In the days following Governor Pataki’s $105 billion budget proposal, talk here in Albany centered mostly on the governor’s plan for reining in the soaring cost of Medicaid. Mr. Pataki is himself partly responsible for guiding the press bandwagon: his staff hosted a rare briefing the day before the budget was released on a proposal to cap county Medicaid costs. Reporters beamed at getting a backgrounder from an executive office they refer to most days as Fort Pataki.

In recent weeks, however, talk has shifted from what was, ultimately, a modest proposal for slowing the Medicaid freight train to the governor’s spending plan for public education. And for this, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver can take the credit. By saving his harshest criticism of the budget for the second largest beneficiary of government largesse, the Manhattan Democrat helped shift the terms of debate away from Medicaid.

But if Mr. Silver helped the shift, then Mayor Bloomberg cemented it. In his annual trip to the Capitol one week after Mr. Pataki’s budget address, Mr. Bloomberg devoted the majority of his remarks on New York City’s place in the budget to amplifying Mr. Silver’s concerns over school aid. Excluding an impassioned plea for the West Side Stadium, Mr. Bloomberg’s speech might have passed for an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case.

It was surprising, then, that Randi Weingarten directed her wrath not at Mr. Pataki but at Mr. Bloomberg in a visit to Albany last week. As president of the powerful United Federation of Teachers union, Ms. Weingarten is focused on maximizing the money that flows from state coffers to the members of her union. And Mr. Bloomberg’s complaint that the state’s aid to city schools “fails utterly” in satisfying the terms of the CFE mandate could be viewed as helpful to the cause.

This curious disconnect between Ms. Weingarten and Mr. Bloomberg suggests that a bigger battle than the one over CFE funding – or the one that appeared to be brewing over Medicaid – lies in the background of the debate over schools. One possible explanation is charter schools, which represents a potent threat to teachers’ unions because of the flexibility they propose and the results they require. For Ms. Weingarten and the 140,000 union members she represents, Mr. Bloomberg’s appeals for cash may matter little in light of his strong support of school choice.

According to current state law, the number of charter schools allowable in New York is 100. With 78 schools already chartered throughout the state, and another 15 new applications for New York City under review, the state may soon hit its limit. That’s why a little noticed provision in Mr. Pataki’s new budget proposal to lift the cap on charter schools in New York City should have raised the ire of teachers unions like the UFT. Curiously, though, it hasn’t.

That may be because the provision that lifts the cap is included in the Article VII legislation that is associated with the budget but not closed to negotiation. It is not certain, therefore, that the proposed lifting of the cap will make it through the budgetary process. Yet its inclusion in the governor’s budget suggests that Mr. Pataki agrees with those who argue that increased spending is not the answer to the problems facing New York City public schools.

New York spends more money on each public school student than any other state, and roughly three times the per-pupil amount it paid in 1982. Last week the executive vice president of the New York State United Teachers, Alan Lubin, suggested raising taxes on the wealthy to cover increased school aid. Mr. Pataki, in his budget, is proposing a structural change instead.

The manner in which Mr. Pataki proposed to do this will not win him points on charm. Mr. Silver is often portrayed as chief obstructer in the budget wars, but Mr. Pataki’s proposed $280 million increase for New York City schools is so meager as to seem an insult to the court that directed him to spend more than $20 billion over the next five years to resolve the CFE case. And his proposal to lift the cap on charter schools takes advantage of a loophole in current law, qualifying it as a stealth attempt at statutory change.

The proposal, listed under the education section of the governor’s budget legislation, calls for the chancellor of any city with a population greater than 1 million to open an unlimited new number of charter schools in his district by treating new charters as if they were conversions of existing public schools. Under the old rules, the only exceptions to the cap were existing schools that were converted. Mr. Klein, who hopes to open 50 new charter schools in the city over the next five years, is enthusiastic about his new freedom.

Ms. Weingarten, on the other hand, is not likely to go down without a fight. By playing nice with the governor last week, she may have earned the right to tap into additional school funds when and if they come. But by lashing out at Mayor Bloomberg and his schools chancellor for promoting charter schools and accountability, she betrays her worries over the charter school movement they represent. Messrs. Bloomberg and Pataki could share a toast over this. Ms. Weingarten may outwardly favor the governor on the issue of school funding, but both men can share the blame – or credit – for making charter schools a centerpiece of the education debate.

Mr. McGuire is the Albany bureau man of The New York Sun.