Talk:Little Flower Academy

INfobox

Can someone please add the infobox for this article?

Done, though its still missing some information (eg. principal) TCB007 09:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Err... not sure if this has been brought up with WikiVancouver already, but can someone clean up this page? Thanks.

ShivanFist 03:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)ShivanFist

Skewing results for Fraser Institute ranking

Just wondering how I'd ever source this. Students are, each year, discouraged from writing provincial exams for certain courses where there is a possibility that their performance will negatively affect the overall performance of the graduating class. It is a hardly ethical practice, and would appear to be an important point to make when putting the school's relatively high esteem in perspective. ReneeLung 19:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is your wonderment about sourcing this due to the fact that you have no proof? If you have proof, then that would be your source. If your proof is anecdotal, tell a journalist and let him or her do your dirty work for you. Accusations like this are made against all the schools ranked highly by the Fraser Institute, and yet curiously none of them are sourced. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Little Flower Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015054057/http://www.rcav.org/schools/listing/2_LFA/index.htm to http://www.rcav.org/schools/listing/2_LFA/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017180537/http://www.vancourier.com/issues04/082204/news/082204nn1.html to http://www.vancourier.com/issues04/082204/news/082204nn1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Lesbian teacher fired and investigated by province

www.cbc.ca/amp/1.871199

Www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2010/04/28/bc_minister_looking_into_claims_teacher_was_sent_home_for_being_a_lesbian.html

This is directly related to the school

Vanny089 (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed again pending discussion and consensus. Editor has already been told that this material is not encyclopedic. Waiting a month and then restoring it 7 minutes after posting the above with a non-neutral and incorrect header, and with a summary that the issue has been discussed on the talk page makes it rather difficult to assume good faith.

So now we at least have some live sources to look at, malformed as they may be. From what I can see this is all early reporting based on a claim made by a teacher and then pushed by a news release by the Pride Education Network (and the group got it wrong the first time, by incorrectly claiming that the teacher had been fired.) The vancouversun link does not work.

If this turned into a real case it may well be worth mentioning, but we cannot tell from what we have. The claims in the article are either not substantiated or not presented neutrally:

• "the Catholic school found out that teacher Lisa Riemer was a lesbian and wanted to take maternal leave for the birth of a child by her wife." but according to the sources she informed them "Reimer told the school administration of her sexual orientation when she formally requested parental leave in December 2009 because her partner was expecting a baby"
• "her employment contract not renewed" We have no evidence of this. It may well be true, but all that we have is that she was expecting her contract not to be renewed.
• For that matter, according to the source "Reimer was teaching music at the private, all-girls Catholic school during a leave of absence from her job at the Vancouver School Board, where she will return this fall." and she "was hired in September 2009 on a contract that ran until June 30, 2010 to cover for a maternity leave," So, if it was a temporary contract that she was not planning on returning to, and that the school had no intention of extending, why would there be any concern as to whether her contract was renewed?
• "which led to an investigation by the Education Minister in British Columbia" Really? What we have is that the Minister of Education "said she had only heard about the allegations through the media but has instructed her staff to investigate what exactly happened." That does not sound like a formal investigation. That sounds like just the preliminary steps of determining if there is any merit to the accusations.

This was ten years ago. It should all be done now. Where are the sources telling us what resulted? Was her teaching contract renewed or not? Did she even want it renewed? (See above comment re returning to her Vancouver School Board job at the end of her leave of absence.) Was there a formal investigation by the Ministry of Education or was this immediately dismissed? If there was a formal investigation, what was the result? Was the school found to have violated any rules or were they within their rights as a private religious school? (Whether we approve of what they did is not the point.) Does someone on a short term (ten-month) contract even qualify for parental leave benefits in British Columbia?

If there is consensus that it's appropriate to include this, that's fine with me, but before I can decide whether I think it should go in I need more information. As it stands I can't tell whether this is sour grapes by someone trying to work the system, an issue that was pushed by a special interest group, a illegal violation of human rights, an at-the-time legal action that was seen as so bad that it resulted in changes of policy or legislation, or a legal action that resulted in no changes at all. Some of those scenarios would be worth mentioning, but some would not. Meters (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Within mere days of the coverage the teacher had already decided not to contest the school's actions, or to pursue a human rights case. See media coverage from April and May 2010, and pg 95 of "Homophobia in the Hallways: Heterosexism and Transphobia in Canadian Catholic Schools" Tonya D. Callaghan, 2018. Meters (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Not contesting is not an admission of guilt. Lawyers are expensive. Vanny089 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What's your point? You still have not provided any sources to answer any of my questions. And why are you suggesting that there is any question of the teacher having done anything for which there could be "an admission of guilt"? I never suggested that, and whether we approve of what the school did or not (I don't) has no bearing on whether this is appropriate material for the article. This was ten years ago, and from what I can see this was a short term contract which neither party expected or intended to extend. It also appears to have been a short term issue. There is no evidence that there was a formal investigation, and the teacher apparently did not pursue the matter. Again, why should we mention this? If it was an illegal action or if it was legal at the time and subsequently led to regulatory changes that would likely be worth mentioning (with reliable sources of course). If it was and remains legal for a religious school to have done what they did, then it probably should not be mentioned. As WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI puts it: "Wikipedia articles about schools must be neutral. The purpose is not to bring shame to educational institutions. Any such additions will be removed by the School Project coordinators or any other editor. The fact that such activities may be reported in the press is no business of an encyclopedia. " Meters (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

JFK was shot more than 10 years ago so time is not a factor. No shame occurs to the school so that reason to omit it is not there. Someone else put it in years ago so there is some interest in the matter.

It is a Catholic school so there might be a reason they don't want lesbian teachers.

The controversy was covered nationwide so that is important, not just an obscure event

Vanny089 (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)