Little children and fools always go with whoever promises the most. But most of us soon learn that that's not usually the wise thing to do. The question of promises is one of the issues at the center of the Boston University (BU) attempt to take over the public schools of Chelsea, Massachusetts, the poorest district in the state.
The Chelsea School Committee asked BU for advice on how to improve its troubled schools. John Silber, BU' s controversial president, came back with a reform plan - and a proposal that the school committee turn over the public schools to BU for ten years. On Nov. 2 I wrote that BU was making unsupportable promises to Chelsea. On Nov. 29 Silber publicly denied that BU was making promises and accused me of misrepresenting his views.
The same kind of exchange took place on the Dec. I "Nightline" show. I charged that Silber was proposing "something that no university, no scholar, no educator worth his salt would dare say, and that is Dr. Silber guarantees that within five years the test scores will go up by a specific percentage point, the dropout rate will go down by a specific amount, the amount of money raised will go up by a certain amount."
Dr. Silber answered: Which is false, too."
Fortunately, the question of whether or not improper promises are being made does not have to rest on verbal charges and counter-charges. BU has put them in writing, and it's the written proposals with the promises - not the verbal denials - that are before the public.
The promises are contained in a section of the BU proposal called "FIVE YEAR ACTION PLAN." This section says, "During the first three years, Boston University will implement many needed reforms in the schools .... " Here's the complete statement of the promises:
The following improvements will be seen in student and school outcomes by the end of the fifth year. 1) Average test scores for each school and the system as a whole in third grade reading, writing and math will be at the statewide average, an improvement of approximately 20%. 2) For those students who have been with the new system for all five years, average test scores will be dramatically above the statewide average. 3) Student scores on tests developed specifically for the Chelsea curriculum will have improved by 30%. [How can BU know what the improvement will be on self-designed tests that don't even exist yet and for which there are no first-year scores?] 4) The dropout rate will decline from its current annual rate of 15% to well below 10%. 5) Elementary school enrollment will be 10% above current projections. 6) Average daily attendance will be above 90%. 7) The number of high school graduates will increase by 10%. 8) There will be a significantly greater number of graduates going on to four-year colleges. 9) Job placements for graduates through the schools will increase dramatically. 10) Teacher absenteeism will decline by an average of20%. 11) Average teacher salaries will be competitive with the statewide average.
I can't blame desperate Chelsea for being charmed by the maker of such promises. Perhaps that's why it's overlooking another BU text, the proposed contract that would give BU control of the public schools the text that lawyers write and the one that really counts.
On page 7, it has the same promises made by BU in the "FIVE YEAR ACTION PLAN," with a crucial difference: the percentages of improvement disappear. For example, where the BU action plan promises to reduce the dropout rate "to well below I 0%," the proposed agreement says BU "will be expected to use its best efforts ... to decrease the dropout rate"; where the action plan promises that average test scores will register "an improvement of approximately 20%," the proposed agreement says BU will try "to improve test scores of students in the school system .... "
In the document that counts, isn't BU merely expressing the same kind of aspirations for education that we all have and publicly proclaim and still fall far short of realizing? But does BU have a magic touch? If it does, it's not very sure of it because it needs almost ideal conditions for the magic to work:
In entering into this agreement, the parties recognize that both the success of the project and their ability to achieve the objectives of this agreement depend on factors external to and beyond the capacity of the University and the School Committee and require the support, cooperation, and active involvement of the people of the City of Chelsea, the public employees and officials of the City - both within and outside the Chelsea school system, the elected, leadership of the City and all branches of government of the City - and the support of public and private agencies and branched of government beyond Chelsea, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Federal Government, as well as business and industry. The parties recognize as well the special role that parents will play in achieving the success of the project and will actively seek their involvement and cooperation throughout. In addition to the cooperation of these diverse groups, financially and other support from the Commonwealth and Federal Government will be necessary to carry out the proposed project. In the absence of such support, the project cannot succeed in revitalizing the quality of education in the Chelsea schools [p.3, emphasis added].
When public school officials say that they could do a better job if only they had lots more money and support, etc., we call that whining (and sometimes, legitimately so). But when BU says that it needs a more perfect world to do the job, it calls it "A Model for Excellence in Urban Education" - and a reason to privatize a public school system, do away with teacher rights and grant exemptions from public-interest laws!
We've had promises before. I remember "performance contracting," when private business promised to raise student achievement. Some school districts bit. What happened? Unfulfilled promises and allegations of abuse by the contractors. Can we afford to take that risk again?
Before we buy BU' s proposal, I suggest another experiment: If Silber can guarantee such great outcomes for the students of Chelsea, why no reflect that confidence in the admission standards of BU, where he already has lots of power and money? Instead of trying to attract students who would do well wherever they went and pushing them out if they don't maintain standards, why doesn't BU admit and keep those who are poor and failing and use some of the same five-year magic it proposes for Chelsea? BU has more experience with higher education than lower, so it would have a leg up. Once we see how that experiment turns out, we would have more confidence in BU's promises to Chelsea.