Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of Leicester College Corporation:

Meeting of the Curriculum Strategy and Quality Improvement Committee Held on 13 June 2024

Present: Jackie Rossa (Chair), Verity Hancock, Lesley Giles, Carol Goode, Chloe Bakewell, Harmesh Manghra*.

In Attendance: Louise Hazel - Director of Governance and Policy, Kully Sandhu - Vice Principal, Adult and HE, Debi Donnarumma - Vice Principal, Study Programmes and Apprenticeships, Fran Monk - Interim Director of Quality Improvement, Jody Kerrod* - Quality Improvement Manager, Matt Widdowson (Minutes) - Governance and Policy Officer.

*via MS Teams

1. Declaration of Interest

   • 1.1 It was noted that Jackie Rossa had been involved with the Ofsted inspection of SMB Group.

2. Apologies for absence

   • 2.1 Apologies were received from Sallyann Turner and Heather Powell.

3. Minutes of the Last Meeting and Matters Arising

   • 3.1 The minutes of the meeting on 25 April 2024 were agreed as an accurate record and approved.

   • 3.2 Matters arising

     • 3.2.1 Although the College was aware of the overall NEET (not in employment, education or training) rate for the city (5.6%), the City

       Council was yet to supply further details. The Principal and Vice Principal, Adult and HE, had met with the local authority’s Director of SEND recently including a discussion of how to tackle the number of NEET young people. Further information from the Council was awaited.

   Jody Kerrod joined the meeting.

4. Destinations and progress report 2022/23

   • 4.1 The Quality Improvement Manager presented the Destination and Progression Report for 2022/23. The following points were highlighted.

     • 4.1.1 This report provided information about destinations and progression for 2022/23.

     • 4.1.2 Those studying at a lower level were more likely to progress internally. Those studying at higher levels were more likely to progress into employment.

     • 4.1.3 56% of the students who had gained employment had indicated that their employment was relevant to their studies. 54% of students progressing into employment identified that this was continuing employment.

     • 4.1.4 Students had indicated that the soft skills which they had gained through the College had helped them to get a job or take the next steps (23%) or had helped improve their confidence and self-esteem (21%).

     • 4.1.5 Leicester College compared favourably when external comparisons were made for 2021 leavers.
       m.

     • 4.1.6 There was significant difference between younger and old students (17%). The extent of ESOL provision might explain some of this difference.

     • 4.1.7 White and other ethnic groups had a lower number of positive destinations than black students (7% difference).

     • 4.1.8 Disabled students were less likely to have a positive destination (10% difference).

     • 4.1.9 Further planned actions included providing targeted support for

       groups of students with lower positive destination rates and promotion of IAG.

   • 4.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 4.2.1 It was acknowledged that it was difficult to obtain destinations data, so the College had done well to collect this amount of data.

     • 4.2.2 Did the difference in positive destinations for age relate to internal or external destinations?

       It related to both.

     • 4.2.3 Was there any particular age group among the over 19s who were particularly affected?

       Destinations for over 19s had not been banded by age, but this could be done.

     • 4.2.4 How long had this survey run for, and was there any time series data which could help develop a narrative?

       The same dataset had been collected for the past three years. Work was underway to use these data to identify trends. Data was now being collected termly which would provide the ability to track destinations more closely.

     • 4.2.5 Was there an alumni group and, if so, what role could this play in recruitment?

       There was an alumni group which was managed by the Marketing Team. Marketing could be asked to provide more detail.

     • 4.2.6 What was the reason for the 2% fall in students going into employment?

       The College did not collect this information. When collecting information, the College had to consider the costs and benefits of doing so.

     • 4.2.7 It was important to note that students who had not gone to positive destinations might still have benefited from some of the soft skills which they had gained at the College.

       Noted.

     • 4.2.8 54% internal progression sounded quite low.

       This was a high figure. It meant that lots of students had finished their courses and had progressed to positive destinations in HE or employment. It was also important to remember that there 27% of student destinations which could not be captured.

     • 4.2.9 It would be useful to know how apprentices had progressed in terms of gaining a pay rise or promotion or benefiting from being more versatile in their role.

       The exit survey might help in collecting this information.

     • 4.2.10 Was this information provided for official purposes, or was it just a management tool?

       For several years the government had been considering whether to pay colleges based on destinations and outcomes. However, last year it was removed from the ILR which suggested that it was no longer the intention to use this as a measure. It was still useful information for the College.

     • 4.2.11 This was valuable information which should be used for intelligence and insight. Some of the qualitative interpretation had been quite useful.

       Noted, although it was recognised that it would never be perfect as it was not possible to track ever former student.

   • 4.3 Governors noted the Destination and Progress Report 2022.23.

   Jody Kerrod left the meeting.

5. Themes from QA and deep dives: summary term 2

   • 5.1 The Interim Director of Quality Improvement presented the Themes from QA and Deep Dives for Term 2. The following points were highlighted.

     • 5.1.1 Deep Dives were a relatively new process which had been developed to prepare curriculum areas for inspection.

     • 5.1.2 There had been nine deep dives during 2022/23. Due to the Ofsted inspection, there had only been two in 2023/24, in Performing Arts and Food..

     • 5.1.3 Some of the areas for development included Markbook compliance and target setting. There was also some inconsistency around practice.

     • 5.1.4 Achievement had been higher in 16-19 but had since dropped for PP4.

     • 5.1.5 There had been an issue around awarding bodies moving dates which had put pressure on curriculum areas. The College would be discussing this with the awarding bodies.

     • 5.1.6 The register policy would be reviewed, and registers would be picked up during performance reviews to ensure compliance.

     • 5.1.7 Markbook would be relaunched in September 2024 to reiterate the expectations. Staff will also be given further to training to ensure that they fully understand the purpose of Markbook.

   • 5.2 Governors made the following comments

     • 5.2.1  What was Markbook?

       Markbook was an internal system used to track student progress.

     • 5.2.2  With regards to strengths and areas for improvement, some indication of proportionality would be useful to provide more context. It would be helpful to understand how many curriculum areas improvements were required in, and where these were.

       This could be provided in the future.

     • 5.2.3  It was hard to get a sense of learner progress from this report.

       Noted.

     • 5.2.4  The report needed to be more specific about what the issues were.

       Noted.

     • 5.2.5  With regards to the issue around employers not being effectively consulted about curriculum design, was this in all areas or just some areas?

       This only referred to the two deep dives which were carried out. Performing Arts and Food had a lot of engagement with employers as part of the curriculum but could not demonstrate that employers were involved at the design stage.

     • 5.2.6  Employers should be able to provide their input at the design stage.

       This could be difficult due to the expectations being set by the awarding bodies. Additionally, not all employers wanted to be involved at this stage as they saw this as the College’s role.

     • 5.2.7  The lists of strengths were quite long. However, some of the dimensions of the criteria were being met, while others were not.

       Noted.

     • 5.2.8  Why were only two deep dives conducted?

       This was due to the recent Ofsted inspection.

     • 5.2.9  As previously highlighted, there were themes around lower levels around attendance and progression.

       This had not been picked up. There had been a dip in level 1. These were due to issues that would normally be expected at level 1 but this was better than it had been previously. Curriculum were managing well with some of the issues which they were facing. Poorer performance of level 1 was in the QIP.

   • 5.3 Governors noted the themes from QA and deep dives for term 2.

6. QIP update including KPI monitoring and predicted achievement

   • 6.1 The Interim Director of Quality Improvement presented an update on the QIP. The following points were highlighted.

     • 6.1.1 16-18 retention was at 90.3% which was up on 2022/23 R10.19+ retention was also up at 95.9%. T Level retention was at 74.5% which was just below the target of 75.1%. Normally a dip would be expected, but retention had held quite well and was slightly up on the previous year.

     • 6.1.2 Overall attendance had plateaued at 84.41% and was holding well. There was no drop seen around exam time.

     • 6.1.3 Progress PP4: there had been a slight decrease from PP3, particularly for 16–18-year-olds (78.4% at PP4 excluding ‘high risk’). Curriculum areas were felt to have been overly cautious. There would be an action to strengthen the prediction process so that there was confidence that curriculum staff better understood the framework.

     • 6.1.4 The PP4 for HE was based on mock exams when students had sat four past exam papers on the same day which explained the higher drop from PP3.

     • 6.1.5 It was thought that Access would come in at the national rate.

     • 6.1.6 There was some nervousness in curriculum as they had been unsure about where the grade boundaries would sit.

     • 6.1.7 There had been realistic conversations with curriculum around PP4predictions for T Levels.

     • 6.1.8 Outturn would be compared against progress points and interventions.

   • 6.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 6.2.1 Was the Progress Point issue due to Markbook?

       The use of Markbook was part of it. However, it was also a matter of curriculum being overly cautious, particularly for GCSEs.

     • 6.2.2  Progress Points still involved a lot of guessing.

       The College could only made predictions based on indications around grade boundaries.

     • 6.2.3 Retention was exceptional for this time of year.

       Agreed.

     • 6.2.4  The Chair had met with the Director of Quality Improvement andVice Principal to discuss bringing together information about the QIP in one place.

   • 6.3 Govenors noted the QIP update and predicted achievement.

7. Draft Curriculum Delivery Plan 2024/25

   • 7.1 The Vice Principals presented the Draft Curriculum Delivery Plan 2024/25. The following points were highlighted.

     • 7.1.1 EPYP was similar to the last plan. The main area of change was in T Levels. The College had learned a lot through introducing the current T Levels and new T Levels would be coming online. There had been other T Levels which had been initially planned for which were not being offered due to the College not having the expertise or there not being the market demand.

     • 7.1.2 For Apprenticeships, the College had concentrated on improving quality. The Ofsted grade had provided confidence in the ability to deliver at scale and the College would now be looking at growth in terms of the curriculum. There would be more new apprenticeships in response to demand. Some of the key areas in engineering and construction had waiting lists.

     • 7.1.3 AEB would be replaced with the Adult Skills Fund (ASF). Tailored learning would be a strand of this which meant that non-regulated provision would need to be refreshed. It was no longer possible to offer courses for leisure purposes, so all non-regulated courses had to meet the new objectives.

     • 7.1.4 HE included 8% growth. Last year, 331 were recruited and the plan would be for 357. The aim was for between 5% and 10% growth each year. A 1+2 course had been developed with DMU. While only one HND business course was planned for next year, there might be the opportunity for an additional course.

   • 7.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 7.2.1 This paper illustrated some of the tensions between the local market and demand, and policy and funding. There was a tension between responding to local need while ensuring that the College remained a viable business.

       Agreed.

     • 7.2.2 What was some of the risk around 16-19?

       This plan would not introduce any more risk. As changes were still expected as a result of qualification reform, the aim had been not to make too many changes at this point. Going forward, there would need to be some preparation around levels 1 and 2 alternatives to T Levels. There was an awareness that there were many young people who would not have the right starting points for T Levels.

     • 7.2.3 It was good to see that the College intended to do more of what it was already good at.

   • 7.3 Governors agreed to recommend to the Corporation for approval

8. SMB Group SPA

   • 8.1 The Principal provided an update on the SMB Group Structure and Prospects Appraisal. The following points were highlighted.

     • 8.1.1 The proposal had been submitted on time and circulated to governors. It included a sensible financial plan.

     • 8.1.2 If the merger were to proceed, the College would acquire some new areas. This would provide some exciting opportunities for Leicester College students.

     • 8.1.3 It was hoped that the commissioners would recognise the College’s track record of managing a large organisation through challenging financial conditions.

     • 8.1.4 The proposal had been clear that the College would not pay for due diligence or restructuring costs; £1m had been requested as it was important that funds were not taken away from Leicester College students.

     • 8.1.5 If this proceeded, the College would need to make a presentation on 15 July 2024.

     • 8.1.6 This had been discussed with CLT. There was both some excitement and trepidation. The merger would provide a lot of opportunities. Even if the merger did not go ahead, there were still opportunities to pursue.

     • 8.1.7 There might be a potential delay to decision due to the General Election as finances may need to be approved by the Treasury.

   • 8.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 8.2.1 The proposal covered all the main points. It had been clear on the city/county split issue, around staffing and what SMB already did well.

     • 8.2.2 Had Loughborough College submitted a proposal?

       It had.

     • 8.2.3 The presentation stage would be interesting.

       Commissioners would be look at the presenter and asking themselves whether they were credible and could be worked with going forward. Governor engagement had impressed the commissioners, and the Chair of the Corporation would be part of the presentation. The Deputy Principal would also be present to discuss any financial issues raised by the commissioners.

     • 8.2.4 ELT were thanked for their work on the proposal.

   • 8.3 Governors noted the update on the SMB group SPA

9. Work plan 2024/25

   • 9.1 The Director of Governance and Policy presented the Work Plan for 2024/25. The following points were highlighted.

     • 9.1.1 The Chair had met with the Director of Governance and Policy to discuss next year’s agendas. There had been discussions around presenting a performance report which would highlight the progress made against the QIP.

     • 9.1.2 Individual curriculum areas would still be focused on in meetings, although the intention was to also bring in learners to discuss their experiences of the curriculum area.

     • 9.1.3 There had also been discussions around providing background context for committee members to read.

     • 9.1.4 There would also be the opportunity to look at the next agenda at each meeting.

   • 9.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 9.2.1 The workplan made sense in terms of the College’s business cycle. It also made sense to move from having strategic discussions to discussing the deep dives.

     • 9.2.2 Would there be the opportunity to track policy developments?

       This could be added to the plan. Once the General Election had been concluded it would be sensible to bring some of the policy drivers to this committee.

     • 9.2.3 With regards to the RAG ratings in the QIP, sometimes items were stuck on red or amber because it was not possible to progress until the end of the year. Milestones needed to be added in to make the QIP more user-friendly.

   • 9.3 Governors approved the work plan for 2024/25

10. Any Other Business

    • 10.1 There was no other business

11. Date of Next Meetings

    • 18 September 2024

    • 7 November 2024

    • 27 February 2025

    • 27 March 2025

    • 19 June 2025