Thank you Bloomfield 1876. You articulate well the position of The Oxford Foundation that Back to Education provided funding for and Jenny Greenwell and Vic Moigis tried to bring directly to the SchoolBoard. It is the bizarre belief and argument that you can separate administrators, teachers, para-pros and,freakishly, parents from kids. You will lose that argument at the local level. The question is whether the state and the contractors, etc. it seeks to support can impose their vision on the top rated districts in the state.

Bloomfield1876 -

"...let the best survive and the rest- well."

That statement says it all. Education should not be survival of the fittest. It should be educating the whole child and the individual child who come with all sorts of issues.

The Oxford Foundation has not presented anything which shows they have acknowledged unintended consequences from this reform. It is as if they believe like you, if a district can't survive - well. Frankly that is a simplistic view of education.

Here's the problem: if all those "best" schools have to take any and every kid; if they play by the same rules as the other schools; if they are measured by the same metrics, THEN there might be the free market competition you seem to endorse.

In reality, private and charter schools can remove students, while traditional districts cannot. Private and charter schools do not need to educate special needs students; traditional districts do. Private schools do not need to teach state mandated curriculum or meet standardized testing requirements; public districts do.

If, however, as is currently the case, only the traditional public schools are required to educate every kid, with every problem, according to mandated curriculum, up to dictated standardized test levels, the public school districts will only serve the poorest and most difficult to educate, those who are not able to buy their way out of the system.

Bloomfield1876,

Your second point is, "Education is about the survival of the best schools..." and yet in the very next sentence you state, "You misunderstand my intent when I say the best schools should survive." Forgive me for the criticism, but you have done nothing to define what you believe is a best school. You have however identified a series of specialized schools..."gifted students, challenged students, handicapped students or accelerated students." Because of this, it sounds as if you believe that this is how schools should be like in the future...segmented and designed for a select portion of students and to all those who aren't the best - oh well. This sink or swim, survival of the fittest, market place strategy for schools, in my opinion isn't the "best" method for improving and assisting school and students which need help. It is a strategy where some will succeed and the rest - well.

If I am, if Ken and others are misunderstanding what your intent when you say the best schools should survive, what exactly do you mean?

Mr. Reno,

I suggest you re-read the blog, especially the author's name.

Yeah... typo-ish mistake on the name.

I did get an email from someone with some bio info. Sounds like he is an Education Inc. Company Man, employed for life at Wayne State as a prof / associate Dean.

Mr. Reno has created plenty of dissension in Rochester Hills where he was on their school board for a term. He is a real person, unlike the pseudo person Bloomfield 1876 who popped up during the school board election recently along with others.

Regardless, Ken has raised some important issues. One may not agree with his points but to make personal attacks on him because of his profession is fairly reprehensible. Reno has been on these blogs to know his name--there was nothing typo-ish, it was just part of the personal attack. Mr. Reno hasn't shown any positive interest in our schools or community. At this point, based on his behavior, he may need to be shown the way back from whence he came.

Oh Neil… such the drama.

I responded here because this guy is suggesting that I’m posting anonymously… which I don’t.

So then I read his Chicken Little, unsubstantiated hyperbole and am curious about his background. Despite what you might think… I had never heard of him.

This whole feigned concern over “personal attacks” is amusing, given your prodigious comments about those who don’t agree with you (ie. Jenny). Of course, you have convinced yourself that it is perfectly acceptable because you use pseudo-polite and flowery language, and when called-out, try to explain that you were only sharing “facts”. (“It’s not an insult to say that you were divisive, Mr. Reno. It’s simply pointing out the undisputed fact that your actions divided single-handedly divided your community”)

I didn’t see any comment from you when Jackson says, “(McCready) won a tough primary without the endorsement of his predecessor, Chuck Moss, one of the reasons I have high hopes for him.” You are far too good of a writer… and there is no way you missed that “personal attack”.

How about the dog-whistle call here: “Governor Snyder’s Oxford Foundation is working, more or less in secret” You don’t think that was meant to insult the integrity of the Governor as well as the Oxford Foundation?

I'm sure you understand -- or SHOULD understand -- that tossing out inflammatory dogma like we see here just invites strong rebuttals.

Good bye Mr. Reno.