Curriculum Strategy and Quality Improvement Minutes 25 April 2024

Curriculum Strategy and Quality Improvement Minutes 25 April 2024

Corporation and Committee Minutes

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

Meeting of the Curriculum Strategy and Quality Improvement Committee Held on 25 April 2024

Present: Jackie Rossa (Chair), Verity Hancock, Lesley Giles, Carol Goode, Sallyann Turner

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

  1. Declaration of Interest

    • 1.1 There were no declarations of interest.

  2. Apologies for absence

    • 2.1 Apologies were received from Harmesh Manghra, Chloe Bakewell and Heather Powell.

  3. Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising

    • 3.1 The minutes of the meeting on 29 February 2024 were agreed as an accurate record and approved.

    • 3.2 MATTERS ARISING

      • 3.2.1 Item 4.3.1 would be picked up during the Governors’ Away Day.

  4. Personal Development Update (Adult and He)

    • 4.1 The Vice Principal, Study Programmes and Apprenticeships, gave an update on PD for adult and HE students. The following points were highlighted.

      • 4.1.1 This paper provided more details of the College’s Personal Development offer for adults and HE students and provided information on the work to map the PD offer against the Ofsted Framework.

      • 4.1.2 Information about specific activities was listed in the appendices.

      • 4.1.3 Since the Ofsted inspection the College had sought out providers which had been awarded grade one to learn from their good practice. These providers were offering a similar model to Leicester College; however, enrichment was considered part of their PD offer and there was a focus on getting adults and HE students involved in enrichment activities.

      • 4.1.4 The College proposed increasing activity by forming a strategic group to map out the wider PD offer including enrichment. A lot of PD activity was already happening, but there needed to be a means of capturing enrichment activity as well.

      • 4.1.5 The Student Enrichment Team had been made aware of where there were gaps in the timetable.

      • 4.1.6 The EQUALS online platform was in the process of being updated.

      • 4.1.7 Votes4Colleges would be launched for adults in September 2024.

    • 4.2 Governors made the following comments.

      • 4.2.1 Ofsted did not judge the impact of PD. However, this did not mean that the College should not measure impact. It would be useful to look at collecting evidence of this and also to be clear about what the College saw as the purpose of PD. Noted.

      • 4.2.2 Adult students could feel isolated and excluded. This paper suggested that the College was looking for ways to include adult students which was encouraging. Adult students had a lot of experience, and it would be a good idea to share this with younger students as peers. A peer mentoring project had already commenced for T Levels and was working well. This could possibly grow into a leadership opportunity which would look good on students’ CVs.

      • 4.2.3 Was the voice of adult students used to find out what they wanted? Yes, students would be consulted about they wanted and this would be used to map out the provision

      • 4.2.4 The approach of embedding enrichment activity into the curriculum was interesting. Adults could have extra responsibilities and commitments, and if activities were not embedded it might be difficult for these students to take part. Activities were embedded and timetabled for 16-19s. However, for adults this was challenging as the hours which they are allocated were solely for their qualifications. HE was similar although there was more embedded activity. Finding out what students would want to participate in would help in ensuring the offer was relevant and attractive.

      • 4.2.5 Students could be fed up with activities always being online. Not all activities were online but there was a balance to strike which recognised that not everyone had the time to participate in some activities.

      • 4.2.6 Did this also include part-time students? It did.

      • 4.2.7 Was community engagement and volunteering included. It was.

      • 4.2.8 It would be useful to report back on this after more research had been undertaken. Noted.

    • 4.3 Governors noted the update on Personal Development (Adult and HE).

  5. Comparative Data

    • 5.1 16-18 PERFORMANCE MEASURES

      • 5.1.1 The Quality Improvement Manager presented the 16-18 Performance Measures. The following points were highlighted.

        • 5.1.1.1. The DfE had made a commitment to not use GCSE examination results from 2020 and 2021. The data showed comparisons with all schools and colleges. The number of students in this cohort was very small and until starting points were reintroduced, the data was not particularly helpful.

        • 5.1.1.2. In terms of destinations, progression for both apprenticeships and to employment was positive.

        • 5.1.1.3. The College compared well with other local and regional colleges.

        • 5.1.1.4. Further training was required on initial and formative assessments.

        • 5.1.1.5. Although the achievement gap for disadvantaged students continued to narrow further support was required to get them towards their target grades and provide higher expectations.

      • 5.1.2 Governors made the following comments.

        • 5.1.2.1. It was notable that disadvantaged students were still doing less well. Overall, the gap had narrowed, but the grades they had achieved were lower. More interventions needed to be put in place; this was in the QIP.

        • 5.1.2.2. Were NEET students included within the disadvantaged student data. It was not known if they were disadvantaged or not. No historical trend had been observed.

        • 5.1.2.3. What was the trend on NEETs? This would be checked. It was important to remember that this report only covered 4% of the College’s students.

        • 5.1.2.4. What kind of support were disadvantaged students receiving? There had been a lot of training provided on SEND and adaptive teaching to improve lecturers’ skills in supporting students. There had also been more academic tutorials.

        • 5.1.2.5. What about peer mentoring? This had been done previously and there was some work coming out of DMU around mentoring and neurodiverse students.

      • 5.1.3 Governors noted the 16-18 Performance Measures.

    • 5.2 NATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT RATES 2022/23

      • 5.2.1 The Interim Director of Quality Improvement presented the NARs for 2022/23. The following points were highlighted.

        • 5.2.1.1. Overall, achievement rates were improving.

        • 5.2.1.2. 16-18 achievement rates had shown an improvement between 2021/22 and 2022/23, although there had not been a significant jump in improvement year-on-year.

        • 5.2.1.3. The Level 1 achievement rate was still low. There needed to be more analysis of what the issues were around certificates for both 16-19 and adults.

        • 5.2.1.4. English and maths continued to do well against the NARs.

        • 5.2.1.5. English levels 9-4 was predicted at 37%. Maths levels 9-4 was predicted at 31%. 5.2.2 Governors made the following comments.

        • 5.2.2.1. What was the difference between before the pandemic and now? The main difference was due to the condition of funding as there were many more students taking English and maths, which left less time for their vocational area. There were also different issues emerging since Covid-19 such as increasing mental health problems. Teaching staff were having to work hard to maintain small improvements and given the increase in numbers, marginal improvements were more positive than they at first looked. Tuition funding had been used to support students.

        • 5.2.2.2. Would this funding be ending? It would and although there was some additional funding to replace this, given the teaching requirements, the College would only get a slight net gain. There was no recognition of how difficult young people are finding things.

        • 5.2.2.3. Achievement rates were generally quite low in apprenticeships. Under the accountability framework there was a target of around 64% and it must be remembered that some of the apprenticeships could be four years long. The Quality Team were looking at how to realign the data to reflect the accountability measures.

        • 5.2.2.4. Was there any difference between achievement for standards and frameworks? There was no significant difference.

        • 5.2.2.5. Was there a sector wide issue in health? There was, although these were small numbers.

        • 5.2.2.6. What was the percentage of high grades in English and maths for last year? It was above average. In general, for 16-18, a third of students get through English and 20% get through maths.

        • 5.2.2.7. The apprenticeship rates for Construction and Engineering were better than the NAR despite there being staffing issues in those curriculum areas. Staffing issues were less acute for apprenticeships.

      • 5.2.3 Governors noted the NARs for 2022/23.

    • 5.3 R06 (MIDES REPORT)

      • 5.3.1 The Interim Director of Quality Improvement presented the R06 Mides Report. The following points were highlighted.

        • 5.3.1.1. This report compared the College with the AoC’s MiDES report and was an in-year comparison of colleges, both regionally and nationally.

        • 5.3.1.2. Recruitment was increasing significantly particularly for adults. There was a positive year-on-year trend.

        • 5.3.1.3. Retention looked high and was broadly in-line with the R08 from the previous year.

        • 5.3.1.4. Retention in apprenticeships was increasing.

        • 5.3.1.5. The predicted number of students was showing growth. There were questions around sustaining continued growth and how this would be managed. There was, however, evidence which contradicted this and showed that, while numbers were slightly increasing in the county, they were decreasing in the city. This was something that would need to be planned for before the end of the decade.

      • 5.3.2 Governors made the following comments.

        • 5.3.2.1. It had been hypothesised that people were staying in education longer during the pandemic to shield themselves from the unpredictable jobs market.

        • 5.3.2.2. Was there local planning which took account of the population data? Nothing apart from the local authorities’ duty to plan for pupil numbers.

        • 5.3.2.3. Students with EHCPs achieved less well and there was an achievement gap of greater than 5%. How would this be addressed? There was a package of strategies which focused on inclusive learning. There had also been an improvement in tracking EHCPs undertaken by the Quality Team and Student Services. The Quality Team had also worked with curriculum areas on the strategies that teaching staff need to adopt for EHCP students.

        • 5.3.2.4. Were there any indicators that the work underway on the achievement gap for EHCP students would make a difference? The latest PP data showed that there were not many students with EHCPs deemed to be at risk of failing. This would feed into the dialogue with Leicester City Council around funding.

      • 5.3.3 Governors noted the R06 Mides Report.

  6. Qip Update Including KPI Monitoring

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

      • 6.1.1 Overall retention was still quite high at 95.4% (94.5% for 16-18; 95.6% for 19+).

      • 6.1.2 Retention of this year’s T Level first years was looking strong, as were T Level students looking to complete this year.

      • 6.1.3 Overall, attendance was at 85% which was in line with the previous year. Attendance had changed since the pandemic and there were discussions around closely tracking what achievement looked like against attendance.

      • 6.1.4 Predicted achievement was slightly better. The focus would be on identifying students who were at high risk and putting in place interventions. PP4 would provide a better picture.

    • 6.2 Governors made the following comments.

      • 6.2.1 It was important to investigate reasons for lower attendance. English and maths were the main areas for poor attendance. There was a lot of genuine illness, and many students were still trying to do the work even if they were not in College.

      • 6.2.2 Where there certain days, times, staff members or types of sessions where attendance was particularly low? This was tracked. One factor which was identified was when groups of students came from areas with poor public transport.

      • 6.2.3 QIP actions tend to be around monitoring and reporting rather than what will actually be changed. Sometimes the expected impact was not clear especially when it stated the action was to “improve”. This was noted and would be taken into account in next year’s QIP.

      • 6.2.4 A lot of the RAG ratings were seemed to be time related. The ratings could be linked to the impact with amber and red showing that an action might be really challenging. If something was really challenging or going in the wrong direction it should be rated as red.

    • 6.3 Governors noted the QIP Update.

  7. Agenda Items For Next Meeting

    • 7.1 The Chair requested agenda items for the next meeting of the CSQI Committee. The following comments were made.

      • 7.1.1 The Director of Governance and Policy provided details of what was in the workplan for the next meeting. This included the draft delivery plan, destinations progress, a QIP update and predicted achievement. There would also be a summary of the themes emerging from the QA meetings.

      • 7.1.2 The item on predicted grades would be particularly useful.

      • 7.1.3 Should there be something for the committee to consider? Next year’s workplan would be on the agenda.

      • 7.1.4 Could students be invited to committee meetings to talk to governors? There would need to be a focus on teaching and learning rather than repeating the topics covered by the Student Liaison Committee.

      • 7.1.5 Could there be an update on the SEND strategy? This would be discussed at the Away Day.

  8. Any Other Business

    • 8.1 There was no further business

  9. Date of Next Meeting

    • 13 June 2024