The Kennedy compromise

Without question, Kennedy has made some big compromises on the bill, supporting legislation that last year he might have found heretical, that the NEA and others still do. He did so, Manley says, in exchange for some significant concessions from Bush, such as $300 billion in authorized funding -- up a tad from Bush's original proposal of $3 billion. But Wilkins, displaying some Hill savvy, points out that this is "authorized" funding, which is like a wish -- not "appropriated," which is a commitment. "And they haven't gotten any serious commitment from the White House on securing that funding," says Wilkins.

Kennedy may have requested the $300 billion, Chase says, but the money sure wasn't in Bush's budget resolution. In fact, he says, the resolution had $1 billion less than in Bush's original budget draft.

From Kennedy's perspective, the Education Trust, the NEA, as well as certain Democratic senators -- Jack Reed from Rhode Island, Hillary Clinton from New York -- have made comments slamming the education bill for various reasons, with Kennedy's willingness to compromise implicit among all of them. But he is trying to work out the best deal he can, considering the fact that for the first time since Eisenhower Democrats don't control the House, the Senate or the White House.

The arguments that he's been too willing to compromise have been buttressed by the fact that conservative Republican House members have been voicing preference for the "Kennedy Straight A's" program over the House version.

"We're getting it from all sides, no doubt about it," Manley says.

Not unexpectedly, one might observe. You might not expect Kennedy to support any form of school choice, for instance. Last May, Gregg introduced an amendment to ESEA that would make federal education funds portable. Gregg's portability amendment -- fiercely opposed by Democrats -- would have allowed students to take a few hundred dollars from failing public schools and channel them toward either other public schools or after-school tutoring programs.

"In effect, this would strip away the whole principle that we will try to help disadvantaged kids in disadvantaged areas," Kennedy's fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. John Kerry, said about Gregg's amendment at the time.

This year, Kennedy and other Democrats are going along with an even bolder portability plan in many respects, one that requires states to allow students in chronically failing schools to take their Title I funds with them -- which can be roughly anywhere between $300 and $1,500, depending on the school -- and channel the money to either another public school or to a private tutor or after-school program.

But the activists are not sold. "Vouchers in any form have not passed the ultimate test of education reform -- improving student achievement," hammers the NEA's Chase.

Chase argues that even though Kennedy and his House counterpart, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., have been able to get more funding in their bills, not enough has been added for "safe, clean school buildings and smaller classes for our children."

Senate and House Democrats say that they're doing everything they can as the minority party, and they point out that both the new Straight A's and the new portability measures have been tweaked, fixed and improved from their incarnations last year.

"They may be tweaked," says the Bush education advisor, "but at the end of the day, no child will be left in a failing public school and some states will be given the freedom to prove to Washington that they can do more with federal funding when given the flexibility to do with the funds what they wish."

Of the two provisions Democrats signed off on last Thursday, the advisor says, "both move the ball forward for child-centered funding and for state and local autonomy. Both will make it easier to argue down the road for school choice and for more state and local autonomy. They are conservative victories."

• View blog reactions