Think of the superintendent of schools as the equivalent of a business chief executive, and the reasoning behind "reconstituting schools" becomes clear. A division in the company is failing to meet standards, so the boss redeploys the workforce to get the results required.

No, schools are not businesses and children are definitely not widgets, but one part of the metaphor definitely applies: When there's a crisis, reorganization — even a new mission — may be the critical next step. A persistent problem getting children to learn is the ultimate crisis in a school system, and when tweaking that system hasn't worked, drastic changes are needed, and fast.

That's the basic rationale of House Bill 172, which this week passed the House education and labor committees. Giving the superintendent the option, which has been successful elsewhere, is the right thing to do. It would only be used after a school has been under federal No Child Left Behind sanctions ("in restructuring") for four years without demonstrable success.

A school in failure could be dismantled, with some staff rehired and others reassigned. Hiring a private contractor as a manager would be an option.

Unions would enter negotiations over the reassignment of displaced staff but not over the reorganization itself.

The problem is, the amended version of the bill has complicated the process of using the reconstitution tool by compelling the administration to jump through too many hoops.

Many of the proposed criteria — such as whom to consult and what test scores to review — could be part of the rules the Board of Education would adopt to guide the process. But doing the actual reshaping of the school should be the administration's job — they are the professional educators — and not be left up to a BOE vote, as one amendment suggests.

The state Department of Education is facing a 2014 deadline to bring all schools up to standard under the federal No Child law. A total of 78 of the 256 public schools are in restructuring after falling short of the NCLB bar; 17 of those schools are under sanction for the fourth year and still below the standard.

The collective bargaining system with the teachers' and staff unions would make meeting the deadline virtually impossible, without the "nuclear option" of reconstitution.

Both the Hawaii State Teachers Association and the Hawaii Government Employees Association have strongly opposed the bill. Among the arguments: Some teachers may be upheaved because of circumstances beyond their control.

The unions advocate for their members, which is perfectly reasonable under ordinary circumstances.

The circumstances described here, however, are not ordinary. If a school is failing to deliver to this extreme, it's in a state of emergency, and the children are at risk.

Granted, it's unwise to replace a teacher or administrator who is a good fit with the reconstituted school mission. In practice, however, reconstitution typically leaves just under half the staff in place.

The option to move staff around the system is one that the administration should have in crisis situations, because otherwise the students themselves are left without an advocate. The unions should work with the administration when all else has failed, and make the children's best interests their top priority.