Talk:Narrabundah College

|||

Unsourced statements

There's a couple of unsourced statements about how good the school is academically. I've seen some government information about school rankings in the ACT, and I've been told by various people who work there about the uni figures etc, so it's essentially WP:OR at this point. I apologise for that, and I'll try to find some actual sources for those claims soon, or I'll remove them. Davidovic 12:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit has a strange claim. "The college is also known for its large numbers of students of Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese ethnicity, carrying Narrabundah's ATAR and reputation with their work ethic." I suggest this last part is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.152.163 (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Dubious cites

• Sources that are from the college's own web site do not meet wikipedia policy on neutral point of view. It needs to be an outside view that the college is the bestThe cite provided supports that the Narrabundah College School Board claims "Narrabundah College is demonstrably the most successful government college in the ACT, and arguably the most successful school in the territory – present and past results confirm this. Demand for places in 2007 by well over 600 applicants illustrates the high regard in which Narrabundah is held across the whole Canberra community."--Matilda ^talk 04:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the reference is hardly dubious, it's a report from the school to the ACT government. However, I agree that the wording could use adjustment. "Widely considered" isn't that factual, so I'll replace it with a more factual statement. :) Davidovic 11:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim "widely considered" was not supported by the cite hence the dubious tag - moreover the cite was self-interested - The school board is hardly a disinterested body! I still feel the language does not meet Wikipedia's stance of WP:NPOV - there are a lot of factors that come into play as to why Narrabundah has better results than other government run colleges in the ACT and moreover it does significantly worse than some of the other schools - for similar reasons - ie the socio-economic make up of its catchment area and then of course for those students from outside the catchment area they are encouraged to attend by the success of the students ....The term "best performing" begs the question as what is the college actually best at - I realise that it is answered by UAI scores but many people would not consider that necessarily a measure of educational performance but rather the capability of the student population. Whether the students have maximised their scores or other educational outcomes given their capability is another question and one for which the school is more accountable. I would like to see the paragraph removed and the facts about the scores remain. The facts about the scores do mention the best of government-college results but doesn't gloat on the subject. --Matilda ^talk 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The school board report refers to BSSS statistics, which is why I believe that it's an acceptable source, however, it's much easier to just cite the actual BSSS statistics, so that's what I've done ^^ Now, on the topic of the term "best performance", it's true that that could be referring to several things, but I believe that the term is still acceptable. In order to obtain a UAI, a student must take "T" courses, which are assessed and taught at a higher level than those courses that must be taken to obtain a Year 12 certificate. In addition, since every student seeking a UAI must sit the AST (which is then used to scale their marks against students form other colleges) the higher median UAI and higher the percentage of UAIs awarded shows that the students performed better in their classes compared to other government run colleges. The student performance usually correlates to the quality of education, but the term "best performance" does not say anything about the quality of education at the college, it simply states that, compared to the other government colleges in the ACT, Narrabundah students produced the best results. Davidovic 05:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

drug culture

its not mentioned but well known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is any worse than other colleges, like canberra college. People don't smoke jays on the oval or anything like people say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.204.74 (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Narrabundah College. 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/20080528101800/http://www.bsss.act.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/59456/Overview1_2007.pdf to http://www.bsss.act.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/59456/Overview1_2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819012010/http://canberraliberals.org.au/default.cfm?action=people_details&id=3 to http://www.canberraliberals.org.au/default.cfm?action=people_details&id=3

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)