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...

> > Actually, the schools are doing better and better WRT the rest of the
> > state, and have been for some time.

> The schools in San Francisco bay area may have done better than Los Angeles
> (where it was not unknown for the school system to graduate people who were
> functionally illiterate), but that doesn't some the public schools are not
> disaster areas, especially in the City of San Francisco and in some

And some private schools are 'disasters' as well.

> districts in the East Bay. The schools in North Bay and the Peninsula seem
> to be much better, both in safety and in quality of education.

They are different, in having a different demographic; fewer immigrants,
and fewer low-income types.

This is does mean the schools are better.

> > This is odd; almost all of the complaints against HS placement involve
> > kids not being able to attend neighborhood schools.

> Usually that occurs when the neighborhood school is one of the better
> schools. As I said before, it all depends on which school you can get into.

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.

> > I'm sure that the Marin educational system is the reason Marin County
> > enjoys the reputation it does.

> It is sufficiently good that people often cite the school system as a reason
> for why they moved to Marin from San Francisco.

And, of course, assiduously avoid Marin City.

> >> Lowell was the high school that had the quota.
> > 
> > Actually, they don't.

> Are you sure?

I am certain. They have 'allowances' for certain diversity categories,
as do most private schools.

> They used to have one, and I haven't seen any item in the
> Chronicle that they don't any more.

> The quota is quite high, but it was "justified" on the grounds of diversity.
> Otherwise the school would be "simply Oriental."

No. The number of black students would decrease, however.

> > Among other reasons, they don't have the money to attend them, as they
> > frequently cost tens of thousands of dollars.

> They may not attend, as a whole, as much other groups do, but there is no
> indication that the number is "VERY FEW."

Last I saw, the % of Chinese/CA students in SF public schools is over
50%. In private schools, less than 10.

> 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. 

> As for the comment about "they don't have the money to attend them," it
> makes me wonder if you really do live the Bay Area. While there are many new

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.

> >> That does not seem to agree with what I have heard from KQED radio, or from
> >> professional people living in the area. What is your source of information?
> > 
> > Uh, I live here? I read the articles in the paper? I see them on TV?
> > (And, of course, one could look at the demographics for UC enrollments.)

> If you live there, read the local paper, watch local television, then how
> come your knowledge of the situation seems not to jell with that experienced
> by others in the Bay area?

I'm guessing because you never actually did anything in the Chinese
community there, and you list yourself as 'others' .

Mike