Letter from Michael Chinman
Milton’s High School and Middle School have announced that the “Rachel’s Challenge” program will be presented to their students on October 4 and 5, as part of their anti-bullying campaign. Named for Rachel Scott, one of thirteen victims murdered at Columbine High School by two student gunmen, the program was founded by Rachel’s father, who has also released a number of books and DVDs proclaiming Rachel to be a Christian martyr. The Milton schools state that parents can opt out from having their children participate, but the only opportunity parents will have to view the presentation occurs after the students have already seen it.
The schools are not giving us parents much opportunity to meaningfully evaluate whether the program is appropriate. Information on the internet, however, reveals plenty of reason to be concerned about the program’s cost, its effectiveness, and, most importantly, whether it is an appropriate message for a public school to be communicating to our children.
First, the cost. The schools don’t give any information about how much they are paying for this presentation. Likewise, the “Rachel’s Challenge” website is silent about costs. Other school districts, though, have made cost information public, and reports indicate school districts pay $4,000 to $6,000 for “Rachel’s Challenge.” This is not small change, especially for a school district continuously cutting programs and staff for lack of funds. “Rachel’s Challenge” describes itself as a “non-profit organization,” but multiple-thousands of dollars for several hours work over two days is a heck of a nice payday. No wonder the website boasts that “Rachel’s Challenge . . . has finished with positive net income every year since 2004.”
Let’s do some quick math. The “Rachel’s Challenge” website says it reaches “approximately 1,000 schools” annually and in 2008 it presented “1,300 events.” At an estimated cost of $5,000 per event, “Rachel’s Challenge” takes in over $5 million annually from these events. “Rachel’s Challenge,” its website says, spends 85% of its money on “program development and delivery.” Since it is a canned program (a live presenter, personally trained by Rachel’s father, plays a video to the audience) that has existed for over a half-decade, one has to suspect that the great bulk of that spending goes to “delivery” (that is, the presenter) rather than “development.” The presenters are listed on the website. If the “delivery” spending is divided equally amongst all 41 listed presenters, if the many members of Rachel Scott’s family who are presenters do not get any greater share, that’s still over $100,000 per presenter per year. Again, that’s not a bad payday.
But, is the program effective at addressing the problem of bullying? For that expense, it better be. Look, though, at the “Rachel’s Challenge” website. Here’s what they say about evidence about their own program’s effectiveness: “We are currently working on an efficiency study for the near future. So far, most of our data is anecdotal.” Not exactly a compelling rationale for such a significant expense.
What about gauging effectiveness from endorsements by educators? The website does indeed highlight one such endorsement on its “Schools and Educators” page. There, former Texas school superintendent Dr. Gene Burton, described as a “lifelong educator and school administrator . . . whose school district was voted the top school district in America,” heartily endorses the program. But look: on a different page, under “Leadership Team,” Dr. Burton is identified as “Rachel’s Challenge National Development Director.” Such a vested endorsement is, again, hardly a compelling rationale for spending $5,000.
What about anecdotal reports about the program’s message? Plenty of those on the internet reveal many disturbing details. Apparently the program emphasizes Rachel Scott’s mystical prophesies. She is said to have foreseen that she would die at an early age. On the morning of the shootings, it is said she drew a picture of eyes crying 13 tears (there were 13 victims murdered). After her death, a stranger in Ohio contacted Rachel’s father about a recurring dream he was having, and supposedly described the exact image Rachel had drawn. Rachel prophesied that she would someday touch millions of people’s hearts. What do these mystical prophecies have to do with bullying? That’s not exactly clear. It is clear, however, that Rachel’s father and family–in books, DVDs, and other items for purchase–have promoted her as a Christian martyr. The supposed confrontation between Rachel and one of the gunmen, in which she affirmed her belief in God and was killed for it, has been denied by the only living witness to Rachel’s murder, and was determined by the FBI never to have occurred. Nonetheless, “Rachel’s Challenge” draws parallels between Rachel and Anne Frank, as diary-writing young women persecuted for belief and faith. Is this promotion of Rachel Scott as a mystical, prophetic martyr an appropriate message to be trumpeted by a public school?
“Rachel’s Challenge” also contains horrific, graphic descriptions of the Columbine massacre. Rachel and twelve others were murdered, and video of that day, including audio of the actual gunshots fired at students in their own school, is supposedly part of the program. Is this fear-inducing horror a necessary or appropriate component of an anti-bullying program for students as young as sixth graders
To be sure, the core of the program’s message–“act compassionately”–is laudatory. That message comes in “Rachel’s Challenge” at such an expense, with such dubious effectiveness, and wrapped in so much questionably-appropriate material, that the wisdom of bringing the program to Milton public schools must be doubted. While the schools are mandated to have anti-bullying programs, there are many programs schools can adopt. The Department of Education website has a listing of recommended programs. “Rachel’s Challenge” is not one of them.
Who decided “Rachel’s Challenge” was appropriate for our schools? Where does the money come from? What role did the elected School Committee have in that decision? Why are parents excluded until after it is presented to our children? These are questions I believe should be answered.
Michael Chinman