With the June 1 deadline looming for school districts to apply for dollars for chronically poor-performing schools, the state hasn’t heard from the U.S. Department of Education whether it’s getting any money to actually pass around. That unanswered question has added uncertainty to what’s already a been tense process for districts.

California’s share of the $3.5 billion one-time stimulus money for School Improvement Grants is supposed to be  $414 million – a hunk of change for districts to help turn around schools. And there’s no saying an amount nearly this large will be available for that purpose in coming years, given the federal deficit and growing criticism in Congress over the prescriptive methods that President Obama has chosen as remedies for failing schools.

The U.S. Department of Education has notified 28 states how much they’d be getting. But there’s been no more announcements in about a month, and Fred Balcom, director of the state’s District and School Improvement Division, expressed puzzlement over the lack of information.

Superintendents and trustees are deciding whether to close schools, fire principals, transfer teachers, extend school days and adopt other changes on the assumption that there will be money to underwrite the changes.

In March, the State Board of Education designated 188 schools as the lowest performing 5 percent of schools, based on test scores, after a contentious and opaque selection process that was determined partly by federal guidelines and partly by the Legislature. There was also some last-minute, behind-the-scenes tweaking. Making the list qualified schools for School Improvement Grants of between $150,000 to $6 million over three years. But even with $414 million, there’s not enough to fund all of the schools’ full amounts, so the State Board of Education will decide the allocations at its July meeting after reviewing districts’ applications.

Some districts, like Santa Ana Unified and San Bernadino City Unified, are viewing the SIG money as an opportunity to fund big changes in troubled schools. But other districts with schools on the list may simply ignore the state’s designation and a chance for the money.

Oakland Unified will likely be one; officials there have disputed the selection of several recently reconfigured middle schools that had shown noticeable improvement. Other superintendents don’t like the restrictions that U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has imposed for using the money and complained there’s not nearly enough time to work with parents and teachers on turning around a school by August.

Districts can choose from among four options: closing down a school and transferring students to better performing schools; replacing the principal and at least half of the staff, called a turnaround option; replacing a failing district school with a charter operator; and, the least disruptive, called a transformation option, changing principals and adopting a number of changes: restructuring the school day, adopting new ways to evaluate  teachers and administrators, and creating a system of identifying and, within two years, removing ineffective teachers.

Most districts will likely choose the transformation model, although circumstances may dictate  other choices. It may be preferable to start fresh, with a new staff – if enough good teachers can be found — when all else hasn’t worked. In the  much publicized case of Central Falls High in Rhode Island, the threat of  firing potentially all of the teachers  provided leverage the district needed to negotiate the terms and conditions (longer school day, more tutoring, effective evaluations) under a transformation option.

For superintendents wanting to move quickly, the SIG grant may offer  money that the federal government, under No Child Left Behind, didn’t deliver. Other superintendents may choose to sit  and wait for Congress to change the rules.

Next week will determine who’s acting and who’s watching – assuming Washington eventually approves California’s money.