EDUCATION presidents . . . “Education” governors . . . “Education experts” in Congress . . . “Education experts” in the General Assembly. Enough!

I am about to say something highly provocative and controversial — and hold your breath because this is real crazy-talk: The average professional educator knows more about schools than even the most gifted politician!

How could that possibly be true? We all know that those who can, do, and those who can’t, are given the inconsequential task of educating the next generation of those who will “do.”

It is hard to imagine any other profession held in such low regard that virtually any political hack feels comfortable telling people who have spent their entire professional careers, often 20, 30 or more years, that he knows more about their business than they do.

“Hey you, Mr. Engineer! Why are so many of the bridges that you designed in danger of falling? Clearly, you need our help.”

“Excuse me, Mr. Dentist, but too many of the patients you treat still have cavities. As a result, the General Assembly will now tell you how you should be treating your patients.”

“And you, Mr. Preacher: It seems that you do a lot of talking about sin, but we are still waiting for a reduction in un-Godly behavior. Congress has devised a plan to ensure that you will be more effective; we call it ‘No scamp left unredeemed.”

But the presumption of those in the executive and legislative branches that they know more about schools than do educators is only part of the problem; in fact, it is the smaller part. The bigger problem is that politicians are always running for re-election, and as a result, they are always looking for quick and simple solutions to deeply rooted and complex problems.

With a two, four, or — at best — six-year term of office, no politician has the time to wait for genuine educational reforms to show results. As a result, when given a choice, politicians will almost always select educational “solutions” that result in a quick spike in student test scores over structural and systemic changes that will produce significant and sustainable results eight or ten years down the road.

As an aside, it is worth noting that critics of current American business practices have made the same observation: Corporate executives are often more interested in showing a quarterly profit to their stockholders than they are in building for the long-term viability of their corporate enterprise. The long-range effect of such a myopic focus is no better for corporate America than it is for American public schools.

Of course, critics of public education are quick to point out that most U.S. corporations still turn quarterly profits, but school test scores seem to indicate that our students are not learning as well as their international counterparts. Rather than using this space to begin a debate on the validity of such comparisons (other than pointing out that test scores, like all statistical data, can be — and routinely are — manipulated according to bias of the story teller) there are two critically important points to be made to anyone who genuinely wants to improve our schools:

By the standards of the ’50s and ’60s, American public schools have never done a better job. Unfortunately, over the past 50 years the world, the U.S. economy and our students have all changed much faster than have our schools. As a result, fundamental changes are needed in all American schools to better prepare our students for the realities of the world in which they live.

Rhode Island principals and teachers are engaged in a reform effort that is unprecedented in this state and — this is the impressive part — is on the cutting edge of American school reform. In Rhode Island, there have been sweeping changes in how we approach student literacy, how we structure secondary schools, how we award diplomas, how we create school cultures that meet student needs, and how we intervene when students perform below standard. The impact of these changes can already be seen in our schools, but the full affect will not be felt for years.

And there’s the rub. For the reasons cited above, it appears that neither the General Assembly nor Governor Carcieri is willing to wait to see the current reform initiatives through to fruition. By flat-funding education for 2007-08, the legislature is in effect starving the reform effort and ensuring that the people needed to make change happen — literacy coaches, performance-based-graduation-requirements coordinators, and curriculum leaders — will be lost to tight budgets. For his part, the governor has alternated between celebrating the gains made and expressing frustration that the pace of change is not fast enough.

If political leaders force the abandonment of the current reform initiative with its promise of lasting, but not speedy, improvement, what is likely to replace it? High stakes testing has been the solution-of-choice for most in the political realm, and local politicians are no exception. Creating a single test that high-school seniors must pass before they are allowed to graduate apparently sounds logical to those outside education. If kids pass a test, schools must be doing a good job, right?

Well, not necessarily. As a number of states have already discovered, high-stakes testing without structural reforms will produce short-term improvement in student test scores, but it does not produce lasting results because it does not address basic organizational and pedagogical issues. High-stakes testing turns out to be another example of H.L. Mencken’s most astute observation — “There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”

As more and more “high-stakes states” look for a better solution, increasingly they are turning to a comprehensive reform system — like the one adopted in Rhode Island. The ultimate irony in the school-reform saga would be if Rhode Island moves to high-stakes testing at the same time that the rest of the nation is moving toward the current Rhode Island reform model.

So, Mr. Elected Official, please stand back and let the Rhode Island education experts complete the difficult job they have started. If, somehow, they overcome the daunting social and demographic odds they face, history will have kind things to say about your visionary leadership. Of course, the results will not come in time for the next election, so your patience will not assist your re-election efforts. In fact, the more statesmanlike you are in your approach to school reform, the more likely it is that your patience will be used against you by political opponents offering short-term solutions that hold more immediate voter appeal.

But uncharacteristic patience from our political leaders is the only hope that professional educators can cling to in their efforts to bring fundamental and lasting reform to our schools. For that reason, we are asking you —no, we are begging you — to please give us the time we need to complete the exciting and important reform work under way in Rhode Island’s public schools.

John R. Golden is executive director of the Rhode Island Association of School Principals.