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

Meeting of the Curriculum Strategy and Quality Improvement Committee Held on 27 March 2025

Present: Jackie Rossa (Chair), Nicky Randall, Shabir Ismail (Acting Principal)

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, Rachel Hall* - Director of Apprenticeships and Commercial, Matt Widdowson (Minutes) - Governance and Policy Officer.

*item 4

1. Declaration of Interest

   • 1.1 There were no declarations of interest.

   • 1.2 Nicky Randall was welcomed to the CSQI Committee.

2. Apologies for absence

   • 2.1 Apologies were received from Lesley Giles, Kyle James, and Chloe Bakewell.

   • 2.2 Neil McDougall had been due to observe but had sent apologies.

3. Minutes of the Last Meeting and Matters Arising

   • 3.1 The minutes of the meeting on 14 November 2024 were agreed as an accurate record and approved.

   • 3.2 Matters arising

     • 3.2.1 There were no matters arising.

   Rachel Hall joined the meeting.

4. Curriculum Area Focus: Apprenticeships (Electrical)

   • 4.1 The Director of Apprenticeships and Commercial gave a presentation on electrical apprenticeships. The following points were highlighted.

     • 4.1.1 The focus of this presentation was electrical apprenticeships as this area had experienced challenges. Following the COVID-19 pandemic it had been difficult to get apprentices through their EPAs and work had been undertaken to improve this situation.

     • 4.1.2 There had been 41 learners who had not completed their EPAs.

     • 4.1.3 For 2023/24 both achievement and retention had been below the NARs. As such, the area had set targets for improvement with a view to increase attendance to 95% and first-time pass rates to 50%.

     • 4.1.4 Actions for 2024/25:

       • 4.1.4.1. The workload had been redistributed among managers. A new manager had taken responsibility for electrical, and a high performing apprentice lead had provided support.

       • 4.1.4.2. Dedicated internal verification support had been implemented.

       • 4.1.4.3. There was now a dedicated link with NETT enabling the College to control bookings and resit dates. Resits were now set for within six months.

       • 4.1.4.4. The College now paid for pre-EPA training sessions at NETT so that these were available to all apprentices. This would increase the pass rates.

       • 4.1.4.5. A centralised tracking and monitoring system had been implemented.

       • 4.1.4.6. Additional agency staff had been put in place.

     • 4.1.5 It was expected that the pass rate would significantly increase.

     • 4.1.6 Next steps:

       • 4.1.6.1. Proposals had been submitted to redesign the electrical facilities to better use the space and support growth. 

       • 4.1.6.2. New test and inspection rigs would be purchased.

       • 4.1.6.3. There would be further work undertaken on the sequencing of the curriculum.

     • 4.1.7 It was predicted that more staff would be needed in 2025/26 as APCO may have been too lean with the plans for this year.

   • 4.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 4.2.1 Last year’s attendance had been lower than the APCO average. There had been staffing issues. Over the previous four years there had been a lot of staffing changes including the apprentice lead.

       Additionally, curriculum staff had been bought into APCO around three years ago and assessments had also been bought in-house. It had taken a while to get the skills coaches up to speed, and there had been an increase in workload during recruitment. It had been a struggle to meet review dates and there had been less access to internal verification. As some of the newly recruited skills coaches were not fully qualified, it had meant that there had to be a lot more countersigning of apprentices’ work. This had affected the first time pass rates.

     • 4.2.2 What had been the issues causing apprentices to not pass first time? It had been the practical work which could not take place in house. Apprentices had to travel to a NETT venue. NETT would offer additional revision sessions, but employers would have to pay for this. Apprentices with employers who paid for these sessions had been more likely to pass.

     • 4.2.3 What would be changing regarding the sequencing of the curriculum? The portfolio work would be pushed back and the teaching would be brought forward. This should significantly increase pass rates.

     • 4.2.4 What about developing teaching and learning? This was part of team time.

     • 4.2.5 How would the changes to the levy help? It was not necessarily an issue for this particular programme. However, it was predicted that demand would shift from installation to domestic installation. It was important to work with employers to ensure that apprentices had access to the learning which they did not get on the job.

     • 4.2.6 What about the learners who were not predicted to achieve? These learners were not meeting the full range of work but the College was working with employers to resolve this.

     • 4.2.7 This was an area with a shortage of staff. What was staff retention like? There were no concerns about retaining the apprentice lead. However, the skills coach role could be challenging and monotonous. APCO were working with skills coaches who had expressed an interest in teaching and CPD was being provided. It was always difficult to retain staff in FE as there was always the chance employees would want to earn more money on the tools. A workload plan for skills coaches had been produced for 2025/26.

     • 4.2.8 There was the possibility of more investment in skills due to the government’s house building ambitions. The Director of Apprenticeships and Vice Principal would be considering how to respond to this. The College was in a good position to become one of the new Centres of Excellence.

     • 4.2.9 There were a lot of adults moving into construction trades due to the demand. APCO took adults across every standard. The recent changes to English and maths requirements had been very welcome.

   • 4.3 Governors noted the presentation and paper on electrical apprenticeships.

     Rachel Hall left the meeting.

5. QIP Update

   • 5.1 The Director of Quality Improvement presented a QIP update. The following points were highlighted.

     • 5.1.1 There had been some historic issues around compliance. Now that all the data had been pulled together there was more transparency.

     • 5.1.2 Attendance had declined slightly but the outturn was holding. Retention was quite high.

     • 5.1.3 With regards to attendance, there would be a slightly different approach for personal development in 2024/25 which would respond to some of the changes in society. Attendance should not be for attendance sake, and students were not given individual targets. However, the College wanted students to make improvements. It was important that students were able to see their own pattern of attendance. A further briefing would be given to governors on the topic of attendance.

     • 5.1.4 With regards to value added, the College was still using the ALPs methodology which had been altered throughout the years. This methodology had its problems and the College would be measuring output in 2025/26. Negotiated targets would also be introduced.

     • 5.1.5 There were compliance issues around the use of spreadsheets rather than Promonitor. There would be more work to make it more user friendly and to provide training. 

     • 5.1.6 A new Personal Development Manager was now in post. There would be a new PD model for 2025/26 which would be bespoke to each type of student. There would also be an online PD offer open to all students. The new model would include more around study skills and pertinent social issues. The Vice Principal would be presenting a paper on this to governors.

     • 5.1.7 Since the change from viewings to learning walks, the themes had been found to be more inline with what had been coming out of deep dives.

     • 5.1.8 Some of the themes coming out of learning walks included pitch and pace, and equity and inclusion. The Quality Team had been working with teams in specific areas of concern. T Level Engineering had been a concern due to the number of new teachers and there had been work underway to support that area.

     • 5.1.9 There was still work to be done around sequencing.

   • 5.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 5.2.1 Had the new dashboard been launched? There had been a manual launch in October 2024. The new integrated dashboard had very recently been launched. This enabled users to drill down to course level. This was still part of phase 1 and the dashboard would need to be reviewed against the new Ofsted framework.

     • 5.2.2 Staff were now able to drill down using the attendance dashboard more easily. When this had been demonstrated to directors, they had been impressed that they were able to drill down to student level.

     • 5.2.3 Were there any thoughts on what was happening around EPYP attendance? This had been discussed. There were a lot of complex issues around attendance. Curriculum had reported a lot of mental health problems, illness and anxiety. Training had been delivered on a trauma informed approach and there was work underway to address issues such as poverty and the impact of COVID-19. There was also the requirement to help staff to understand the need for early conversations leading to rapid intervention. A proposal would be submitted to ELT for a marketing campaign around positivity.

     • 5.2.4 Were students with poor attendance staying on their programmes? Yes.

     • 5.2.5 With regards to attendance, the staff were dealing with a cohort of students who, just five years ago, were not able to step outside of their own home if they had a cold. It was important to work to change the mindset of students and their parents/carers.

     • 5.2.6 The College would also be looking at adult attendance and recognising that some of these students had very complex lives.Students could also be asked if just passing was good enough, with it being highlighted to them that attendance could enable them to pass with a higher grade.

     • 5.2.7 There were also issues with adult ESOL students being mandated to attend meetings meaning that they are absent from College. In response to this, the College had created workbooks for them to complete, in recognition that an online approach may not always be suitable.

     • 5.2.8 It would be interesting to get some feedback from staff who had undertaken the attendance training. Feedback was already being collated and could be provided to governors.

     • 5.2.9 Did the deep dives include the English and maths classes attended by students in the particular curriculum areas? At the moment it was just the vocational areas that were included in the deep dive. However, a cross-College approach had been taken to T Levels which had provided a great deal of insight. This was something which would be further developed. The Quality Team had also carried out remote deep dives looking at data and this was something that would also be developed.

     • 5.2.10 How much learner voice had been included in the deep dives? Meetings with groups of students were always a part of the deep dive process.

     • 5.2.11 With regards to negotiated targets, it would be important to ensure that there were checks and balances in places. A couple of colleges were willing to work with Leicester College to share best practice.

     • 5.2.12 What had been the compliance issues with registers? The period of time during which they needed to be marked was 30 minutes. The impact of this was that sometimes staff had started teaching and then forgot to mark registers. The time would be shortened to 15 minutes. 

     • 5.2.13 In the Hospitality programme area, staff had been asked to mark registers immediately. From next year, the dashboard would be used to address any issues on a weekly basis. The Quality Team would also be reviewing data on Monday mornings and highlighting any issues to curriculum areas.

     • 5.2.14 What was the difference between a viewing and a learning walk? Viewings were not graded, although they would produce a judgement which had a negative effect on staff. Learning walks took a more developmental approach with staff members taking ownership.

     • 5.2.15 With regards to the issues identified in T Level Engineering, what had been the impact on learners? Attendance had been falling and students were not doing as well in formative assessments. Students had sometimes been unclear on what they were doing and how it linked to exams.

     • 5.2.16 What the Director of Quality Improvement had told the committee had been reassuring. However, this did not come across clearly in the report. It had been difficult to get a sense of the impact. The report needed to be more concise and be clearer about what was good and what was not so good. There needed to be more clarity about what the issues were from a learner’s perspective. This was the first report and there would be further work on getting the balance right with regards to the level of detail.

     • 5.2.17 The work done in T Level Engineering sounded good. It would be useful for the committee to hear from a member of staff in that area.

   • 5.3 Governors noted the QIP Update and requested further information on the work in Engineering T level provision.

6. T Level Update

   • 6.1 The Vice Principal, Study Programmes and Apprenticeships provided a T Level update. The following points were highlighted.

     • 6.1.1 T Levels were looking strong in terms of attendance and retention.

     • 6.1.2 Engineering had been the weakest area. There had been some in-year issues during 2023/24 and there had been a focus on this area in 2024/25. It was important to future-proof this area for when aeronautical and space came online.

     • 6.1.3 Tracking and monitoring was being looked into.

     • 6.1.4 With regards to the interim national curriculum review, there was confidence that T Levels would still be at the heart of everything.

     • 6.1.5 The pathway for science would be coming back under health care.  It had been unfortunate about the Construction T Level as Leicester College had quite high numbers.

     • 6.1.6 Retention in Year 1 was still 97.5% and attendance was at 88%.

     • 6.1.7 Industry placements were going well with some students working on a project rather than with an employer.

     • 6.1.8 Planning was underway for the start of the new Marketing T Level in 2025/26.

   • 6.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 6.2.1 T Levels were a good product if they were done correctly.  T Levels were not for everyone though. This had been acknowledged in the curriculum review.

   • 6.3 Governors noted the T Level Update.

7. Feedback from OFSTED Thematic Review

   • 7.1 The Vice Principal, HE and Adult, provided feedback from Ofsted’s thematic review. The following points were highlighted.

     • 7.1.1 In December 2024, providers were informed that all ITE inspections would be suspended during 2025. In the interim, Ofsted would be conducting Thematic Monitoring Reviews with a focus on how well providers had implemented the new Diploma in Teaching qualification framework, how well providers prepare trainees to teach learners with SEND, and mentoring arrangements.

     • 7.1.2 The findings were expected during summer 2025, with ITE inspections set to re-commence in January 2026.

     • 7.1.3 The College’s thematic review took place over three days in January 2025. It had been a very useful and transparent process. The College had used this as an opportunity to receive some high-level consultancy and to confirm progress.

     • 7.1.4 There had been significant movement on integrating SEND content.

     • 7.1.5 More work would be needed around mentoring to make it more specific to the ITE qualification.

     • 7.1.6 Inspectors had wanted feedback on the framework. The College raised the requirement for two mentors, the requirement for two placements and the need for 120 hours of online teaching as concerns.

     • 7.1.7 An action plan would be developed.

   • 7.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 7.2.1 The issue of online teaching was interesting as there were teachers who would never teach groups online.  Ofsted had recognised this issue.

     • 7.2.2   Did the College place its own staff on the Level 3 course? Yes, if staff could not get onto the PGCE or diploma course. There was also an in house ten-week teacher development course for new teachers.

   • 7.3 Governors noted the Feedback from Ofsted’s Thematic Review.

8. Items for Next Agenda

   • 8.1 The Director of Governance and Policy listed the items which had been suggested for the next agenda. These included:

     • 8.1.1 The curriculum delivery plan

     • 8.1.2 A personal development update

     • 8.1.3 Destinations

     • 8.1.4 Comparative data

     • 8.1.5 The work plan for 2025/26

     • 8.1.6 T Level Engineering including, if possible, a member of teaching staff.

   • 8.2 Governors approved the suggestions for agenda items for the next meeting.

9. Any Other Business

   • 9.1 There was no other business

10. Care Experience Children

    • 10.1 Governors noted the report on Care Experienced Children

11. 16-19 Performance Tables

    • 11.1 Governors noted the 16-19 Performance Tables

12. Date of Next Meetings

    • 19 June 2025