"Too many vital education dollars that should be spent in the classroom are bouncing around in the federal bureaucracy"
About this Quote
Mark Kennedy captures a long-running tension in American education policy: the desire to get money to teachers and students quickly versus the layers of federal rules designed to ensure fairness and accountability. The image of dollars "bouncing around" evokes the grant cycle from Congress to the Department of Education to state agencies to districts, each step adding paperwork, compliance checks, and time. The complaint is that every form, audit, and mandate siphons off resources that could fund smaller classes, better materials, counseling, or teacher pay.
Kennedy, a former congressman and later a university leader, speaks from a perspective that favors local control and streamlined governance. In the early 2000s, when debates around No Child Left Behind were fiercest, many conservatives argued that federal dollars came with rigid strings: testing requirements, categorical programs like Title I and IDEA, and reporting demands that burdened districts. The point is partly fiscal and partly philosophical. Dollars should follow students and educators, not processes, and decisions should be made closer to the classroom where needs are known.
There is a counterweight. Federal oversight exists to protect civil rights, target aid to disadvantaged students, and promote transparency. Without common rules, money can be misallocated, and inequities can widen. It is also true that federal funds constitute only a modest share of K-12 budgets nationally, and bureaucracy is not only federal; states and districts add their own layers.
The deeper question is how to calibrate oversight so it safeguards equity while minimizing administrative drag. Reforms like consolidating grants, simplifying applications, aligning reporting across programs, and auditing after the fact rather than before can move dollars faster without abandoning accountability. Kennedy’s line pushes policymakers to scrutinize every requirement that stands between an appropriation and a student, and to test whether it produces enough public value to justify its cost.
Kennedy, a former congressman and later a university leader, speaks from a perspective that favors local control and streamlined governance. In the early 2000s, when debates around No Child Left Behind were fiercest, many conservatives argued that federal dollars came with rigid strings: testing requirements, categorical programs like Title I and IDEA, and reporting demands that burdened districts. The point is partly fiscal and partly philosophical. Dollars should follow students and educators, not processes, and decisions should be made closer to the classroom where needs are known.
There is a counterweight. Federal oversight exists to protect civil rights, target aid to disadvantaged students, and promote transparency. Without common rules, money can be misallocated, and inequities can widen. It is also true that federal funds constitute only a modest share of K-12 budgets nationally, and bureaucracy is not only federal; states and districts add their own layers.
The deeper question is how to calibrate oversight so it safeguards equity while minimizing administrative drag. Reforms like consolidating grants, simplifying applications, aligning reporting across programs, and auditing after the fact rather than before can move dollars faster without abandoning accountability. Kennedy’s line pushes policymakers to scrutinize every requirement that stands between an appropriation and a student, and to test whether it produces enough public value to justify its cost.
Quote Details
| Topic | Teaching |
|---|
More Quotes by Mark
Add to List
