Skip to content

Help us get it right

Sign in (free) to send feedback, so we can tell you when it's fixed.

Other · Ofsted report

Setting

Inspected — · published 10 Dec 2010

Help us get it right

Sign in (free) to send feedback, so we can tell you when it's fixed.

Original PDF ↗

Summary

No overall grade in this framework

Sue Harrison

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

  • Inspectorssingle source

    Sue Harrison

  • Postcode verified

    S1 2NS

Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of the report

Deep dive

What this report says

In plain English

Join free to get a short, plain-English summary of any report.

Tone of the report

How positive or critical the inspectors' language is, from the words they chose. No AI involved.

+33Mostly positivemore positive than 41% of reports of this type

In line with other reports of this type.

Praiseengaging

How the report reads, start to finish

Every paragraph in order, sized by length. Tap one to see it on the page.

FindingsAbout the inspectionWhat needs to improve positive critical
  • Findings32w0
  • What needs to improve64w+33

Strengths

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

No standout praise found.

Concerns

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

No strong criticism found.

Next steps

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

What the report dwells on

Topics by how often they come up, coloured by how they are described. Open one for an example.

Anatomy of the report

How the report is built, against others of the same type and grade.

Pages
2
Words of findings
95
shorter than usual (typical 1049)
Reading level
Hard
Flesch 40, typical 45
Average sentence
16 words
Next steps
4
typical 5
Hedged sentences
0%
“some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 13%What needs to improve 25%About the inspection 62%

Full report text

Aviation House 125 Kingsway London WC2B 6SE T 0300 123 1231 F 020 7421 6855 enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk www.ofsted.gov.uk

p.1

Ms B Etchell-Anderson Deputy Principal Freeman College Sterling Works 88 Arundel St Sheffield S1 2NS

p.1

Ofsted best practice survey: safeguarding in colleges

Thank you for your hospitality and cooperation, and that of your staff, during my visit on 14 October 2010 to look at your provision for safeguarding students.

p.1

Ofsted best practice survey: safeguarding in colleges

The visit provided valuable information which will contribute to our publication about best practice in safeguarding in colleges. The publication will include case studies about individual providers. If Freeman College is included as a case study, you will have an opportunity to comment on the text prior to publication. Individual institutions will not be identified in the main text without their consent.

p.1

Features of good practice

 excellent safeguarding induction for new students  very good risk assessment procedures that enable students to take part in potentially hazardous practical work  excellent attention to safeguarding in staff recruitment and selection procedures  outstanding communication between staff about students’ safeguarding needs and very effective liaison with external agencies  very good follow-up with individual learners of health and well-being aspects delivered within the curriculum.

p.1

Area for development

 Continue to develop safeguarding training for staff to ensure it is engaging and meets individual staff needs. I hope that these observations are useful as you continue to develop safeguarding provision in the college.

p.1

Area for development

As explained previously, a copy of this letter will be published on the Ofsted website. It will also be available to the inspection team for your next college inspection.

p.2

Discuss this inspection

Members compare notes on inspectors and inspections here. Join free to read and post.

Join the discussion