Minutes of a meeting of the board of Leicester College Corporation

Held on 21 March 2024

Present: Danielle Gillett (Chair), Louisa Poole, Lesley Giles*, Robert Radford, Carol Goode, Jackie Rossa, Verity Hancock, Sophie Strevens-Robinson, Chan Kataria, Lee Soden*, Zubair Limbada*, Sallyann Turner*, Harmesh Manghra, Tom Wilson, Neil McDougall.

In Attendance: Louise Hazel - Director of Governance and Policy, Shabir Ismail - Deputy Principal, Kully Sandhu - Vice Principal, Della Sewell - Director of HR, Zoé Butler - Director of Student Services and Marketing (item 6).

*Joined meeting online via Teams

1. Declaration of Interest

   • 1.1 There were no declarations of interest.

2. Apologies for absence

   • 2.1 Apologies for absence were received from Chloe Bakewell, Heather Powell and Debi Donnarumma.

3. Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising

   • 3.1 Members of the Corporation received and approved the minutes of the meeting on 14 December 2023.

4. Finance report (period 6) and Spring reforecast

   • 4.1 The Deputy Principal presented the finance report (period 6) and spring reforecast. The following points were highlighted.

     • 4.1.1 The year-to-date result was an operating deficit after restructuring costs of £356k compared to the budgeted deficit of £130k.

     • 4.1.2 16-18 learner responsive learner numbers were above allocation by 214 students. The College had received additional in year funding for this but 100 additional students remained unfunded. Set against this would be a clawback for the shortfall in T level students. The College had highlighted nationally that this clawback provided little incentive for colleges to take risks in offering new provision. This would also be raised during the strategic conversation with the ESFA.

     • 4.1.3 The R07 showed that apprenticeship and AEB income was continuing to grow and should meet the plan. AEB was £700k above the same point in the previous year; some of this might be due to earlier enrolment. Any recruitment above allocation might need additional resource.

     • 4.1.4 HE income overall was expected to fall short of the autumn reforecast target following the second census date.

     • 4.1.5 Full-cost income was hard to achieve because of staffing issues and the difficulties in recruiting staff to deliver gas training in particular.

     • 4.1.6 A spring reforecast had been undertaken in which the expected Total Comprehensive Income after restructuring costs decreased by £156k, from a deficit of £946k to a deficit of £1,102k. The position would be reviewed again at the summer reforecast.

     • 4.1.7 The spring reforecast would result in a breach of one of the bank covenants, although the College’s financial health remained in the ‘requires improvement’ financial health rating. The College had been in discussions with the Bank over a waiver or adjustment to the covenants.

   • 4.2 Governors made a number of comments and asked the following questions including:

     • 4.2.1 Was the interest rate on the loan fixed? The rate for the loan with Santander was fixed; the loan with the DfE was fixed annually and so might come down at the next review.

     • 4.2.2 What steps were being taken to recoup the lost full-cost income from the gas provision? The College’s ability to recruit had been hampered by the inability to secure staff to deliver the provision. It remained very difficult to recruit staff although this was an area where there remained demand for training.

     • 4.2.3 What was the reason for the increase in staff costs as a percentage of income? This was mainly attributable to the 6.5% pay rise, national living wage increases and pension costs.

     • 4.2.4 What opportunities were there to try innovative approaches to working with employer bodies to recruit staff in shortage areas? This had been attempted and work was ongoing including with housebuilders but there was not much interest. Intervention was needed, probably at ministerial level, to communicate the urgency of the situation and the potential impact on the future workforce. The lack of a devolution deal meant it was much harder to get traction locally.

     • 4.2.5 Was the difficulty in recruiting related to pay? In part, the College paid golden hellos and market supplements. It was also about the lack of flexibility compared to working as a self-employed contractor.

   • 4.3 The Chair commented that F&GP had reviewed the finance report in detail and had seen the confirmation from the bank that it was looking at options around the covenants. The summer reforecast would provide a further update.

   • 4.4 Members of the Corporation noted the Period 6 finance report and approved the spring reforecast.

     Chan Kataria joined the meeting.

5. Plans for 2024/25 - confidential

   Zubair Limbada left the meeting

6. Student Experience Strategy Review

   • 6.1 The Director of Student Services and Marketing presented a review of the Student Experience Strategy. The following points were highlighted.

     • 6.1.1 Progress against the objectives within the strategy was described. Good progress was being made and the College had come a long way in terms of both student and staff engagement.

     • 6.1.2 Work on the careers strategy and particularly the recruitment of a SEND specialist had enhanced the experience for SEND students.

     • 6.1.3 There had been good engagement with employers including over the benefits of work experience and internships. An inclusive employer engagement event was planned for May.

     • 6.1.4 There was still work to do with employers including assessing the impact of the wider personal development (PD) offer on the workplace and getting more employer feedback to inform the future PD offer.

     • 6.1.5 Further work on the student voice was also planned to ensure that timely and meaningful feedback was collected and acted on.

   • 6.2 Governors made the following comments and asked a number of questions including:

     • 6.2.1 It was really good to see progress with the strategy.

     • 6.2.2 It was a well thought out strategy and the shift in emphasis from programmes to careers was good. It would be helpful to think about how impact could be measured. Noted.

     • 6.2.3 What was meant by getting ‘timely’ feedback? The current student survey was annual but there would be opportunities to ask questions about aspects of the student experience earlier, for example, enrolment, while the experience was recent.

     • 6.2.4 It was good to see the College reaching students with protected characteristics. Were there any groups who were particularly hard to reach? SEND students, although discussions with the Head of SAIL were ongoing to see how student voice could be captured including for students who were non-verbal. There was good local practice which the College could learn from. It would need to be more flexible and perhaps ask different questions to different groups of students. Apprentices were also difficult to reach as they had more opportunities outside College and were not always interested in engaging.

     • 6.2.5 It was a very encouraging report. Was there any scope for looking at students’ experience beyond College? This would be challenging as collecting destinations data was quite difficult. There was more to be done around alumni and capturing and promoting case studies of successful students.

     • 6.2.6 The work with employers was very encouraging. Was there 4 anything that had been particularly successful in engaging employers? The College had good employer engagement. Maintaining the relationships and involving employers in curriculum planning and through the Advisory Boards had been valuable. The next steps would be to focus on employers who were truly inclusive.

   • 6.3 It was reported that the support fund for employers taking T level placements was being withdrawn. This was felt to be very short-sighted and would impact on the College’s ability to find placements. A few employers had already indicated they would not be offering placements without the financial support.

   • 6.4 Members of the Corporation noted the Student Engagement Strategy review.

7. Staff Culture Survey

   • 7.1 The Director of HR presented a summary of the results of the staff culture survey. The following points were highlighted.

     • 7.1.1 There was a 69% response rate, 14% higher than the previous survey which was considered a good response for this type of survey in a large college. However, in some areas of the College return rates were low notably Estates and Campus Services and Construction. Part Time Lecturers had the lowest response rate at 40.5%.

     • 7.1.2 86% of all respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with all prompts.

     • 7.1.3 Staff felt most satisfied with knowing where to find information about safeguarding and how to keep knowledge up to date; knowing who to contact if they were concerned about someone; being aware of the College Values; and communications, which was the greatest strength compared with other colleges (+20 against benchmark).

     • 7.1.4 Staff members felt least satisfied with questions around: IT equipment; senior managers providing clear direction and leadership although this had increased since the last survey and was 10% against benchmark; and staff mental health. The provision of a safe working environment was the greatest weakness compared to benchmarks.

     • 7.1.5 Lecturers were the least satisfied group of staff. Managers were the most satisfied group.

     • 7.1.6 There was little difference in overall satisfaction rates based on ethnic origin. However, staff with an unknown or ‘other’ ethnicity showed the lowest level of satisfaction. Black staff tended to have lower scores than White and Asian colleagues. There was little difference between the scores of men and women. The 7% of staff who categorised themselves as disabled scored lower than other groups on questions relating to EDI.

     • 7.1.7 An action plan had been developed and the findings had been discussed by the SLT, EDI Committee, Health and Safety Committee, JCNC and with the diversity networks.

   • 7.2 Governors made the following comments and asked a number of questions including:

     • 7.2.1 Given that the response rate was only 69% and 31% did not 5 respond, how did the College know about their views of safeguarding? Was this a concern? 69% was considered good compared to other FE colleges. The College could not know about the views of those who did not respond but the response was felt to be representative of the whole staff. There were other metrics in relation to safeguarding and all staff completed safeguarding training.

     • 7.2.2 What could be done to encourage more staff to complete the survey? The response rate had increased significantly over the past three years. HR staff could not have worked harder to get responses; some people would just not want to respond.

     • 7.2.3 There could sometimes be a trust issue if people felt it was possible to be identified. Agreed but the survey was confidential and anonymous and this had been explained.

     • 7.2.4 The response rate was a huge shift from previous years and 69% was a good response. There would always be issues with pay and workload which it was hard to address.

     • 7.2.5 The responses around IT were concerning, particularly the responses from teaching staff. Agreed; the response was two points below benchmark and more work was needed to improve satisfaction with IT.

     • 7.2.6 To what extent was there bottom up engagement with the results and could staff be empowered to drive change? The results had been shared with all staff. There was more that could be done in terms of pulse surveys and focus groups although communication across the College was good. There would be dialogue with the unions and the staff networks.

     • 7.2.7 What actions were being taken in areas where there were higher levels of dissatisfaction? The results had been shared with Directors who then took responsibility for drawing up action plans for their areas with the support of the HR Business Partners.

   • 7.3 Members of the Corporation noted the responses to the staff culture survey review and requested a report back on progress with the action plan at the October 2024 meeting.

8. Accountability Statement

   • 8.1 The Principal presented the Accountability Statement. The following points were highlighted.

     • 8.1.1 The accountability agreement was a two-part document setting the overall expectations of providers in return for the Department for Education (DfE)’s funding. One part would be created by the DfE, the other, the accountability statement would be created by the College.

     • 8.1.2 The statement followed the required template and now included information about how the College’s provision met local need, as required by the local needs duty. More detail was also covered in the Strategic Plan.

     • 8.1.3 Providers were required to submit their Accountability Statements by 30 June 2024; these had to be approved by the Corporation before submission.

   • 8.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

     • 8.2.1 Where would the document go? It would be shared with the ESFA and published on the website.

     • 8.2.2 Did the statement sufficiently cover eliminating poverty and promoting cultural capital? These were covered by the first action and by the Strategic Plan.

     • 8.2.3 Had the LSIP added anything distinctive of value to the process or the statement? Not really, the LSIP process worked better and had more impact where there was a combined authority that had the power to make change locally.

   • 8.3 Governors approved the Accountability Statement for submission to the ESFA.

9. Progress report on operating statement

   • 9.1 The Principal presented a report on progress with the Operating Statement. The following points were highlighted.

     • 9.1.1 Many of the areas described in the paper had been reported during the meeting.

     • 9.1.2 In addition, the College had been very successful in bidding for external funding. It had a good track record and a detailed report would be made at the end of the year. The recently refurbished engineering building had been made possible with external funding.

     • 9.1.3 Work on how the College could made positive use of AI was underway, including a pilot of Teachermatic. A report on the use of AI would be made at a future meeting.

     • 9.1.4 The server infrastructure was now out of support and was considered a risk. The costs of replacing this would need to be factored into the budget.

   • 9.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

     • 9.2.1 Given the potential for cuts to unprotected budgets, education reform and further policy change, how was the College making sure it was keeping up to date with all the developments and the impact these might have? The College could only factor in the information currently available; there were sufficient management mitigations for the risks identified and staff across the organisation continued to keep an eye on curriculum reform and other potential developments.

     • 9.2.2 How confident was the ELT that waiting a year for server replacement was the right decision? Costs had been allocated for the start of the academic year; this was a priority.

     • 9.2.3 Feedback from the Director of IT confirmed that the server software was being patched and updated; the hardware was being supported by the supplier on a voluntary basis. The Director of IT felt this was manageable at the moment. The 7 greater concern was around other equipment, including laptops, reaching the end of their lifecycle and the potential this might have on the ability to achieve Cyber Essentials Plus next year.

   • 9.3 Members of the Corporation noted the progress report on the Operating Statement.

10. Code of Good Governance

    • 10.1 The Director of Governance and Policy presented the new Code of Good Governance. The following points were highlighted.

      • 10.1.1 The Corporation was required to adopt a governance Code; to date it had chosen to adopt the Code of Good Governance for English Colleges which was developed by the Association of Colleges (AoC) in 2015. The Code was revised in 2019 and 2021 but a major review during 2022/23 had been now completed, resulting in a new Code.

      • 10.1.2 The current Code would lapse at the end of this academic year and so the Corporation would need to agree to adopt the revised Code from 1 August 2024.

      • 10.1.3 A self-assessment of compliance with the new Code had been completed. This and an audit by RSM indicated the College would comply with the Code and already used many of the recommended practices. 10.2 Members of the Corporation noted the new Code of Good Governance and agreed to adopt the Code from 1 August 2024.

11. Link/Lead Governor Roles

    • 11.1 The Director of Governance and Policy presented a report on link/lead governor roles. The following points were highlighted.

      • 11.1.1 The primary responsibility of a link or lead governor was to enhance the understanding of the board in the area to which they were linked. It was good practice to provide role descriptions for specific governor roles to set out the expectations and parameters for the role.

      • 11.1.2 Link/lead governors should be careful not to act as an unpaid consultant or get actively involved in the operational work of that area. This could be confusing for staff but also had the potential for a committee and/or the Board to be in a position of scrutinising or challenging its own work, exposing governors to individual liability.

      • 11.1.3 Role descriptions were provided which were based on model descriptions. Lead/link governors were invited to discuss them in more detail with the Director of Governance and Policy.

    • 11.2 In response to a question as to what a safeguarding visit might cover, it was confirmed that an agenda would be discussed with the safeguarding lead governor.

    • 11.3 Members of the Corporation noted the link/lead governor role 8 descriptions.

12. Governor Visits Reports

    • 12.1 A series of reports from governors who had recently visited the College was provided. The following points were highlighted.

      • 12.1.1 There had been more visits this year than ever before and governors were thanked for taking the time to come in to College; staff and students valued the opportunity to speak to governors.

        • 12.1.2 The reports were shared with the staff involved in the visits and were considered by the ELT and any actions identified.

    • 12.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

      • 12.2.1 It was suggested that the report form needed reviewing to clarify the purpose of the visit. Agreed. A revised visit report form and guidance would be developed for the next academic year.

      • 12.2.2 The feedback loop to staff also needed explaining and clarifying. Agreed; this would be made clearer.

      • 12.2.3 If governors wanted to provide feedback which was not shared with staff, what should they do? Any feedback which governors wanted to provide but not include in their report should be referred to the Director of Governance and Policy.

    • 12.3 Members of the Corporation noted the visit reports.

13. Any other business

    • 13.1 The Chair explained that a recruitment process to fill existing vacancies on the Corporation would be starting soon. More information would be circulated and governors were asked to share this through their networks.

14. Interim Safeguarding and Prevent Report

    • 14.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the interim Safeguarding and Prevent Report.

15. Partnerships and Projects Report

    • 15.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the Partnerships and Projects report.

16. Item from Audit Committee: Risk Management

    • 16.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the Risk Management Update.

17. Interim Complaints Report

    • 17.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the Interim Complaints 9 Report.

18. Dates of future meetings

    • 7/8 June 2024

    • Away Days - 3 July 2024