The dramatic reform initiative brought on by state intervention in the St. Louis Public Schools has just concluded its first year.

Rick Sullivan, Melanie Adams and Richard Gaines — the three members of the Special Administrative Board — were appointed to serve in 2007 after the district lost its accreditation and the state stripped an elected school board of its authority.

If anyone expected miracles, he’s been disappointed, although the absence of constant squabbling and chaos that have characterized school board affairs this decade comes pretty close to a miracle.

Still, there are reasons for optimism about the work of the SAB, judging from recent meetings of its members with the Post-Dispatch editorial board. Mssrs. Sullivan and Gaines and Ms. Adams are serious people taking a deliberate approach to the future of city schools, one of the most pressing issues in the metropolitan region.

Not only must they handle daily and shorter-term crises, but they also must begin to address how the district will be structured and governed in the future. They can’t afford to lose sight of the future while they fight the daily fires of budget, personnel and politics.

Mr. Sullivan, the former CEO of McBride & Son Homes, Inc., defines job one (and two and three) as restoring order, stability and a business-like approach to the district. But he and his colleagues have to fix the train while the train is moving, meaning they’ll be immersed in basic operations for the foreseeable future.

They must put the district on track for the coming school year; recruit and hire a new superintendent and academic officer; advance a program of performance standards; roll out and seek public comment on a strategic plan that has been months in the making and work to reverse declining attendance — all the while dealing with a projected $30 million budget deficit and planning to close to 12 more schools that are filled with empty seats.

These volunteer administrators must do all of this while working their day jobs — Mr. Sullivan as a business executive, Ms. Adams as program director at the Missouri History Museum and Mr. Gaines as an executive in a major insurance brokerage — and while being dogged by a chorus of critics.

To close a $30 million gap in the $320 million budget for the 2008-09 school year, the SAB is considering cutting social workers, school psychologists, librarians and counselors, replacing registered nurses with licensed professional nurses, delaying contributions to the employee retirement plan and cutting back bus service.

That’s brought criticism from the teachers union, the elected school board and members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen’s black caucus. They can complain all they want, but they also help find a solution.

Mr. Gaines believes the district should ask the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for help. If the SAB, the teachers, the elected board and city officials present a unified front, the state might be more inclined to help.

The SAB must spend time talking about what’s right with the district; even with all of the challenges, the picture is by no means all doom and gloom. Good things are happening in St. Louis Public Schools, and not just in its magnet program. The restored sense of managerial calm could open up new possibilities for assistance from the state and regional community. Washington University’s unprecedented interest in having a hands-on role in public education in St. Louis is just one hopeful example.

To achieve major progress and ensure a lasting payoff, the special administrative board must begin investigating long-term structural and governance changes to the system. The board’s current charter ends in three years. That is much less time than the board may realize — and these are not small matters.

The reign of William V. Roberti as schools superintendent in 2003-’04, for example, and the hiring of his “turn-around” firm was prompted by profound mismanagement of the district.

Reasonable people can complain about Mr. Roberti’s lack of concern for public reaction to his actions. But no one reasonably can dispute that the district was in need of drastic reordering to prevent collapse.

Nor is there any reasonable doubt that whatever organizational and procedural improvements Mr. Roberti’s tenure achieved were lost in 2006 when the district’s governance system reverted to form: A chaotic new board majority was chosen in an election that drew only 12 percent of eligible St. Louis voters. Mayor Francis Slay was moved to suggest “there’s no constituency for urban public schools.”

Democracy sends a message when people stay away from the polls, forsake the school district and make other educational choices for their children. The SAB must figure out how to prove to people that things have changed.

Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Adams agree that long-term structure and governance are issues that require their attention. But they argue that even beginning to collect information about options would roil the district at this stage, undermine a fragile stability and impede much-needed progress in basic operations.

There may be wisdom in their perspective, but the SAB can’t put off addressing this essential challenge for very long. Gathering information and data, thinking through possibilities, understanding potential costs and benefits and weighing them against the status quo is not a fast process.

The best way to jumpstart it is to ask for help. The board should invite a group of imaginative thinkers to answer these questions and others:

• Is the district’s model of central administration the best one for long-term order and stability?

• Is the previous form of school board governance the best alternative for the St. Louis Public Schools? Or might some other form of oversight help end the cycle of voter apathy, the influence of special interests and the destructive theatrics that have characterized the district’s recent history?