"At least now it takes the decision making process out of a circus and into reasonable hands," says Sharp. He says that a receivership assures the university that all decisions concerning their budget will be free of politics.

For the moment, however, Riley says that the university is working with no budget right now. "Chelsea hasn't lived up to its end of the deal of level funding," he says.

Clearing A Path?

Sharp, however, maintains that B.U. never meant for the program to be the new road to educational reform.

"We've never marketed this relationship," Sharp says, "this is the biggest misconception."

The primary message, says Sharp, is what happens when a school system is endowed with new resources and ideas. The fact that it is a private university is irrelevent, he says.

"We need to encourage reforms to be different," he adds.

Catherine Snow, acting dean at the Harvard School of Education, agrees that the relationship between B.U. and Chelsea is more the exception than the rule.

She says that Harvard's collaborative relationship with the surrounding community school systems is more the norm.

Linda C. Wing, program coordinator for Harvard's Urban Superintendants Program, says, "Our program is built on the premise that close connections between the research and teaching staff here and the professional teachers outside is essential."

For example, Harvard sends second-year doctoral students into the surrounding communities to serve as interns and has fellowships specifically earmarked for people in the field.

As for B.U.'s solution to the urban school problem, Wing says, "I think it's a unique situation and the jury's still out."