The defeat of Adrian Fenty in the mayoral primary in Washington, D.C. has inspired speculation that his school superintendent, Michell Rhee, will be the next victim of the revolving door of politics. Probably many of Washington’s teachers will welcome this change.

But the consequences of changing superintendents are not all good. The truth is that the work of a superintendent should not be summatively evaluated in less than five years. Educational reform does not conform to the election cycle, and that is why urban superintendents are either shy or reckless about change. Their life cycle is about half the cycle of reform.

Superintendent Rhee proclaimed that she could not let a day pass where a child could be victim of poor teaching, and thus she took the cleaver approach to school reform now favored by our Secretary of Education.  As much as I would like to honor her motives, I believe superintendents are also motivated by the stopwatch that regulates their tenure in their position.  The superintendent knew she had to make a considerable difference in 2-3 years or her job was on the line.

Whether I approve of Rhee’s  approach to school reform or not, I would, on principle accept her right to serve and be evaluated over five years. Given more time, a superintendent could think about how to support and instruct teachers who seemed unprepared for the students they were teaching. Rhee could have invested more money and time in professional development which brings changes slowly but surely. Instead of a small and brief spike in test scores, she might see gradual, but consistent improvement. At the end of five years, she could point to steady improvement, but also the retention of teachers committed to the schools that nurtured them.

I don’t know enough about the climate for teaching Washington, D.C. to say this definitively, but I would guess the district would be better off keeping the superintendent under a new mayor than dismissing this one and starting from scratch. Just as a class might fare better with the same, struggling, but improving teacher over a year’s time, the public schools in Washington might fare better with a mayor and superintendent trying to find  middle ground for school reform and sustaining a system that could work, given the time.

Education is not product development and marketing. It is not about appointing leaders based on short-term promises. Education is about developing successful and critical communities, where the students, teachers, parents and administrators are respectful and want to see each other succeed. The product development cycle and the election cycle are not good analogies to this process.  We can not fire or discontinue our students or parents. We have to work with them.

Most every school superintendent knows this, and he or she should be given the necessary lease to enact reform on this principle.  If we want to throw the politicians out of office, that’s our prerogative, but let’s show some patience with the teachers and leaders who truly care about our students.