EDITORIAL : YARDSTICK NEEDED PAY RAISES FOR TOP MANAGERS CAN WAIT UNTIL L.A. SCHOOL DISTRICT SETS MEASURABLE JOB STANDARDS.

THE Board of Education extended the contracts of 24 top administrators of the Los Angeles Unified School District last week, even while board members grumbled about the scant progress toward setting clear and measurable performance standards for those high-salary employees.

What's most alarming about the situation is that two years have passed since the board ordered Superintendent Sid Thompson to develop ``tough, new standards'' for those top administrators.

The board still is waiting.

Unfortunately, this is only the latest example of the district's unresponsive, plodding central-office bureaucracy.

With its multibillion-dollar budget and more than 50,000 employees, the LAUSD is about as nimble as an ocean liner. While economics have forced corporations to get down to fighting weight and focus on basics, it's been business as usual for the monstrous L.A. school bureaucracy.

Top administrators still have no objective performance standards. And with the lame-duck superintendent heading into the last year of his own contract, a tougher approach to management seems rather unlikely at this point.

That is regrettable. The district's top administrators are paid handsomely - on average, about $100,000 a year - but their performance is judged by vague criteria, making a joke of the board's promise two years ago to impose no-nonsense ``feet to the fire'' accountability.

This year, the superintendent did provide the board with assessment reports on his top 24 administrators. But those evaluations fell short, with board members complaining that they weren't nearly detailed enough to deserve a passing grade. Board member Barbara Boudreaux called the standards ``mushy.'' Her colleague David Tokofsky described the entire approach as ``hollow.''

Thompson defended his evaluations, saying much progress has been made and further improvement will come in time. And, not too surprisingly, he recommended pay raises and contract renewals for his top staff.

While Thompson might have been right to praise his staff - of course, who can say under these circumstances? - the absence of objective standards makes it difficult or impossible for him to explain how he reached those conclusions.

So we commend the board for its decision last Thursday to reject Thompson's proposal to distribute more than $42,000 in raises to high-ranking administrators.

And we give a qualified pat-on-the-back to the board for reiterating the demand for clear, tough goals for top administrators.

But, after all, isn't that what the board demanded two years ago? And if so, why are raises being discussed now - instead of firings and resignations at the very highest levels?