Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> in article e66kg1$qh1$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/7/06 10:31 PM:

> > 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.

Then you had no reason to respond.

> 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

It is simple and straightforward. It follows from the previous statement
that Russian and Chinese children seem to do quite well in these vaguely
identified "disastrous" public schools.

> I don't know who you are, except that you claim to live somewhere in the Bay

I live in San Francisco. You could look it up in a phone book.

> area (and I believe that claim), but you sound like those union leaders for

And you sound like a lawyer; nobody ever paid them to tell the truth.

> the school teachers union who are always trying keep pay unlinked to

Actually, I sound precisely like someone who disputes the blanket claim
(which you even here defend) that private schools are better than 
public.

> 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;

Which does not address my original question (a question to which you
responded ad nauseum.) 

Are the private schools better?

> >>>> 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

I would have expected you to realize that I simply questioned the
statement that private schools are better.

If I didn't know you better, that is.

> >>> 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.

Based on which metric?

> > 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.

No. They may have a better environment around the school, but that does
not make the school better.

> 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.

Please be more specific; how do you measure this "failure"?

> > 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.

You can assume whatever you like. I expect no better of you.

> >> 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

As of 2005, population was 799,263. 

> >> 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

The housing prices is a long-standing problem, as the article you site
mentions. That is cited as the biggest problem, which of course, does
not address your contention that SF is not a good place to raise kids.

Oh, and from your above-cited article
"It was very easy to raise young children in the city," said Ryan,
citing San Francisco's many music classes, parents' clubs and
playgrounds. "It all came to a screeching halt for us when they came to
school age."

You will note that they did not have problems getting into a 'good
school', but they wanted 'excellent'.

> > 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. 

Imagine that;  a school district is sued.

> >>> 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

You claimed that Lowell would be all Asian.

this is wrong, Kaz.

> >> 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 Asians are underrepresented in private schools, compared
to their representation in the city.

> 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%.

Sorry, you are seriously drugged out if you believe the Chinese
constitute only 8% of the population of San Francisco.

> You never did take statistics, did you?

Actually, I took statistical mechanics. Among the things I would NOT
do is make a statment like "Chinese are only 8% of SF's popluation."

> > 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"?

Sorry, was the phrase too complicated?

> My God, what a bigot you are! Frankly, your bigotry
> is becoming as annoying as that of Kaz.
  
Yes, clearly I am 'bigotted' against myself.

This is a Schaal-quality observation on your part.

> > 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.

Sorry, they are used 'interchangeably' in your own citations.

So, it is your contention that you use 'stereotypical' references?
  
> > 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?

In addition to the observation about your references, in this
neighborhood, they are in fact predominately immigrants.

> > 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.

So, your argument against the public school system is that they don't
teach Chinese?

(Do you even know what Saturday school is?)

> >>>> 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.

Of course.

For example, when I stated that most Chinese do not see the point in
spending 10s of thousands of dollars sending their children to private
schools, this is 'stereotyping', and thus wrong.

When you state
"If you really lived in the SF Bay area, you would realize that SF is
not necessarily the place where immigrants first get their feet on the
ground. For one reason, the cost of housing is too expensive for that."

this is magically correct.

> >> 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.

Currently driving throughout the city everyday shows they are still here
in large numbers.

> >> 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).

Then you really have no reason to be claiming 

> some school districts (like San Francisco non-magnet schools), the schools
> are a disgrace.

Please state clearly  how you know this to be true.

> You have not shown that they are not a disgrace.

You have not shown they are. You seem to prefer more racially homogenous
and richer areas for your schools, but that doesn't make the school
itself better.

> > 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,

There are indeed. Nothing like the mix in SF, however.

> >> 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.

Really? Please show me statements where I have indicated I don't like
Chinese unless they are poor immigrants, Mr Schaal.

I am betting you cannot.

> You also tend to have a lot of class envy, don't you?

Why would I envy the poor?

> Frankly, you are a bigot. I hadn't realize how bad a bigot you were until
> the last few messages of yours. 

You tend to be a bit shrill, you know?

> If you wish to respond to this, fine, but don't expect a response.

I would not expect a coherent one.

Mike