While the right has lost the voucher battle for now, there is plenty in both bills that indicates Democrats -- especially Senate Democrats -- have been willing to compromise, too.

"The whole political dynamic changed when Bush came into office and we got a 50-50 Senate," says Dan Gerstein, communications director for Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. Last May, when the $15 billion Elementary and Secondary Education Act came up for reauthorization, Lieberman tried and failed to broker a moderate compromise, but nothing was accomplished and ESEA languished for a year.

"This new reality has pushed both sides to the center," Gerstein says. "And, after last year, there was a premium on getting something done."

Historically, Democrats have never supported the Straight A's plan, which would allow states or local school boards to use their discretion on how to spend federal dollars and consolidate dozens of programs funded through ESEA. Republicans argue that the plan gives states and school districts more flexibility and fewer federal mandates. Democrats have argued that ESEA was created by President Johnson in 1965 to help bridge the gap in education funding between the poor and the affluent, and this flexibility -- not to mention eliminating programs set up specifically to help the poor -- could work against that purpose.

A year ago, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., called Straight A's a "reckless, giant step backward." When Republicans tried to broker a deal on ESEA with the New Democrat Coalition in spring 2000, Straight A's was actually one of the deal breakers. Not that the New Democrat bill went anywhere; it garnered only 13 votes total.

But the bill -- offered by Lieberman and Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and called the Three R's bill -- served in many ways as the foundation upon which the current Senate ESEA bill was built. More than half of the 60-odd different ESEA programs are being eliminated, and the other three dozen or so are being consolidated into five block grants.

And now Democrats in the Senate have agreed to a Straight A's pilot program. In the amendment, tentatively to be offered by Sen. Jim Jeffords, R-Vt., the pilot program will be launched in 25 school districts in seven states. The program will call for localities to enter into a contract with Education Secretary Rod Paige, formally declaring the specific, numerical achievement improvements they intend to make (instead of vague promises of "improvement") in exchange for more flexibility with what they can do with their federal dollars.

The compromise has plenty of people on the left angry as well. Bob Chase, president of the National Education Association teachers' union, refers to the Straight A's provision of the ESEA bill as "poorly constructed block grants" that represent "an unnecessary and dangerous diversion to school improvement."

"Kennedy made a bad deal," says Amy Wilkins, principal partner of the nonpartisan Education Trust. "Straight A's is a horrible deal for poor kids. That the Senate Democrats think that's OK is insane and absurd to us." The whole reason ESEA and Title I funds exist is because states "do such a poor job of targeting the needs of poor kids," Wilkins says, noting New York state in particular, where $2,794 more is spent on richer pupils than on poorer ones. "We don't think states should be given targeting authority. If they do and the funds follow the pattern of their other funds, it will be tilted a little more toward politically powerful and affluent school districts."

"I think that his agreeing to Straight A's was shocking," Wilkins says. "Kennedy's agreeing to this stands in direct contrast to his reputation as a champion and defender of poor kids."

Kennedy, not used to being accused by the left of selling out, has continually heard snipes coming at the bill he and the Bush administration have been hammering out, along with Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Lieberman and Bayh.

"There's more consolidation in this bill than what Senator Kennedy would have been comfortable with in years past," allows Kennedy press secretary Jim Manley. Kennedy worked to ensure that programs set up for "the most vulnerable -- migrant children, Native Americans" -- are intact, but yes, Kennedy has "made some compromises as well."

Of course, the White House education advisor defends Kennedy's deal. Giving localities control would enable, "for instance, a state like Arizona or city like Seattle to use Straight A's to attach federal funds directly to students instead of send it to school districts which then decide how to allocate the money. Plus, it encourages states or school districts to think outside the box ... states will have to target their money." Otherwise, the aide says, they will not meet the terms of their agreement with Paige. "The goal is to encourage states to think about ways to reach desired outcomes instead of focusing on inputs -- which is what bureaucrats are used to doing and are comfortable with."

Moreover, the advisor says, "Wilkins is arguing against the merits of the old Straight A's -- not the Kennedy version." Under the Kennedy version, the Title I monies for poor kids will remain directed as they always have been.

But Chase says that the whole concept of consolidating and block granting is flawed. "That money needs to be targeted on the federal level," he says.

Salon News A Salon-eye view of the day's news, with investigative reports, analysis and interviews with newsmakers.