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

Meeting of the Curriculum Strategy and Quality Improvement Committee Held on 14 November 2024

Present: Jackie Rossa (Chair), Lesley Giles, Chloe Bakewell, Kyle james, Sallyann Turner*

In Attendance: Shabir Ismail - Acting Principal, Louise Hazel - Director of Governance and Policy, Kully Sandhu - Vice Principal, Adult and HE, Debi Donnarumma - Vice Principal, Study Programmes and Apprenticeships, Neil Challinor**- Quality Development Manager, Matt Widdowson (Minutes) - Governance and Policy Officer.

*via MS Teams

**item 4

1. Declaration of Interest

   • 1.1 There were no declaration of interest.

2. Apologies for absence

   • 2.1 There were no apologies. It was explained that Heather Powell had resigned as a governor.

3. Minutes of the Last Meeting and Matters Arising

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

   • 3.2 Matters arising

     • 3.2.1 It was noted that Brandon Powell had received the AoC’s Young Student of the Year award. Governors expressed their congratulations to Brandon.

   Neil Challinor joined the meeting.

4. Achievement Rates

   • 4.1 The Quality Development Manager presented the Achievement Rates for

     2023/24.The following points were highlighted.

     • 4.1.1 The overall achievement rate for E&T had decreased by 1.5% but was still 0.6% above the 2022/23 NAR.

     • 4.1.2 The achievement rate for 16-18s had increased by 0.5% to 79.2% but remained 2.5% below the NAR.

     • 4.1.3 Adult achievement rates had decreased by 2.1% to 87% which was the same as the NAR.

     • 4.1.4 Achievement for T Levels had declined by 3.8% from 2022/23 to 60.9%. There were still significant retention issues for T Levels which was a reflection of the national picture. The retention issues were mainly around construction T Levels.  

   • 4.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 4.2.1 Why had there been an issue around retention for T Level Construction? There had been issues around the style of the qualification which took longer to complete and was more academic than students might want. Another reason was that employers had been employing students who were undertaking their placements.

     • 4.2.2 What had been the consequences for T Level Construction? Were T Levels the right option for construction or did they require reforming? A lot of change including to T levels was expected as part of the national curriculum reforms which should help.

     • 4.2.3 The NARs were based on the previous year, so it was helpful to make comparisons based on the College’s own progress. There were some areas which had seen a decline and the SAR would need to look at some of the underlying reasons behind this. Agreed.

     • 4.2.4 With regards to the diversity indicators, the paper stated that there had been no areas for concern. However, mixed heritage students still had a variance of 2.5%. Agreed. The mixed heritage cohort was concentrated in 16-18 rather than 19+. This would be picked up in the QIP.

     • 4.2.5 It would be useful to have a glossary of the acronyms, or to have acronyms explained the first time they are referred to in a paper. There was an appendix containing a glossary of terms.

     • 4.2.6 It would be good to know where some of the curriculum areas sat in terms of LSIPs and funding priority areas. This information could be presented in whichever way would be most useful to governors.

     • 4.2.7 Female apprentices had been significantly outperforming male apprentices. It would be useful to understand the context to this. The areas which had declined had a higher proportion of male students. Areas with a higher proportion of female students, including hair and beauty, and business had seen an increase. 

     • 4.2.8 Apprenticeships had good attendance but lower outcomes. Did this indicate that apprentices were coming into College but not learning? Apprenticeships historically had higher attendance. There had been a strong focus on attendance in APCO, a lot of which had been focused on the flexibility of employers. This year the focus would be on the attendance of younger apprentices. There had been historical issues with achievement in the gas apprenticeships, but this provision had been closed. The closure of the engineering block during the refurbishment project had also impacted on apprenticeships.

     • 4.2.9 It would be good to see three-year data on attendance. This could be provided.

     • 4.2.10 What was the one thing that could make a difference to apprenticeship achievement? There had been an issue around apprentices getting to the EPA; if they completed the EPA they usually achieved. This required closer tracking and monitoring, and there had been a lot of work around the quality and timeliness of progress reviews. The closure of the engineering block had also delayed EPAs. There had been improvements in the Business area which were down to improving sequencing and managing staff skill sets. Engineering still had an issue with recruiting the right staff.

     • 4.2.11 Hair and Beauty had been another outlier when it came to attendance. There had been an effort to ensure that work was sent out to students who were unable to get into College. This led to an improvement in achievement.

     • 4.2.12 The key factor for adults was retention. The decision was made to review the community learning provision and move towards tailored learning and away from hobby courses. This year, Community Learning should see significant improvements.

     • 4.2.13 Was there any incentive for apprentices to complete? Since they were already employed, they did not always need to need to complete the programme.

   • 4.3 Governors noted the Achievement Rates for 2023/24.

      Neil Challinor left the meeting.

5. Draf SAR and QIP

   • 5.1 The Acting Principal presented the draft SAR and QIP. The following points were highlighted.

     • 5.1.1 The SAR was in a similar format to the previous year and had been independently reviewed.

     • 5.1.2 The QIP was a working document, and a lot of detail had been included to provide the Committee with assurance.

   • 5.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 5.2.1 The SAR would be discussed at this meeting. Given that governors had already heard that achievement was not where it should be, it would be important to carefully consider the SAR.

     • 5.2.2 The focus on movement towards outstanding was problematic in that not all areas were yet solidly good. The root causes did not come through and it was difficult to know what the real issues were.

     • 5.2.3 The SAR stated that the quality of education was good, but the data did not always support this claim. ‘Good’ should be better than just average. There must be reasons why the College had lower achievement in some areas. Achievement rates have improved since the Ofsted inspection. Overall, the College was rated Good for 16-19.

     • 5.2.4 It would be easier to understand the QIP if the issues were clearer.  Noted. In addition to the College SAR and QIP, each individual area had their own SAR and QIP and the detail was contained in these.

     • 5.2.5 Teaching and Learning should be the driver, but the SAR did not contain much about this.

     • 5.2.6 Issues were sometimes identified but it was not clear what the solutions should be. This would be picked up in the QIP.

     • 5.2.7 The SAR stated that personal development for adults had not been ‘age appropriate’. This did not seem to be the root issue though, and there was nothing regarding the impact of the problem. The personal development for adults had been adopted from 16-18. Areas were now developing their own personal development offer for adults. This needed to be extended across the College.

     • 5.2.8 The SAR included a lot of tables in the appendices which could have been expressed as text in the SAR to help provide some narrative. Noted. The SAR was based on a previous version which had been deliberately shortened.

     • 5.2.9 A lot of colleges were thinking in terms of a journey from ‘good’ to ‘great’.

     • 5.2.10 For the section on adult achievement rates, it might be helpful to bring out some more detail and explain the trends in areas.

     • 5.2.11 There did not appear to be any information around staff shortages and how this might align with curriculum issues.

     • 5.2.12 What was the College’s alumni network like? Was this something that could be further developed?

     • 5.2.13 Did the SAR and QIP require further approval? The SAR would normally go before the Corporation in December for approval. The QIP was a live document and would be brought back to the CSQI Committee at the next meeting. The QIP might need to be reviewed considering any changes made to the SAR.

     • 5.2.14 Did the SAR require the approval of the CSQI Committee? The CSQI Committee would recommend the SAR to Corporation for approval. Once an amended version had been drafted it could be presented to the committee’s Chair and Vice Chair for sign off.

     • 5.2.15 Reviewing the suggested report for CSQI Meetings set out in Appendix 3 would help shape the agenda for the next meeting. 

     • 5.2.16 Would the suggested report be populated for the next meeting? It would.

     • 5.2.17 Would the CSQI Committee be selecting the areas for deep dives? These areas had already been identified and were included in the QIP. However, the committee were able to hear back from areas based on the reports which had been presented to CSQI.

     • 5.2.18 A useful addition to the suggested report would be a section on key highlights. Noted.

   • 5.3 Governors requested that the SAR be revised to reflect the points discussed and agreed to delegate approval for recommendation to the Chair and Vice Chair.

   • 5.4 Governors approved the QIP covering report to CSQI in Appendix 3. QIP update including KPI monitoring and predicted achievement.

6. Policy Update

   • 6.1 The Vice Principals presented an update on Skills England. The following points were highlighted.

     • 6.1.1 England’s skills system was considered to be fragmented and confusing.

     • 6.1.2 Skills England would be a new government body charged with delivering England’s skills needs. It would be driven by the government’s objective of increasing productivity and growth. The body would bring together partners including employers and trade unions to develop skills pathways. Evidence from LSIPs would also inform the skills requirements.

     • 6.1.3 The key messages from the government paper included:

       • 6.1.3.1 The need for meeting skills demand. This was something that the College already considered as part of its long-term curriculum planning.

       • 6.1.3.2 The report acknowledged regional disparities and provided useful market intelligence.

       • 6.1.3.3 There were details of the challenges faced by employers – what kind of skills did they value, and how are these matched? It also addressed the lack of a mechanism to invest in skills.

       • 6.1.3.4 Some of the barriers were highlighted including unclear pathways and the need for qualifications to be more closely aligned with employers’ needs.

       • 6.1.3.5 Employer investment in skills had reduced during the previous decade by 19% per employee.

       • 6.1.3.6 Demographic change would need to be considered. There was an aging population which, when coupled with an increasing retirement age, would mean that people would be in employment for longer. This also meant that there would be an impact on health and social care, with the need for non-clinical roles set to increase by 22%.

       • 6.1.3.7 Technological change also needed to be considered. Low skilled work may be at risk from AI, while the need for some professional STEM roles was due to grow.

       • 6.1.3.8 The green transition may require more jobs in specialised sectors such as heat pump installation. Jobs in these areas tended to require a higher level of skill and education.

       • 6.1.3.9 The report highlighted how Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) could reduce the reliance on traditional skilled labour in construction.

     • 6.1.4 Apprenticeship reform might provide some great opportunities for the College.

     • 6.1.5 There was not much emphasis on adult skills in the report and pushing back the Lifelong Learning entitlement to 2027 was not helpful.

     • 6.1.6 There was nothing in the report around ESOL which was a priority area for Leicester College.

     • 6.1.7 Leicester College would need to consider the following:

       • 6.1.7.1 Balancing national and regional demands. There were some key regional sectors which the College needed to respond to.

       • 6.1.7.2 The development of HQTs would help develop the pathways.

       • 6.1.7.3 There needed to be a flexible offer which would meet the needs of employers.

       • 6.1.7.4 New industries required the College to have the right staff and technology. College staff needed to be upskilled. Dual professionals worked well for the College especially in performing arts.

       • 6.1.7.5 There needed to be a more holistic approach to careers education and a destination led curriculum.

   • 6.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 6.2.1 Consideration needed to be given to the competencies required for jobs. There had already been discussions around progression. If qualifications were a barrier to recruitment, competencies in specific skills or sector areas could be considered instead.

     • 6.2.2 For the LLE, there appeared to be a school of thought that credits had to come together in a ‘full fat’ qualification and, if they did not, then the learner should be liable for the full cost of their course.

     • 6.2.3 Was there any mention of prioritisation in the report? While there were still some unknowns, some of the issues that the report raised could be put into a timeline. There would be a session with CLT on this.

   • 6.3 Governors noted the policy update on Skills England.

7. Items for the Next Agenda

   • 7.1 The Chair requested suggestions for the agenda for the next meeting of the CSQI Committee.

   • 7.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 7.2.1 It would be useful to identify a specific area which had seen significant improvement. One of the apprenticeships sectors could be considered.

     • 7.2.2 Other suggestions identified on the workplan included: Personal development, T Levels, Care experienced students and internal progression. Personal Development should be an agenda item for discussion. The other items could be for information.

   • 7.3 Governors requested that APCO be invited to present at the next meeting and that apprentices also be invited.

   • 7.4 Student governors were asked to consider some questions that they may wish to ask the apprentices who are invited to the next meeting.

8. Any Other Business

   • 8.1 There was no other business.

9. Date of Next Meetings

   • 27 February 2025

   • 27 March 2025

   • 19 June 2025