Waterfront UTC


Name Waterfront UTC
Ofsted Inspection Rating Inadequate
Inspection Date 06 March 2018
Address South Side Three Road, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4FQ
Phone Number unknown
Type Academy
Age Range 14-19
Religious Character Does Not Apply
Gender Mixed
Number of Pupils 170 (79% boys 21% girls)
Number of Pupils per Teacher 0.0
Academy Sponsor The Howard Academy Trust
Local Authority Medway
Percentage Free School Meals 17.9%
Catchment Area Information Available Yes, our catchment area data is FREE

Information about this school

The school does not meet the requirements on the publication of specified information on its website. It does not publish the required detail about the curriculum and the different courses on offer for each year group. The school’s equality and diversity policy does not refer to all of the protected characteristics. Parents cannot access the school’s annual SEN information report. The university technical college (UTC) opened in September 2015. In line with all UTCs it is much smaller than the average-sized secondary school. Medway UTC has space for 600 pupils. Medway UTC is sponsored by the University of Greenwich and a range of employers, including BAM Construct UK, BAE Systems, Bouygues UK, Delphi Diesel Systems, The Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, Federation of Small Businesses, Kreston Reeves, Medway Council, Mid Kent College, Redrow Homes and the Royal School of Military Engineering. As a UTC, the school caters for pupils from the age of 14 to 19. It specialises in engineering together with construction and the built environment. The school day is longer than the usual school day. Pupils start at 8.30am and leave at 5pm. Most pupils and students are White British. The proportion from a minority ethnic background is average, as is the proportion of pupils and students who speak English as an additional language. The proportion of disadvantaged pupils is above the national average. A high proportion of pupils are identified as having SEN and/or disabilities. A very small number of pupils attend alternative provision run by the local authority for all or part of the week.

Summary of key findings for parents and pupils

This is an inadequate school Until very recently, governors have abrogated their responsibility for maintaining a high standard of education in the school. Insufficient challenge was offered to previous leaders. The curriculum is too narrow, a computing course had been cancelled and there has been no provision for physical education or religious education in the school. Since the school opened, there has been significant turbulence in staffing. Governors have not ensured that training is good enough to enable leaders and teachers to carry out their duties effectively. Leaders’ development plans are not fit for purpose. They do not offer an effective framework to underpin the rapid improvements to teaching, assessment, behaviour and leadership that are required. There is a culture of low expectation across the UTC. As a result of weak teaching, pupils’ achievement in GCSEs and in A levels was particularly poor last year. Current progress in all year groups is very weak. Teachers do not use assessment to design activities at the right level to match the learning needs of pupils. As a result, all pupils, but particularly the most able, those who have special educational needs (SEN) and/or disabilities and the disadvantaged, make very poor progress. Behaviour in lessons is poor. Pupils are frequently distracted, off task and, in some lessons, disruptive. This slows the pace of learning. Numbers joining the school have dropped dramatically. Attendance is declining. Parents and pupils are dissatisfied with the quality of teaching, particularly in key stage 4. The school has the following strengths Safeguarding is effective. Outcomes in the construction and engineering courses in the sixth form are higher than elsewhere in the school. Working with external consultants from The Howard Academy Trust (THAT), the new interim principal has shared a more accurate view of the poor performance within the school. New ideas and resources have been introduced but it is too early to see an impact of these on pupils’ progress.