in article e66kg1$qh1$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/7/06 10:31 PM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article e65959$i1f$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/7/06 10:12 AM:
> 
>>> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>> in article e63vqp$ait$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>>>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/6/06 10:26 PM:
> 
>>>> If you live in the Bay area, did you hear the KQED forum program recently
>>>> on
>>>> education and the court decision (later stayed) that the schools had to let
>>>> people graduate even though they failed the new exit exam. The program was
>>> 
>>> Yes.
>>> 
>>> And the decision is being appealed.
>>> 
>>> Not sure how that applies to the public/private issue...
> 
>> It relates to the issue you raised challenging my statement that some public
>> schools are disasters.
> 
> I did not challenge that statement. I challenged the statement that
> private schools are better than public schools. I also noted at least
> two groups of people who seemingly get more out of the "disastrous"
> public schools.

But I didn't say that private schools are generally better than public
schools. I merely said that sometimes they are used because the public
schools are sometimes disaster areas, as in parts of San Francisco.

As to your statement that "at least two groups of people who seemingly get
more out of the 'disastrous' public schools, that sentence is so poorly
drafted as to have two vastly different meanings. The reason for the
ambiguity is that you said "seemingly get more out of" but you left out
"what they get more out of than."

One possible meaning is that you meant "get more out of the 'disastrous'
 public schools than other groups get out of those 'disastrous' schools." If
that is what you meant, it doesn't say much, since some people always get
more out of any school than others. Some people succeed in any school, no
matter how good or how bad.

Another possible meaning is that you meant "get more out of the 'disastrous'
public schools than they would get out of private schools." None of your
statements really support this view, but I can't dismiss it as a possible
meaning because your messages show a definite bias against private schools,
probably for other reasons.

I don't know who you are, except that you claim to live somewhere in the Bay
area (and I believe that claim), but you sound like those union leaders for
the school teachers union who are always trying keep pay unlinked to
performance, who are always trying to dismiss bad test results as
irrelevant, and who are against private schools on general principles
because it could mean less political power for their union.

I will readily admit my prejudices in this matter, which are that I think
that public schools in California (and public schools in San Francisco in
particular) need to perform better; that while there are many good teachers,
the teachers union and its members are part of the problem; that another
part of the problem is the system for financing schools; that another part
of the problem is the current system of school administration system that
involves significant interference by political agendas of both political
extremes.

I went to a public school, and my kids went to public school. But then, I
lived in areas that had good school systems.
> 
>>>> disaster areas, especially in the City of San Francisco and in some
>>> 
>>> And some private schools are 'disasters' as well.
> 
>> I volunteered that long before you began your tirade.
> 
> Good for you. Wanna pat on the head?

I didn't expect a pat on the head. I did expect you to realize that neither
of us are saying that no private schools are "disasters." But that would
apparently be asking too much from you, for that would be asking you to be
honest in your arguments.

>>> They are different, in having a different demographic; fewer immigrants,
>>> and fewer low-income types.
>>> 
>>> This is does mean the schools are better.
> 
>> No, what makes them better is that the children are able to eat their
>> lunches without paying protection money to a fellow classmate, and that
> 
> Really? No bullies in Marin? Not what the few people I know say about
> it.

There are bullies everywhere, but on a whole, the non-magnet schools in San
Francisco are not as safe or as good as those in the Peninsula or in most of
Marin.

>> By the way, don't you think it is a tad bigoted to imply that a mark of a
>> good school is one with fewer immigrants and fewer "low-income types"?
> 
> Nope. YOU are the one claiming the schools are better, not I. Those
> schools you seeming love have to teach fewer students whose English
> is non-native, and are populated by richer families, who pay more in
> property taxes resulting in better policing (among other things)
> 
> Again, doesn't make the schools better.

They are better because it is more possible to get a school education there
in safety.

I don't dislike the non-magnet schools in San Francisco because they have
"non-native" immigrants or poorer students, I dislike the schools because
they often fail as schools.

While a large number of immigrants with special needs (i.e., English
language as a foreign language) and a large population of poor people (less
tax dollars), that is a financial problem that can be overcome. In the case
of San Francisco, it is not a poor city, and it is not a city that is afraid
to severely tax its citizens or its businesses, even if it means driving
people and businesses away.

>>> No, it actually occurs most often because most of the HS are about the
>>> same, with a very few exceptions, but the 'racial balancing' is done
>>> regardless.
> 
>> "Racial balancing" may be the reason for the SF system of school
>> distribution, but the complaints I have heard on public radio and in real
> 
> I actually sat through a couple of those protests with people in the
> neighborhood.

I assume that role as a representative of the teachers' union.
 
>> The bad schools in San Francisco is often cited as one of the many reasons
>> why the City is considered not a good place to raise children. If you really
> 
> And yet there are more and more children here.

That does not seem to jive with the facts.

According to the Bay area census website, there has been a drop in the
number of children of school age from 2000 to the estimated numbers for
2004.

http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm

Specifically, the total population of San Francisco County (which is also
San Francisco City), dropped from 776,733 to 724,538. While there was an
increase in kids of under five (from 31,633 to 38,498), there is major drop
in kids of school age (five to seventeen) of from 81,169 to 70,145. Families
may start in San Francisco, but apparently a large number of them move out
before they enter school.

>> did live in the Bay area as long as you claim, you would know that already.
>  
> And I consider SF a great place to raise kids, as do many.

Many don't, as shown by the statistics above.

Also, see the following article from the San Francisco Chronicle web site
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/30/MNG1HJ48O81.DTL

>>>>> Actually, they don't.
>>> 
>>>> Are you sure?
>>> 
>>> I am certain. They have 'allowances' for certain diversity categories,
>>> as do most private schools.
> 
>> Then they must have changed it in the past five years.
> 
> According to them, they haven't. They have been accused of having
> 'quotas', but that has never been shown.

Searching the web, I found the following

http://www.asianweek.com/030499/feature_lowell.html

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/act/2001/act_01-12-15.html

Apparently, San Francisco was sued by Asian parents and reached a settlement
in 1991. There is still conflict, but the "quotas" are replaced by different
mechanisms used to achieve diversity.


>>>> Otherwise the school would be "simply Oriental."
>>> 
>>> No. The number of black students would decrease, however.
> 
>> It looks like you are like Kaz in being in denial. The diversity also
> 
> Really? I didn't claim whites would be excluded because Asians are so
> much better at getting in. See below.

I didn't say you claimed whites would be excluded because Asians are so much
better at getting in. On the contrary, I noted that other groups would be
affected be affected, while you only focused on black students.

Personally, I didn't like the policy of exclusion used in Lowell, and I am
glad the school district had to settle in 1999.

>> applies to whites and Latinos and other non-Asian groups..
> 
>>> Last I saw, the % of Chinese/CA students in SF public schools is over
>>> 50%. In private schools, less than 10.
> 
>> Less than 10% does not mean "VERY FEW". All you have shown is that other
> 
> "It looks like you are like Kaz in being in denial."

No, let's look at your figure of less than 10% of students in private
schools are Chinese or Chinese Asians students, and what that really means.
It means that the population of private schools students has less than 10%
Chinese or Chinese Asians students. The  San Francisco population in 2004
was estimated to be only about 32% Asian, and since the Chinese nor Chinese
Asian population constitutes only about a fourth of the whole Asian
population (see US census), so the Chinese or Chinese Asian population is
probably somewhere above 8%.

Thus your 50% and 10% figures show that demographically speaking, somewhat
less Chinese or Chinese Asians go to public school than other groups, but
how much less is in doubt.

"Somewhat less" does not mean "very few."

You never did take statistics, did you? Are if you did, you must have gotten
lousy grades.
> 
>> enter private schools. You definitely have NOT shown that some SF schools
>> are NOT disaster areas, and you have NOT shown that those remaining in those
>> schools have not suffered from it.
> 
> I am not required to prove things to someone who fled to the "Great
> White North" and preaches about race. I HAVE stated I don't believe
> private schools are necessarily better than public ones...

The "Great White North"? My God, what a bigot you are! Frankly, your bigotry
is becoming as annoying as that of Kaz.
 
>>>> It sounds like you are going with stereotypes, and one of the classic
>>> 
>>> Unlike you, I actually did volunteer work in LA and SF Chinatowns,
>>> Mr Schaal. 
> 
>> Then why the stereotypes?
> 
> Which 'stereotypes'?
>
> Use direct quotes, not your fabrications.

The factor that you seem to confuse the term Chinese immigrant with the term
Chinese or Chinese Asian, and use them interchangeably.
 
> Did you mean the statement that we have a large group of Russians, or
> that the Asians students seem to do well in school?
> 
>> Aren't you aware that plenty of Chinese live
>> OUTSIDE the Chinatowns?
> 
> Indeed. I live in such a neighborhood.

And you want a pat on the back or something?

If you live in such a neighborhood, why do you use the terms "Chinese
immigrants" and "Chinese" as synonyms?

> None of our neighbors has sent a child to private school unless you
> count Saturday Chinese schools.

I do count Saturday Chinese schools as private schools, clearly used to
needed to make up for perceived inadequacies of the general schools.

>>>> As for the comment about "they don't have the money to attend them," it
>>> Yes. SF is where the immigrants first get their feet on the ground. They
>>> save their money, and move out to more affluent communities. This is not
>>> unique to the Chinese, though their numbers are higher here.
>>> 
>>> If you actually lived here as long as you claimed, you would know this.
> 
>> If you really lived in the SF Bay area, you would realize that SF is not
> 
> I do indeed. I suspect you did not.

If you suspect that, you are wrong. But then you are so wrong about so many
other things.

>> For one reason, the cost of housing is too expensive for that. Many
> 
> And yet they come here all the time, and continue to do so.
> 
> They do not buy houses here upon arrival, but that seems to confuse you.

Current census figures show they come and then quickly go.

>> San Francisco is gradually becoming less and less important to the San
>> Francisco Bay Area, as the demographics, the economic power, and the
>> political power diffuse throughout the entire area. San Francisco isn't even
>> the largest city in the San Francisco Bay Area and hasn't been for years.
> 
> Uh, right.
> 
> Sorry, how does that make private schools better?

I didn't say that private schools are better (in general). I said that in
some school districts (like San Francisco non-magnet schools), the schools
are a disgrace.

You have not shown that they are not a disgrace.

> 
>>> I'm guessing because you never actually did anything in the Chinese
>>> community there, and you list yourself as 'others' .
> 
>> I am not Chinese, but then I assume that you aren't either. I don't see
> 
> I did, as mentioned, work with that community in two cities. I live in
> a Chinese neighborhood now. You lived with other of your sort, in the
> largely homogenous Marin area.

Wow, you are both bigoted and misinformed. There are Asians, Blacks, Latinos
and other ethnic groups in Marin, but all you can see is the Marin
Stereotype.

>> anything in your responses to indicate any superior knowledge on the topic.
>> On the contrary, you seem to be spouting off stereotypical myths of Chinese
>> uniformity.
> 
> No, I  merely point you to some data points.
> 
> You only like the 'rich immigrant' 'stereotype', it seems.

No, you simple dislike Chinese that don't fit the stereotype of poor Chinese
immigrant.

You also tend to have a lot of class envy, don't you? Being rich does not
mean being the devil, anymore than being poor means you are an angel.

Frankly, you are a bigot. I hadn't realize how bad a bigot you were until
the last few messages of yours. If you wish to respond to this, fine, but
don't expect a response.