When schools fall short of federal test-score goals for five years — as a few Washington schools probably will this year — the most severe sanctions under the No Child Left Behind law are supposed to begin.

No longer can principals change their curriculum or hire outside help such as reading coaches. Instead, the law requires districts to start planning one of five get-tough options, such as shutting a school down, reopening it as a charter, or turning control over to an outside group.

But don't expect to see such measures here anytime soon.

Washington law doesn't allow the state to take over schools, for example. Charters aren't legal here either. Teacher contracts generally make wholesale firing of staff nearly impossible, too. And even if such steps were available, the state superintendent's office isn't inclined to use them.

"Going in and telling schools what to do is just going to make everybody mad and not get to the goal," said Mary Alice Heuschel, deputy superintendent of public instruction.

Today, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction will announce which schools and districts face sanctions this year under the federal law, as well as those that would face them if they were to receive federal support. (Under the law, sanctions apply only to schools that are a part of the federal Title I program, aimed at boosting achievement of low-income students.)

Under No Child Left Behind, each school and district must hit a number of targets each year, mostly test-score goals on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL). The goal is for all students to pass the WASL reading and math tests by 2014.

The targets vary by grade and subject. Schools and districts must hit them for all students plus a number of subgroups of students, including five ethnic groups, low-income students and students in special education and English-as-a-second-language programs.

If they fall short for two years in a row, the law labels them as "needs improvement." For schools, sanctions start with students' right to transfer to higher-scoring schools, with transportation at district expense. For districts, the first step is writing an improvement plan.

Last school year, 120 Washington schools had to offer students the choice to transfer, and 21 also had to pay for extra tutoring for low-income students who sought it. (Those included a few in this area, including two in Highline, one in Seattle and one in Renton.)

Another 15 schools, mostly in Eastern Washington, missed federal targets for four years, which required their districts to take what's called "corrective action." Those are the schools that could face the law's most punitive actions if they fall short again this year, along with 29 school districts.

If a school misses the targets for five years, districts are supposed to start planning to "reconstitute" it in one of five ways: Reopen it as a charter school; replace the principal and most or all staff; hire a private organization or ask the state to run the school; or any other "major restructuring of school governance." If it falls short for six years, the district is supposed to carry out that plan.

For districts, the state is required to take one of six actions, up to and including abolishing the district altogether.

But the state isn't contemplating such dramatic measures and has yet to determine what it will do, Heuschel said.

Several school superintendents say they aren't planning major changes, either.

"I don't have the time to worry about it," said William Miller, superintendent of Wahluke, a small district in Grant County. Two of its four schools could fall into reconstitution planning this year.

"We've been thinking about (school improvement), and doing it before the law ever came about."

Benjamin Soria, Yakima's superintendent, said he thinks the federal law's sanctions are "unfair, terribly unfair. We didn't all start off from a level playing field."

He's not contemplating any major changes at his schools, three of which were in "corrective action" this year. They've already changed their reading and math curriculums, added reading coaches, and more, he said.

"All we need is time," he said.

Some, however, believe that the state superintendent's office and school districts should be willing and able to take more dramatic action if a school doesn't improve.

"What we're finding at the secondary level is that it's so hard to improve a bad high school that closure and replacement is often the best option," said Tom Vander Ark, executive director of education giving for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In Washington, however, "all we have is voluntary assistance, with no teeth in it," he said.

Fordham study

But closing a school or replacing its staff doesn't guarantee success.

The track record for state takeovers and replacing a school's staff has been mixed.

A 2003 study sponsored by the Fordham Foundation looked at two dozen states that intervened in schools from 1989 to 2003 and concluded no one strategy had a success rate higher than 50 percent.

States and districts continue to try both, however. Chicago, for example, announced last year that it would close 50-60 schools, and open 100 new ones in their place.

Support and assist

In this state, however, leaders at the state superintendent's office stand firmly in the support-and-assist camp.

"Show me where that [takeover] approach in other states has improved student learning, and we'll take a look at that research," Heuschel said.

Part of Heuschel's approach stems from her view of the No Child law. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson, Heuschel and others embrace the law's goals but think it has a number of flaws. They say, for example, it unfairly gives negative labels to many schools that are making great strides.

Ultimately, Heuschel and Bergeson would like schools to be judged on how much they improve. Now, all schools must reach the same targets, regardless of where their scores started.

Washington initiated its own, small school-improvement effort four years ago. It started with 25 schools that volunteered for three years of intensive help. Each school received an educational audit to help identify strengths and weaknesses. Two days a week, a coach worked with staff. Teachers were paid for extra time to plan how and what to change, and they receive additional training.

The program, called School Improvement Assistance, has reached 85 schools so far and will add another 25 this fall. The results have been modest but encouraging, according to an outside evaluation.

Heuschel, however, says it's the approach that works best.

"I don't think any Washington school is failing," she said. "I think schools are doing the best they can with the resources they have and what they know."

The people, she said, are not the problem.

"The problem is that teachers have not been exposed to new information about ways to instruct, to remediate, to differentiate," she said.

If districts fire teachers and hire others, the new ones will need to be trained, she said. "So why not train the teachers who are there, as long as there is a willingness for training?"

Some states, such as Kentucky, also have had good results with similar programs. And Vander Ark agrees that's where school improvement should start.

The assistance program, however, is getting more prescriptive. It is still voluntary, based on collaboration among the school, state and district. But the state will push what its experience shows has worked in other schools, said Rob MacGregor, who oversees the program at OSPI.

Heuschel said the state may also require some districts to spend their federal dollars in ways that the state thinks best — another of the steps it can take with "needs improvement" districts under No Child Left Behind. She adds, however, that that would always be done in collaboration with the superintendent, too.

Linda Shaw: 206-464-2359 or lshaw@seattletimes.com