A proposed Board of Education decision to move gingerly into a new "weighted student funding" formula for public schools is the worst of many choices the board might make.

It would be better to abandon the formula altogether than to move into it so slowly that it creates only minimal chances of success.

The weighted formula distributes money to schools in part on the basis of student need. Those schools with high numbers of students with extra educational needs would gain while other schools would lose.

The funding plan is part of a school "reform" package known as Act 51 that gives school administrators flexibility to decide how they will spend their budget, and it imposes new levels of accountability on principals for performance.

The idea is that if principals are to be held accountable, they should have authority to spend educational dollars as they see fit.

Faced with backlash from communities that may see their school budgets decline, the board is moving cautiously, proposing to cap gains or losses during the first year under the formula at 10 percent.

This would buy time to come up with a more politically palatable formula, but it is a disservice to the law and the effort to achieve true change in our schools.

The Department of Education had proposed phasing in the formula at 25 percent a year, so that by year two, for instance, fully half would be in place. There is no question that this formula forces change and brings some risk.

Schools that "lose" funding will have to be creative in dealing with the dollars they have. Schools that "gain" money will be held to a higher standard.

But by going with the 10 percent formula, the board sets up the system to fail. Those who lose will work around the edges to make up the loss; those who gain will say it is not enough to make a difference. Students — who are supposed to be the ultimate beneficiaries — will be long gone before it is fully put into effect.

And critics will have an opportunity to say the plan was doomed from the start.

The full board still must act on this and could — indeed should — go back to the original funding formula, if not an even swifter implementation. Or, if it is going to run from a plan it originally endorsed, then it's better to kill it outright than let it die from a thousand cuts.

Granted, this is a new and difficult system. But it is an attempt to force significant change in the way our schools are run. Such change is painful, yes, but the status quo is unacceptable.