Talk:Katherine Delmar Burke School

notability

Has Burke's received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? If not, it does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability criterion for having its own article in Wikipedia. —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I added in a bunch of reliable info that's being conflicted out and possibly censored because of a reference to yelp. I was threatened by editors so I won't try again. Bet the school is covering something up. I'd delete it since this is propoganda at this point.

It is notable because of the blue blood connection that's been noted in media such as Vanity Fair and others -- I will add that in

Good edits are removed from this page; if not restored deletion seems appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:316E:1F15:E8DA:894B (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

full revision that deleted many sections on January 28, 2022

This page seemed to have been almost erased except the history. There was a lot of good information in the last version. Can someone review that and possibly revert back?

A user did revert it back. Please note that the full copy has been edited by several wikipedia users who asked for further citations that were provided. This is accurate information.

Please do not allow whitewashing and censorship on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:1543:6F0:F816:8D93 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

censorship

Edits with reliable info have been censored. I don't trust wikipedia anymore and will likely not contribute any other factual source-based editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:10CE:A185:EEA:CEFE (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

controversy

this was on the page and then taken off as something that's too "meta" and belongs in talk Recently the school has gotten tangled in controversies similar to other independent schools. The editing of this page shows that controversy with a user just removing what was considered "puffery" and other information that's accurate being removed by the school because of "an anonymous user" despite the material being accurate. These material will not be added again but it covered real concerns in the community about bullying, classism, elitism, and facing the past.[6] The source material is greatschools.net as well as niche and Facebook. At the reviews section on Facebook[7] a recent student laments in 2019, "Absolutely the worst school. Bullied and picked on by teachers. Learning disabilities are HEAVILY frowned upon. Ended up being removed from the school in second grade because the bullying was so excessive. It has an extreme 'rich kids are always right' mentality." This same complaint is often referenced with independent schools and especially ones with such ties to high society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:E18D:D2C5:1243:CAF8 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(Note: includes capitalized responses later added by 2601:645:8300:c6d0:c95a:6797:24d7:41c1)

To resolve your issues, you've come to the right place. Some of your issues relate to my editing (I think) and some do not:

• My edit comment: "meta-comments better placed on talk page" [1] referred to text added to the article: "The editing of this page shows that controversy with a user just removing what was considered 'puffery' and other information that's accurate being removed by the school because of 'an anonymous user' despite the material being accurate.". This material is appropriately handled on the talk page, as you've done here. THANKS!
• Re puffery [2], my edit comment said: "adds a lot of unsourced material, including puffery (remarkable generation of women; a unique 3.5-acre space; our expansive outdoor campus is unsurpassed; large light-filled classrooms, etc.)". I'm not sure why you would object to this revert of mine. It doesn't sound like the sort of material you would wish to have added to the article. I DO NOT OBJECT
• Re "At the reviews section on Facebook", Facebook is rarely considered a reliable source, because anybody can post anything there, there is no oversight, and there's often no way of telling if the poster is reliable. OK

I agree with you re "other information that's accurate being removed by the school because of "an anonymous user"" ([3], by Burkesschool, edit summary: "the communications office corrected edits made by an anonymous online poster"). They mean IP editors, of course, and I don't know if they think there are off-line posters. Edits by IP users are no more subject to judgement than any registered users' edits. And the school does not have any more claim to curating the article than other editors, "anonymous" and registered alike. The school does not own the article and has no extra authority to control what appears in it. AGREED

There is value in what you want to add to the article. But it needs to be done in a way that can be traced to reliable sources, and a way that it fits into the context of the article as a whole. I think, here, you've started a good thread where us editors can manage improving the article in the Wikipedia way. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC) CHEERS BACK

Article

@Willondon and SpinningCeres: An administrator has protected this talk page due to the flooding activity coming from the IP editor who has voiced many concerns, apparently. It seems unlikely that editors will read this content. You seem to be aware of some of the concerns. Is there something important to be noted here? tw^sabin 20:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: I'm not sure there's much left to be said. My opinion of this is that it was just a unwillingness by the IP to understand or accept(quickly enough to prevent disruption once protection expired) that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources and strives to avoid synthesis. The IP was mostly attempting to make a connection between issues at other private schools with Burke despite most of the (news)articles not mentioning Burke. The IP seemed willing to review guidelines, so I hope the IP editor will take the time of the block to really review WP policies and understand the guidelines about synthesis and reliable and primary sources.
To the IP: IAR(aka Wikipedia has no firm rules) only applies until other editors agree that the rules were ignored improperly. There is overwhelming consensus to disallow synthesis and primary source-focused content.SpinningCeres 20:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: Thank you. I was prepared to walk away, but the editor didn't understand the linear nature of talk page discussion, and kept altering the visible record after the fact, with rearranging comment, interspersing comment in signed statements, breaking up dialogues into separate subsections, altering others' comments with mass formatting, strike-through, etc. *phew* I felt I had to attend at least to preserving my reputation from the record of who said what, when, and how.

I don't think there's anything more important to note. I think the whole mess illustrates just two main take-aways: (1) there's an issue with understanding how talk page discussion is traditionally conducted, and (2) the understanding of original research and proper use of various types of sources. I do fear for the future, when the lock is lifted. It's a shame, because the IP editor shows genuine good faith. Unfortunately it's mixed with unbridled ardor. I'm not hopeful that they can sit back and take the time to understand how to do things here, and what the aim of articles is. I suspect their understanding of "consensus" is a lot of back and forth until it's finally apparent that their take on things is the correct one. But I shouldn't predict what will happen. We will see. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Reworking article

@Twsabin: Restoring to an earlier date (you suggest about Feb 8 [4]) is one possibility. But even as early as mid-January there started to be some COI editing from an IP, and later Burkesschool, intending to scrub the article of all taint, and add a pile of peacock feathers. I've been monitoring the article for a few months, and I remember a few brief points in time where it was good and balanced, in my opinion. Heaven knows I won't be able to find that among the haystack of editing. I even noted a couple rare sources that came up that could actually add something germaine to the subject.

So I'm prepared to go piece by piece, to whip the article back in to shape. Attributed to Michelangelo (and probably Mark Twain, too) is a description of sculpting as taking a block of marble and hacking away all the parts that aren't the sculpture.

I think we all trust the non-involved, seasoned editors who've dipped their fingers into this cauldron. And it would be hard to make any edit that wouldn't be an improvement at this point. So, I think I'll continue to chip away (it's a bit of an interesting disctraction and time-filler for me, actually). But I will not be put out in the least if you or someone else just decides to blow it all up and return to a point in the past. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon: Thanks for the ping. I think that we should take the Feb 8 revision as a starting point (suggested by SpinningCeres here), and chip away at that, as needed, instead of "chipping away" at this (shudder). Could lead to roughly the same result, with much less effort. Now, if there's any due information that was removed because of COI editing, that would be something to investigate and resolve down the line. tw^sabin 01:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. To note for potential future expansion: This is the usual layout for school articles, recommended by WikiProject Shools. tw^sabin 02:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin and Willondon: You both appear to be active right now and I'm about to sign off for a few hours, so I just wanted to let you both know that Yamla has indicated that the pblock does not apply to the IPs new account User:Factsforsure44, and they have resumed editting the page. SpinningCeres 17:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my. It was always my opinion that a block on Factsforsure44 (at least right away) was not the wise move. I outlined my thoughts at admin Tol's talk page. But I knew it would come to this eventually. I intend to carry on "playing the puck, not the player", by just focussing on the article edits, and not getting involved in personal drama. I think it behooves the editor @Factsforsure44: to sit back and reflect that they've taken a number of runs at it, and hit a brick wall at every turn; and then to consult a friend or advisor in "real life" who could provide some insight on why everybody seems to be against them. But that's not our job, though we may have tried. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

reverts

Moved from User talk:Twsabin/Archive 1 § reverts

 – tw^sabin 17:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw that @spinninceres encouraged you to block my edits with @willondon. Please don't. I wrote on his page about how destructive the heavy handed revertions are and the complaints that don't stand up. This is not facile referencing to bullying as I saw in some of your notes. I wonder if you have a conflict of interest? I've already tried to see if @willondon could be kept off me since it's awful to be edited that heavily for reasons I don't trust. The only positive was adding in bad punctuation as upstander is widely used as one word these days.Factsforsure44 (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Factsforsure44: I'm signing off for now, and can't give a more detailed reply, but please read WP:SCHOOLCRUFT and also read a featured article about a school to see what the structure is supposed to look like. tw^sabin 17:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

additions to history

forgot to add an edit summary. this is from a book checked out of the san francisco library https://sfpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/record/S93C2532669 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

note that this was edited for "promotional fluff" but it's not promotional. the book is custom published but is also in the library and is referenced in secondary sources meeting Wiki criteria2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit was challenged and a request was made to take it to talk -- I had already made these notes and hope that @meter sees it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There was a note sent saying the contribution was unconstructive when if you look at the content it wasn't2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec)No, I challenged its inclusion and you restored it before posting here, and I undid it again at the same time as you posted here. It should not have been restored without consensus on the talk page.

Note that the IP is the same IPV6/64 range as the IP making the extensive edits prior to the recent page protection. Meters (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Restoring a challenged edit without following WP:BRD is not constructive. Meters (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@meters that comment on unconstructive wasn't clear, my confusion. since it wasn't promotional fluff I reverted thinking there were two undos, the WP:BRD says this is optional for consensus and I did in fact start the talk right away. The timestamps would show that, no? 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where the revision samples I tried putting in went. 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs please note this book is already cited in the article2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Please see reference above to the author as local published historian (as well as past headmaster of the school for 25 years)2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I also vote for this inclusion on modern day. Diff from a while back. 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec)The time stamps clearly show that you restored your version of the material before you opened a discussion here, let alone before anyone responded or there was any consensus for the material. And yes, comments such as "the school deserves a spot in San Francisco history for making girls college ready" and "the Kennedy family is slightly related to the school" are promotional fluff. So is the mere fact that a copy was sent to The Irish Herald and someone there looked at it and mentioned the fact. Meters (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) again

I think there's a problem with weight and balance. The edit takes a nine line History section and adds an additional thirteen lines devoted to the book. The descriptions given from the book refer to some historical events not really noteworthy in the broader summary that this article offers. I saw some notability in "the changes from the time when it was known as a finishing school", and the newspaper's conclusion that "[Burke's] innovative work of preparing young girls to attend college is an important chapter in San Francisco’s history." I remember this article used to have some notes on its origins with the goal of offering college preparation to girls. That appears to be just in the lede, now.

The lede includes "Originally it could have been a finishing school but the founder Katherine Delmar Burke wanted girls to be college ready." (with a reference), but it doesn't summarize anything appearing in the article body. I suggest adding a couple of lines to the History section, using the Irish Herald article and the book as references to support summary statements. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying we can't use anything, but it has to be written neutrally and properly sourced. The Irish Herald is simply a mention in passing of a book that was sent to them, and the book itself was written by someone with a COI in the subject, since he was a former head. Meters (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon How about: While once known as a finishing school where a school play made local headlines, Burke's in 2009 was cited in the Irish American newspaper the Herald that concluded, "[Burke's] innovative work of preparing young girls to attend college is an important chapter in San Francisco’s history." 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Notes from April 6 The notes before on the time stamp show the reverse. I am not sure why @meters would say that, please check again. Another user adding in relevant info from talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.31 (talk • contribs) 22:14, April 9, 2022 (UTC)

Again, The time stamps clearly show that you [IP 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7] restored your version of the material before you opened a discussion here, let alone before anyone responded or there was any consensus for the material. I undid the IP's initial edit at 21:12, April 3, 2022‎ [5]. The IP restored the material to the article at 21:50, April 3, 2022 [6], and the IP opened talk page discussion about the reverted material at 21:51, April 3, 2022 [7] Meters (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Not going through this again.

Nope. Not going through this again. This edit [8] offers two primary sources from Burke's showing reference to a program (Rosetta Lee training), and another primary source to a slide show from the training plan (which doesn't even mention Burke's). All to support complete original research (I'm not even going to link to WP:OR anymore).

This is the same incompetence and failure to listen, reflect and understand that allowed an editor to barrel through the article and talk page with a prolonged, useless torrent of invalid, challenged and reversed edits, along with the mess in cleaning up incompetent talk page refactoring and explaining over and over again (by a multitude of editors) what the problem with the edits was.

Wikipedia is not a free-for-all where the most righteous or prolific person wins. I will be quite assertive in preventing the mess that happened pre- all the blocks and page protections. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon Burke's is mentioned in the Rosetta Lee url. The blog is a primary source from the school, and the Rosetta Lee training is clearly tailored to the school. She's well known as well and credible. 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This is legit and past muster before. Will reverse that change. @willondon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.31 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's spam.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

The notes suggested getting consensus from the talk page as a duty, and I'd like to recruit volunteer editors on this diff .

The content (which has been up before for some time) is summarized as that the school came to the attention of the F.B.I. because of a potential school shooter in 2019 and that year according to public tax forms approximately (rounding up) $170,000 was spent in security and $100,000 was spent on the (well-known) law form Folger Levin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.31 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is another significant diff

Info to be reintroduced is cost of private school, rise in tuition, governance -- all mentioned in the school template and certainly not fluff.204.102.74.31 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

We are not going through this again:

• Diff 1: "the school came to the attention of the F.B.I. because of a potential school shooter", and "that year according to public tax forms approximately (rounding up) $170,000 was spent in security" -- synthesis;
• Diff 2: "which shows the general concept in the Atlantic by Caitlin Flanagan that "Money is God in Private School"", referenced to The Atlantic in an article which does not mention Burke's.

It is original research and synthesis. Last time you should need to be told about this. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Rosetta Lee

Guest editor: Rosetta Lee training does in fact specifically mention that it is tailored to the school. Please do not revert. @willondon 204.102.74.7 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the talk page, and multiple named editors have removed this content. A series of SPA IPs are trying to push inappropriate content into this article, and the page has been protected more than once because of this. The latest protection was for one month, and the material was immediately restored when the protection ended. The particular content raised in this thread (The Rosetta Lee training and blog) has been an issue for at least the last year. It seems likely these IPs are the SPA user:Factsforsure44 since they are restoring material added by that user, in which case then they are evading that user's block. Meters (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

pinging users who have recently (last three months) been involved in this article (substantial content edits, protections, user blocks related to this): user:Willondon, user:Firefangledfeathers, user:Bbb23, user:Ohnoitsjamie, user:Deepfriedokra. My apologies if I missed anyone. Meters (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there's been enough committed disruption, and a low enough need for constructive edits, that we should try a lengthy protection period. Maybe a year or more? I'd request at RFPP but there's a tidy pile of mops right here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Added to my grab-bag edit filter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but I agree with the reasoning for a longer period of protection. Disruption has been a steady, committed presence over a span of months. Good point, the article isn't likely to be a candidate for frequent updates, and protection provides only a small cost to incorporate those improvements. Currently, this article is one of a handful on my permanent watch list, so I would likely see a valid request on the talk page. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

As an IP user, the source looks legit to me. It is from a reliable expert, it cites the school, it is almost terciary (which is good as sourcing) and then there is a link to a blog from the school putting the training in context. This vote is it stays up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C200:1D90:0:0:0:10B0 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is a diff [9] Please do not bite newbies and IPs. 2601:646:C200:1D90:0:0:0:10B0 (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are some resources that support Rosetta Lee being significant and her working with Burke's -- it is mentioned on her list several times specifically https://sites.google.com/a/sgs-wa.org/sgsprofessionaloutreach/

trainings at the school include inclusion equity; navigating microaggressions; Gender and Sexual Diversity: https://sites.google.com/a/sgs-wa.org/sgsprofessionaloutreach/katherine-delmar-burke-school-gsd-for-board (this also connects previous posting info about how the school changed the uniform recently to include pants)

Also considers other people have gone through and done the citations and this was vetted already; if idea is to freeze for a year, at least have consensus about material that may deserve entry such as this written in the Wikipedia style and well sourced with slideshare as well as a blog from a school leader that puts it in context and the bystander role, which is valuable info in this entry as well and already archived by the Wiki community207.62.246.166 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

As already explained to you, those sites do not meet our WP:RS guidlines. Please take the time to read them. Further attempts to re-add that material without consensus will result in you being blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

San Francisco Chronicle articles - noteable

Two articles were added to create a "Modern day" section at the end of this article and bring the wikipedia page current. They were reverted as not noteable and then someone suggested taking the discussion to talk instead of reverting and making notes there.

The two articles are: Here's what San Francisco most expensive private schools pay their leaders: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/private-schools-leaders-salary-19404173.php

The actual text (that was revised to include comments of other wiki editors) was: [10]

Let's let this stay since it is relevant because: - This is a salary much higher than the average and fits into issues around cost and education. - It's a conversation starter.

Other coverage on this issue is in this Chronicle article that could also be included to provide context:

Here's the total cost of a private school education in San Francisco — and how it got so high https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/private-school-tuition-costs-18658876.php

This topic is always discussed in San Francisco, one of the country's most expensive cities. This is noteworthy and relevant.

Another article on a different topic that is worth inclusion (and was added to the first version is this crime story: Police say he spoke of delusions and had a rifle overlooking a SF school. What happens now? https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Police-say-he-spoke-of-delusions-and-had-a-rifle-13801070.php

This is an unusual and noteworthy case of someone being caught BEFORE they did anything and the system trying to determine what to do. This was in 2019. If this is also included, it covers the last five years at the school and makes it more important as an overall article since modern issues are being grappled with and publicized there.

Happy to discuss. 2601:645:8A81:F8B0:15B5:2895:9F87:6281 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It's noteworthy and relevant when a reliable secondary source says it is. Otherwise, it's original research and synthesis. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This material seems problematic to me too. IP, your refs are are paywalled, so please provide quotes so we can verify the content.

• Who claims the salary is much higher than the average? You? And "average" is somewhat vague. Is that an average of all San Francisco private schools? All Bay area private schools? All California private schools? All US private schools? Do you have a reliable secondary source that discusses this issue with respect to this particular school? For that matter, so what? As you pointed out in your edit [11] It's only the fourth highest in the Bay area.
• fits into issues around cost and education. It's a conversation starter. Not what Wikipedia is for. We report what reliable sources have to say about the topic of the article, in this case the Katherine Delmar Burke School. We don't "start conversations". If there is enough coverage to warrant us mentioning the general topic of the cost of private education in the Bay area, it should be in a more appropriate place (San Francisco Bay Area#Education perhaps), not in a particular school's article.
• The top level header "Modern day" is not appropriate or informative. Modern day what? And what time frame is "modern"?
• The crime story article appears (again, it's paywalled and I can't see it) to discuss someone who was caught with a rifle somewhere in the vicinity of the school. It might be worth mentioning, or it may be just a passing mention of the school rather than significant coverage of the school. Is there any proof he was actually targeting the school? I suspect that your wording "Burke's also garnered media attention ..." is overwrought. Meters (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus is that this isn’t Wiki-material, which is fine. For more information, there are links below.

if there's consensus not to include then we don't need all this bludgeoning and excessive quoting. For clarity "this isn’t Wiki-material" was associated with the salary and cost of education points.

A Call to Action: Let’s Close the Pay Gap in Independent Schools (Oct. 15, 2018) National Association of Independent Schools blog by former president https://www.nais.org/learn/independent-ideas/october-2018/a-call-to-action-lets-close-the-pay-gap-in-independent-schools/ - This shows the average compensation for female heads of school in this network in 2017-2018 was $193,209 and for male was $259,934 That year the female head of school at burke’s earned $471,662 plus $34,728, which was more than twice the national average. This is from primary tax info: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941156256 It doesn’t look like more recent salary figures are being publicly discussed in secondary sources. The NAIS does sell a trends report that may be current, but it is $80. (https://my.nais.org/s/store#/store/browse/detail/a133m00000D4INVAA3) June 2024 Glassdoor states Head of School estimated total pay is $123,707 with average salary of $97,529, but I also think Glassdoor isn’t accepted? https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/head-of-school-salary-SRCH_KO0,14.htm The head of school at Burke’s also gets a house to live in that isn’t calculated into the salary: Burke’s new Delmar House (p.20-21);https://issuu.com/burkesschool/docs/kaydeebeefall13 - that started in 2013 and if this is an acceptable source could possibly be noteworthy? The secondary source is the recent Chronicle article that I linked to and some info from that is below. (I did not get a paywall and I am not a subscriber.) Sorry about that. Here’s what San Francisco’s most expensive private schools pay their leaders https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/private-schools-leaders-salary-19404173.php - The school is referenced in the chart and the photos are all of Burke’s. But, no, the school is not directly mentioned with an expert commenting. So I am OK if this is struck. FYI, here are quotes from the article: By comparison, the city’s public school superintendent Matt Wayne, who oversees more than 100 schools and nearly 50,000 students, has a base salary of $345,000. Still, the exorbitant price of a private school education — which can reach $60,000 a year — arguably puts significant pressure on finding a top-notch leader, someone who is part CEO as well as fundraiser, safety expert, budget officer and educational leader. That pressure has likely only grown as California private school tuitions have skyrocketed in recent years, with data showing costs increasing at a much greater rate than family income levels, according to a recent Chronicle analysis. One parent whose kids graduated from a San Francisco private school said the pay of the leaders at some San Francisco private schools is extravagant, but also illustrates the competitive marketplace. “It’s an unexplainable level of compensation relative to the complexity and size of the education enterprise they are responsible for, relative to university presidents and/or large urban school districts,” said the parent, who requested anonymity for fear of backlash against their family. “It’s a nationwide arms race. It’s a limited number of people they’re going after.” # Where the school is directly mentioned is the article about tuition since at the current annual Katherine Delmar Burke’s this year became the most expensive K-8 school in the Bay Area. Quotes below. Here’s how expensive private school tuition is across the Bay Area, school by school (updated 3/10/2024) https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/private-school-tuition/ Quotes below: The Chronicle collected the 2023-24 school year annual tuition for over 300 private schools in San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Contra Costa and Alameda counties to understand which schools are the most expensive, how they compare across the region, and how schools within one county stack up against each other. In San Francisco, we found the average private school tuition across religious and secular schools to be about $23,000 for elementary school and just over $42,000 for high school. Another Chronicle article on 2/12/2024 Here's the total cost of a private school education in San Francisco — and how it got so high https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/private-school-tuition-costs-18658876.php QUOTES: Historical data on tuition across California shows it has not always been so expensive. For the past several decades, tuition has been increasing at a much greater rate than family income levels. Average annual tuition has risen nearly 70% in the past 20 years when adjusted for inflation, according to a Chronicle analysis of tuition data for members of the California Association of Independent Schools. And in the past 40 years, it has shot up a staggering 243% — from about $11,000 in today’s money to over $38,000. That’s a particular concern in the Bay Area where a greater share of families send children to private school than statewide. In San Francisco, nearly one-third of K-12 students are enrolled in a private school versus 10% in California, according to Private School Review, a website that gathers self-reported data from nearly 4,000 private schools across the state. That’s the highest percentage in the Bay Area, where the other counties range from 8% to 21% attendance. It’s also higher than that seen in other big cities, like New York City (26%), Seattle (21%), Los Angeles (14%) and San Diego (13%). The K-8 school charging the highest tuition was the Katherine Delmar Burke School at $44,702. In the mid-1980s, average school tuition at the California schools represented in CAIS’ network was about 15% of the median household income in the state. That grew to 25% by 2001 and then to 40% by 2009 in the wake of the hit to incomes during the Great Recession. It has stayed at about that level since. # Another article but from 2005 that specifically mentions Burke’s Agonizing over S.F. school options / 3 families' paths diverge -- public, private, parochial https://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Agonizing-over-S-F-school-options-3-families-2644429.php QUOTES Sarah Mahnke-Baum, Arthur Register and Julian Brastow became friends at their neighborhood preschool in San Francisco's Cole Valley. But as they march off to elementary school this week, they'll find themselves heading in very different directions. Sarah, the daughter of a public school teacher, will attend kindergarten at a prestigious all-girls private school tucked between Sea Cliff and the Presidio with an annual tuition of $19,000. Arthur, whose family isn't Catholic, will attend second grade at a Catholic school in the Richmond District for $4,500 a year. And Julian will be a first-grader at the free public school just around the corner from his home. William Fischel, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College, has studied several school districts in California and has concerns over the impact of school choice on neighborhoods. "It's allowed people to untie where they live from the school district, which from my point of view is actually a bad thing," he said. "The schools are the basis for the social capital in the community -- it's how people get to know one another." Others fear the choices only benefit wealthier, more educated parents who have the time, transportation and inclination to traverse the city seeking out its best schools, leaving other families with the leftovers. "This, of course, leads to all kinds of questions about the extent to which choices will increase stratification and gentrification," said Mark Schneider, a professor of political science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and co-author of "Choosing Schools." Sarah: private school Mahnke, Sarah's mother, didn't pursue the route of finding another public school with an opening. She believes in the mission of public schools and teaches social studies at the public Wallenberg High in the Western Addition. She has seen firsthand what the continued lack of state funding for public schools means for classrooms -- and she didn't want her daughter to lose out because of it. She and her husband, Marc Baum, who plays saxophone and guitar in a band, will struggle to pay the $19,000 tuition for Katherine Delmar Burke School. Mahnke said she won't be able to put any money into savings or her retirement account, but she believes it's worth it. In stark contrast to public schools, Burke sits on three lush acres near the Presidio and has tennis courts, computer labs, photography labs, art studios, a library with two librarians and 28,000 books, two teachers in every classroom and a rich offering of foreign languages for its students. They take frequent field trips, get help making their high school decisions and participate in an Invention Convention every year (one girl's mechanism to extract pulp from orange juice got her an appearance on "The Late Show With David Letterman.") "Who wouldn't want to give this to their child if they could?" Mahnke asked. Burke's enrollment consists of about 25 percent minority students versus 90 percent in the school district. Burke voluntarily takes some students with limited developmental and learning disabilities, but isn't required to take all students like the school district is. "They (private schools) don't necessarily have to solve the ills of society -- the students who haven't been read to or aren't well-fed," Mahnke said. "I've spent my life dedicating myself to trying to solve those social ills. I don't want it to fall on Sarah yet. People say, 'Don't you want her to see the real world?' I say, 'Not yet!' " # - Note that in 2005 the tuition was less than half what it is now but it still was controversial 2601:645:8A81:F8B0:C66:C5DE:1A63:1C98 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Modern day may be too vague. I am open to other’s thoughts. It does need to be separated from the historical in my opinion. It also would be good to update this page to show the current school. Maybe Current School? Or Costs increase? Burke’s becomes most expensive k-8 in Bay Area 2024?

2601:645:8A81:F8B0:C66:C5DE:1A63:1C98 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am OK with someone else wordsmithing this if mine is overwrought. I was using typical journalism-speak but that’s not necessarily encyclopedia speak, which I am just learning.

Police say he spoke of delusions and had a rifle overlooking a SF school. What happens now? https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Police-say-he-spoke-of-delusions-and-had-a-rifle-13801070.php

Quotes from the crime article 2/17/19

excessive quoting of copyrighted news article

The difficult case of Igor Perlov began last year when, authorities said, he called the FBI in San Francisco to say he thought there was a chip under his skin and was being programmed to carry out a mass shooting. When police learned he had guns — including a legally possessed rifle with a scope they found next to a window overlooking a school — officers acted swiftly, placing the 31-year-old man on an involuntary psychiatric hold. When members of the Police Department’s crisis intervention team went to Perlov’s home in the Richmond District in September, they said they found more cause for alarm. Not only did he say he was still hearing voices, police said, he had five guns — all of them legally possessed. Officers seized four handguns stowed in the trunk of his car, officials said, before a search of his second-story apartment turned up a .308-caliber bolt-action rifle with a scope leaning next to a window overlooking Katherine Delmar Burke School, a private K-8 all-girls school. Police said they did not find evidence that Perlov was planning an attack, and no threat was made against any specific location or person. The Chronicle learned of Perlov’s case in the course of covering court hearings at the Hall of Justice. Police officials did not reveal it publicly, nor did they tell administrators at Katherine Delmar Burke School, who did not know about the case until contacted by the newspaper. “We have been in touch with SFPD about this matter, and they have advised us that the individual involved has been in custody for several months, and that law enforcement and mental health professionals did not contact the school because they did not believe that our school was a point of interest for this individual,” Michele Williams, the head of school at Katherine Delmar Burke, wrote in an email to The Chronicle. She added that police are “committed to notifying the school before he is released and working with us on a safety plan. Nevertheless, we are concerned that an individual with mental health problems living in the school’s neighborhood was able to acquire weapons.” Upon release, Perlov may return to his home across from the Katherine Delmar Burke School. He said he will go back to the carpentry and concrete work he was doing before he was arrested. Perlov insisted he never had any plans to commit violence and said the case against him is “bogus.” When released, he said he will stay away from guns and drugs. “I was never a dangerous person,” he said. “I despise violence myself. This is the stuff that actually bothers me. That’s why I called the FBI, because this bothers me. I’m worried about it.” His stepfather, George, who did not give his last name, said he hopes Perlov will return to the family’s home when released, but said, “We can’t push him to do it. He’s an adult, and he has a legal right to make any decision.”

2601:645:8A81:F8B0:C66:C5DE:1A63:1C98 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

So, no evidence that Perlov was planning an attack, no threat was made by him against any specific location or person, he stated that he never had any plans to commit violence, and law enforcement and mental health professionals did not even contact the school because they did not believe that the school was a point of interest for this individual. This does not need to be covered here. Meters (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the OP IP is currently range blocked. Meters (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that block was just lifted. My intent is not to be disruptive. I will leave this info and am happy to try drafting content if needed, but maybe it's better that someone else does that since I am a newbie. Meters(talk) Willondon (talk)

2601:645:8A81:F8B0:C66:C5DE:1A63:1C98 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This has been removed form the article multiple times. This has been discussed on the talk page before. There is no consensus to add it. Assuming the other IPs from the same place and ISP were also you, you have been blocked more than once over this I believe. Stop bludgeoning the talk page with this. Whether you intend to be disruptive or not, this is disruptive. Meters (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And the latest IP has been range blocked again, this time for one month. Meters (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)