Judgemeadow Community College

Name Judgemeadow Community College
Ofsted Inspection Rating Inadequate
This inspection rating relates to a predecessor school. When a school, converts to an academy, is taken over or closes and reopens as a new school a formal link is created between the new school and the old school, by the Department for Education. Where the new school has not yet been inspected, we show the inspection history of the predecessor school, as we believe it still has significance.
Inspection Date 13 December 2016
Address Marydene Drive, Evington, Leicester, LE5 6HP
Phone Number 01162411920
Type Secondary
Age Range 11-16
Religious Character Does not apply
Gender Mixed
Number of Pupils 1390 (55% boys 45% girls)
Number of Pupils per Teacher 17.6
Academy Sponsor Lionheart Academies Trust
Local Authority Leicester
Percentage Free School Meals 10%
Percentage English is Not First Language 40.4%
Persisitent Absence 14.6%
Pupils with SEN Support 9.3%
Catchment Area Information Available Yes, our catchment area data is FREE
Last Distance Offered Information Available No

Information about this school

The school does not meet requirements on the publication of information about pupil premium funding on its website. The principal has been in post since September 2015. The school is larger than the average-sized secondary school. The proportion of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds is much higher than the national average. The proportion of disadvantaged pupils is average. The proportion of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is slightly higher than the national average. Less than the national average proportion of pupils are supported through an education, health and care plan. The proportion of pupils who speak English as an additional language is higher than the national average. Five pupils receive off-site alternative curriculum provision. The placements are: Mere Lane Riding School, Braunstone Skills, Triple Skills, Cook E, Millgate Lodge and Carrisbrooke, which are all located within the local authority. In 2015, the school met the government’s floor standards, which are the minimum expectations for pupils’ attainment and progress in English and mathematics. Inspectors were aware during this inspection of a serious incident concerning a pupil that had occurred since the previous inspection. While Ofsted does not have the power to investigate incidents of this kind, actions taken by the setting in response to the incident were considered (where appropriate) alongside the other evidence available at the time of the inspection to inform inspector’s judgements.

Summary of key findings for parents and pupils

This is an inadequate school Leaders, including governors, have not ensured that safeguarding arrangements are effective. The systems used to record, monitor and support pupils following a concern are not fit for purpose. Little or no monitoring of these arrangements has taken place to ensure pupils’ safety. A significant minority of pupils report that they do not trust that bullying would be dealt with effectively by adults in the school. Some pupils, including vulnerable pupils, have come to accept that bullying and derogatory teasing are just part of school life. Pupils have a very limited understanding of different kinds of threats to their safety; some pupils’ attitudes are very intolerant towards those different to themselves. Pupils are not prepared well for life in modern Britain. Leaders in charge of behaviour and special educational needs do not systematically monitor or analyse pupils’ progress or evaluate the impact of their work. Not enough disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities make good progress across a range of subjects. While this is improving, it has particularly affected the school’s older students. Too many of these pupils do not attend school regularly and are subject to fixed-term exclusions. The quality of teaching is variable across subjects. Teachers do not consistently provide suitable support for low-attaining pupils or enough challenge for the most able, especially disadvantaged pupils. The school is not governed well. Governors do not hold leaders to account. They are too reliant on the information provided to them by school leaders; they are insufficiently knowledgeable to suitably challenge underperformance and monitor the work of the school, especially its safeguarding arrangements. The school has the following strengths As a result of the principal’s unequivocal messages, all staff understand the school’s priorities. Subject attainment at grades A* to C in a range of key subjects is consistently above average. The support for pupils who speak English as an additional language is effective. The culture of reading is well established in the school. Pupils enjoy reading and use the library regularly.