SACRAMENTO, CA - A new bill continues the California tradition of government by pronouncement, a practice that further distances the state from reality and adds to its image as a national laughing stock.

AB 96, the first piece of legislation ever advanced by Rudy Bermudez, a freshman Democrat from Norwalk, changes the designation "low-performing schools" to "high-priority schools." Mr. Bermudez said that the state should not employ terms that "disable children." Supporters of his idea, which passed the Assembly 51-22, say that "low performing" is demeaning and that the new label will boost self-esteem and inspire performance. But the impassioned debate missed a few points.

Whatever legislators think of its connotations, low performing is indeed accurate. A school is low-performing if it scores five or lower on California's academic performance index. Such a ranking qualifies the school for special attention, including $20,000 bonuses for teachers who agree to work there for four years.

Simply calling it "high-priority" does nothing to change a school's actual performance, any more than proclaiming California a fiscally sound state can erase a deficit of $35 billion. But it is part of the tradition in a state that calls the unemployment office the Department of Employment Development and prefers to label a tax agency the Board of Equalization. Legislators are also free to call a horse a duck, and that may come in due time.

Meanwhile, the best way for a low-performing school to escape that designation is to become a high-performing school. Some of the highest performing schools, as PRI recently pointed out in They Have Overcome, are inner-city, low-income, racially diverse schools. They have achieved academic excellence through proven methods and curricula, high standards, high expectations, discipline, and just plain hard work.

Students would be better served if legislators insisted on proven teaching methods, sound curricula, and high standards. Instead of confining students to low-performing schools, lawmakers could allow them to leave for better schools, whether inside or outside of the government system. And students statewide would also be better served if legislators gave the boot to another bill making the rounds.

AB 356, by Berkeley Democrat Loni Hancock, would kill California's high-school exit exam, which students must pass in order to get a diploma. The measure enjoys the support of the powerful California Teachers Association, mounting a comeback after failing to make matters of curricula part of collective bargaining.

The test involves reading and writing at the level of the tenth grade, and math at roughly the level of grades six and seven. Students begin taking the test in the tenth grade and can pass with scores of 55 percent in math and 60 percent in English. Those who fail have up to seven more opportunities to pass it before completing their senior year. Even with such easy conditions only 48 percent of the class of 2004 passed both sections by last fall. But the test is no more unfair than the state bar exam or driver's test.

Opponents of the test want to kill it because it reveals the abysmal state of K-12 education in California. It also halts the practice of social promotion, advancing students to the next level whatever their achievement and setting them up for failure in higher education and the workplace. In the end, that's a bad joke at the expense of students and California's future.

K. Lloyd Billingsley is editorial director of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. He can be reached via email at klbillingsley@pacificresearch.org.