Worcester College of Technology Closed

About Worcester College of Technology Closed Browse Features

Worcester College of Technology Closed


Name Worcester College of Technology Closed
Ofsted Inspection Rating Good
Inspection Date 28 April 2014
Address Deansway, Worcester, Worcestershire, WR1 2JF
Phone Number 01905 725555
Type General Further Education and Tertiary
Age Range 16-99
Religious Character Does not apply
Gender Mixed
Number of Pupils unknown
Local Authority Worcestershire
Catchment Area Information Available No
Last Distance Offered Information Available No

Summary of key findings for learners

This provider is good because: Success rates have increased and are now high. Students, particularly those aged 16 to 18, develop good employability and technical skills through study programmes that prepare them well for the future. The study programmes meet the needs of the local community particularly well. Staff use information, advice and guidance well to place students onto the right courses. Personal learning coaches, tutors and teachers work well together to support students and monitor their progress. The majority of teaching and learning is good, which results in most students making good progress. Termly subject area reviews are very effective in monitoring and improving provision. Governance is particularly effective at setting the strategic direction, monitoring and challenging performance. The implementation of improvement strategies is successful. Early years and playwork and visual arts require improvement in the quality of teaching, learning and assessment and outcomes for students. Success rates in a minority of subjects require improvement in both college-based learning and apprenticeships. The proportion of teaching and learning that is outstanding is too low. Professional development reviews are not rigorous enough in evaluating the performance of staff or in the setting of specific targets for improvement. Measures which governors and managers use to monitor the college’s strategic objectives are not sufficiently rigorous in evaluating their achievement. This is not yet an outstanding provider because: