, which is something to be avoided at all costs.
Edit: to enunerate to the Federal government the power of education, the constitution would have to be amended. Totally doable, but a requirement nonetheless.
We have first hand record from Madison about what the general welfare clause means (last paragraph). https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-017...
It is more ideological that the courts knowingly reinterpreted the clause to allow for spending outside the scope of the Constitution, which immediately removed all restrictions on the federal government.
What is the point of enumerated powers if the gov is allowed to ignore them?
Now, would you please address the core question: can you help me understand what part of mathematics, science, language arts, music, or most other extracurriculars change across state lines?
Or perhaps the sister question: if they don't, and the only reason we don't approach it that way is artificial due to gaps in the governance structure, then I trust you would support correcting the governance structure or supporting the governance structure that allows it?
Although your assertion that state lines do not change the nature of core fields like mathematics is correct, they do present a change wherein the funds to pay for education sold as a public good are sourced. And my contention is that the federal government is not granted the power to provide funds for public education.
States are left that power, so to the extent that states want to provide/force education to be a public good, they can do so. It is preferable as people could relocate to another state which does not raise tax revenue to publicize education if they so chose to. States, after all, are not prohibited from direct taxiation.
The entire point of the revolution was to shed rule-by-decree systems by imposing the separation of powers through a system of checks and balances. I do not believe that Madison would be of the favor of a federal subsidiary on public education, even in the modern era.
Of course the Constitutional system creates unequal outcomes. Of course it creates unequal opportunities. But those are problems for citizens to solve amongst themselves locally, up to the state level. The federal government is not to squabble in such affairs.
It's not like education didn't exist in the 1700s. The founders were well aware of it and explicitly left it out. The same is true of a federalized Healthcare system.
I genuinely believe that, given no public funding of education at any level whatsoever, we would still see localities mobilize to provide it, as the benefit would likely outweigh the cost. An educated society is preferred, after all. I also believe the solution would be more efficient in resource usage and allocation.
Which violates the 14th Amendment, which is arguably more important under Federalism than the 10th.
[0] And my contention is that the federal government is not granted the power to provide funds for public education
It's certainly not equal protection under the law because there is no law authorizing congress to provide public education.
It's not the repayment of debts because the US hasn't committed to paying debt for the future (we would have to pay off current obligations).
I'd be happy to read any link you send. My leanings toward extremely limited government have exponentially increased lately so I'd be happy to be brought back down to earth.
With respect to the US:
Don't get me wrong. States can enact a public education and directly tax residents to fund it, but the federal government was not enumerated that power in the Constitution.