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 23 Feb 2012

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

Janet Rodgers

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

  • Inspectorssingle source

    Janet Rodgers

  • Postcode verified

    TS17 6FB

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.

+74Very positivemore positive than 74% of reports of this type

In line with other reports of this type.

Praisehighly effectivesuccessfuleffectivelyenjoyclear
Criticismnot clear

How the report reads, start to finish

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

FindingsWhat needs to improve positive critical
  • Findings385w+70
  • What needs to improve125w+43

Strengths

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

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
503
shorter than usual (typical 1049)
Reading level
Very hard
Flesch 30, typical 45
Average sentence
20 words
Next steps
4
typical 5
Hedged sentences
4%
“some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 75%What needs to improve 25%

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

Dr S Sangha OBE Principal Stockton Riverside College Harvard Avenue Thornaby Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6FB

p.1

employment

This survey evaluates providers’ response to initiatives launched on 1 August 2011 to use Skills Funding Agency funds flexibly to support people on benefits.

p.1

employment

Thank you for your hospitality and cooperation, and that of your staff and participants, during my visit on 6 and 7 February 2012 to look at your work in employability provision.

p.1

employment

The visit provided valuable information which will contribute to our national evaluation and reporting. Published reports are likely to list the names of the contributing institutions but individual institutions will not be identified in the main text without their consent.

p.1

employment

The evidence used to inform the judgements included: interviews with staff, participants, and partners; scrutiny of relevant documents; analysis of participants’ work; and observation of three learning sessions.

p.1

Key findings

 Since August 2011, Stockton Riverside College has worked well with its partners to use local labour market information effectively to design relevant short, flexible employability courses. These courses give participants good progression routes on to longer vocational courses. Participants enjoy the structure of their courses and the opportunity to achieve units that they can build on to gain qualifications.  In the teaching and learning sessions observed, participants received highly effective individual tuition and support. They developed good knowledge in retail and information technology which they applied competently to challenging scenarios and when using computers. Participants attending the college’s ‘work clubs’, located in community and high street venues, gain useful employability skills alongside qualifications in health, safety and hygiene which increases their self-confidence and prepares them well for job interviews.

p.1

Key findings

 Tutors plan a wide range of learning activities that make good use of participants’ varied experiences and skills. Tutors get to know participants well as individuals but do not systematically assess their learning support needs or barriers to employment. As a result, participants do not have clear or sufficient learning and career development plans.  Tutors make their courses relevant to industry through a range of successful initiatives. Although a few participants volunteer or have worked for short periods of time in the college, most do not have the opportunity to gain experience of work with an external employer.

p.2

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, include:

 involving employers more in designing short courses that aid progression into work and increasing the opportunities that participants have for work experience  bringing together the team of vocational trainers to share successful initiatives, expertise and best practice when working with participants  devising more suitable systems for initial assessment and identifying participants’ barriers to employment so that they have clear learning, development and career goals.

p.2

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, include:

I hope that these observations are useful as you continue to develop employability provision at Stockton Riverside College.

p.2

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, include:

As explained previously, a copy of this letter will be published on the Ofsted website. It may be used to inform decisions about any future inspection. A copy of this letter is also being sent to the Skills Funding Agency.

p.2

Discuss this inspection

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

Join the discussion