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

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

Present: Jackie Rossa (Chair), Lesley Giles, Heather Powell, Chloe Bakewell, Kyle James

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, Fran Monk Director of Quality Improvement, Lisa Armitage* Director of Curriculum, REEM, Bhups Narsey Specialist Apprenticeships Lead, ACPO Matt Widdowson (Minutes) Governance and Policy Officer

*Item 4

1. Declaration of Interest

   • 1.1 Lesley Giles would be taking on the role of Vice Chair of the CSQI Committee.

   • 1.2 There were no declarations of interest.

2. Apologies for Absence

   • 2.1 Apologies were received from Sallyann Turner.

3. Minutes of the Last Meeting and Matters Arising

   • 3.1 The minutes of the meeting on 13 June 2024 were agreed as an accurate record and approved.

   • 3.2 Matters arising

     • 3.2.1 There were no matters arising.

   Lisa Armitage joined the meeting

4. 2023/24 Initial Results

   • 4.1 GCSEs

     • 4.1.1 The Director of Curriculum, REEM, provided the initial results for GCSEs. The following points were highlighted.

       • 4.1.1.1 The results for the summer exam series were presented. These were compared to the previous year. There had been a 3% increase in the pass rate for maths grades 9-4. The English GCSE pass rate was down by 8% on the previous year.

       • 4.1.1.2 The reason for the drop in the English Language pass rate was attributed to issues with the Pearson 2.0 qualification. The grade boundary had been 11 marks higher than the previous years. A lot of colleges had been unhappy about this, and an application for a judicial review was being considered.

       • 4.1.1.3 There would be a November resit for students. This resit was a great opportunity for students. However, it was expensive to do.

       • 4.1.1.4 This year, there would fewer students resitting maths in November than in the previous year, as there were only usually 100 students who passed. Maths would be looking at students’ grades and expecting a commitment from them to turn up for revision sessions.

       • 4.1.1.5 There was a concern around the maths grades 9-1 which had been attributed to an adult retention problem.

       • 4.1.1.6 When the results were split by age group there was a slight rise in 16-18 maths (from 26.0% to 26.5%), and a slight drop in English (from 28.6% to 26.2%).

       • 4.1.1.7 According to the Ofqual Analytics, the College was well above average for both English and maths. The MiDES report would enable further benchmarking.

       • 4.1.1.8 Student numbers had been increasing year-on-year.

     • 4.1.2 Governors made the following comments.

       • 4.1.2.1 What happened to students who failed the GCSE not that long ago? This was difficult but the College tried to take a measured approach. Maths had previously taken the approach of allowing any student to resit if they wanted to. This would not be done again and there would be a cap of around 200 students based on the numbers who might realistically pass. This would also mean that there would be less need to hire external venues for exams.

       • 4.1.2.2 Was progress considered when looking at the overall 9-1 grades? Most students were at grade 3. Other students would be assessed and supported for either GCSE or functional skills.

       • 4.1.2.3 Was this data also cut by gender as there had been some interesting findings coming from the national statistics? The College had this data. For REEM there had been no issue, but data for the whole College could be provided.

       • 4.1.2.4 Pearson had offered free remarking. Had this been taken up? Yes. One student had their grade increased. However, there appeared to be some inconsistency, and some students had gone down by 11 marks.

       • 4.1.2.5 Governors thanked the Director of REEM.

   Lisa Armitage left the meeting.

   • 4.2 T Levels

     • 4.2.1 The Vice Principal, Study Programmes and Apprenticeships provided the initial results for T Levels. The following points were highlighted.

       • 4.2.1.1 T Levels were two-year qualifications and there were around 15/16 qualifications within each pathway.

       • 4.2.1.2 The data presented was for the cohort of students who left at the end of the previous academic year.

       • 4.2.1.3 Apart from some pathways where the pass rates were quite healthy, when compared nationally, the College was below average. Engineering and manufacturing had not been successful. However, it was difficult to make comparisons for T Levels and there were only around five other colleges which could be compared to Leicester College in terms of the size of the cohort.

       • 4.2.1.4 There were no achievement rates for T Levels.

       • 4.2.1.5 Retention had improved significantly, particularly in on-site construction. A lot of retention issues in the past year were around students dropping out between year 1 and year 2, and the uniqueness of the industry placements and skills making the students valuable to employers. A lot of work had been undertaken on the transition from year 1 and year , and with employers.

       • 4.2.1.6 There had been above average numbers of students with distinction grades; if students stayed with the College they did very well.

       • 4.2.1.7 Management and Administration, Digital, and Early Years were pathways with particularly high pass rates.

       • 4.2.1.8 There were 83% positive destinations with the College unable to contact the remaining 17%.

       • 4.2.1.9 The College’s industry placements were verging on becoming best practice. 100% of students were matched and only 12 students did not complete the full 45 days.

       • 4.2.1.10 There was still work to do on stretch and challenge and the sequencing of year 1 core.

       • 4.2.1.11 While the overall pass rates had declined, the College was now dealing with more students than in previous years. There were also new programmes.

       • 4.2.1.12 Overall Pass rates had been affected by the poor pass rates in Engineering and Manufacturing. The Engineering Block had been closed for half of the year which had caused difficulties. Students had not received as much practical experience as they should have and there had been a front loading of theory. While some students did come back, the others moved on to destinations of their choice. The pass rates should be more positive this year.

       • 4.2.1.13 Progression for engineering had been positive (78% for one cohort and 72% for the other.)

       • 4.2.1.14 There had been a lot of progression to local universities.

       • 4.2.1.15 There had been strong enrolment for year 1 in 2024/25.

       • 4.2.1.16 Despite the GCSE grade boundary changes, there had not been as much impact on this cohort as there had been in the previous year.

       • 4.2.1.17 It was important to be mindful of the pause and review. The DfE had been in contact with providers about the reality of 2025 starts and if there were still some BTEC routes, this might have an impact on T Levels.

       • 4.2.1.18 There had been difficulties arising from the end of the Employers’ Support Fund. Financial barriers to accessing industry placements were discussed with all students from the outset and the discretionary bursary had been used to support students.

       • 4.2.1.19 Being one of the larger providers came with challenges, but it was felt that the College was in a good position. T Levels remained one of the government’s priorities.

       • 4.2.1.20 The College would be taking advantage of the opportunity for core resits to help overcome the hurdle of retention and pass rates.

     • 4.2.2 Governors made the following comments.

       • 4.2.2.1 Did “Matched Industry Placements” mean they were completed? It did mean ‘completed.’ The one area which had been difficult was midwifery. There was not much T Level students were able to do on midwifery placements. There might have not been as higher level of demand for midwives than the College had been led to believe.

       • 4.2.2.2 On-site Construction and Building Services outcomes were not great. The routes for progression were not always the right routes. This was one area where there could be significant change which could impact on results.

       • 4.2.2.3 Was there a process for systematically receiving feedback? All students were asked for feedback on a termly basis. Employers provided feedback at the end of each placement. Employers had also committed to providing another placement if a placement had been successful.

   • 4.3 Governors noted the 2023/24 initial results for GCSEs and T Levels.

5. Enrolment Update

   • 5.1 The Acting Principal provided an enrolment update. The following points were highlighted.

     • 5.1.1 There had been 7,712 enrolments to date

     • 5.1.2 EPYP enrolments had been very good, as was the case across the whole sector. Enrolments were currently at 4,142 which was ahead of allocation. There was also a six-week period during which students could be moved between courses. If the numbers held, the College would be on target to have in-year growth. However, the DfE had announced that in-year funding would now be subject to affordability.

     • 5.1.3 There had been concern that the Learner Support Fund would be fully spent and this might impact on students’ ability to come to College.

     • 5.1.4 A review of provision within BECT had meant that there had been significant growth in both LAMP, and Travel and Tourism.

     • 5.1.5 CAPA had been an area which had been under pressure and there was work underway to look at boosting demand.

     • 5.1.6 EMES had a lot of challenges last year with new arrivals. The curriculum had been reviewed. There was greater demand this year.

     • 5.1.7 A new Head of Supported Learning had been appointed and the SAIL curriculum had been completely refreshed.

     • 5.1.8 There were normally 70 enrolments for Launchpad, but this year was already at 90, with the expectation that final numbers could be around 100.

     • 5.1.9 A lot of students had been enrolling late and work was underway to find out which schools they had come from. The Acting Principal would be picking this up during some of the school visits.

     • 5.1.10 Adult enrolments were at an early stage. There were no concerns for BECT and CAPA, and the Director of EMES was reporting that enrolments were on profile. Adult GCSE and Functional Skills were on track. There were very few adults in SAIL.

     • 5.1.11 For HE there was an Access programme starting in January 2025 which needed to be promoted. HE was a little behind, but it was still at an early stage.

     • 5.1.12 HE was doing well in BECT and CAPA, although there were some challenges in Engineering.

     • 5.1.13 Apprenticeships were on track to meet target.

   • 5.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 5.2.1 Was the ESFA closure likely to be detrimental? The ESFA had a role in lobbying the DfE on behalf of colleges and they had made inroads into the simplification of funding. However, the Acting Principal regularly met with the DfE Relationship Manager to keep him abreast of the challenges which the College faced.

   • 5.3 Governors noted the Enrolment Update.

6. Revised Quality Improvement and Performance Framework

   • 6.1 The Director of Quality Improvement presented the revised Quality Improvement and Performance Framework. The following points were highlighted.

     • 6.1.1 The College had decided to look at the current structure and had visited Nottingham College, West Nottinghamshire College, Lincoln College and Loughborough College, who had been willing to share their frameworks.

     • 6.1.2 Previously, there had been a strong emphasis on checks and balances, and not enough emphasis on developing staff. This new framework placed the ownership of development in the hands of staff. Every frontfacing member of staff would have an individual development plan.

     • 6.1.3 There would be three learning walks (two of which were mandatory). The purpose of the second learning walk would be to assess the distance travelled since the first learning walk. There would also be the opportunity for curriculum to pick up a theme for learning walks.

     • 6.1.4 An Essentials package had been introduced to support new members of staff who might not have had any previous teaching experience. This would be a ten-week package.

     • 6.1.5 There would be a risk-based approach to deep dives. There could even be College-wide themed deep dives.

     • 6.1.6 In terms of checks and balances, Performance Reviews would pull together the information which would then RAG rate curriculum areas’ performance.

     • 6.1.7 A QIP would be provided, and a summary report would be produced. The summary report provided to the CSQI Committee would include:

       • Enrolment numbers by provision type

       • Personal and employability skills development

       • Retention, achievement, and pass rates by provision type

       • Attendance by provision type

       • Progress Point data

       • Positive destinations

       • Stakeholder feedback

       • There had been consultations with curriculum areas and trade unions, who had been happy with the new framework.

   • 6.2 Governors made the following comments.

     • 6.2.1 How would the learning walks link in with the deep dives? The deep dives would include student views, and planning and intent. This would follow the Ofsted framework.

     • 6.2.2 The staff governor commented that this framework was a better approach and would empower staff by giving them more agency and responsibility for their own development.

     • 6.2.3 This new framework had also been well received by Apprenticeships staff.

     • 6.2.4 Would a summary report be presented to the next meeting of the CSQI Committee? It would.

     • 6.2.5 These learning walks should complement the governor learning walks. The information derived from the learning walks would be presented to governors.

     • 6.2.6 It was important to say what the RAG rating meant. This was included in the documentation provided to staff.

     • 6.2.7 The CSQI Committee would be key to refining this framework.

     • 6.2.8 Was learner voice included? The new approach would involve more conversations with students.

     • 6.2.9 If a teacher did not use a starter in a lesson, would this be a problem? It would not be a problem. This was just a guide.

     • 6.2.10 This framework looked comprehensive. There would be a pilot followed by regular reviews with staff.

   • 6.3 Governors noted the revised Quality Improvement and Performance Framework.

7. Committee Self-Assessment and Action Plan

   • 7.1 The Director of Governance and Policy presented the outcome of the Committee Self-Assessment and Action Plan. The following points were highlighted.

     • 7.1.1 The dashboard was still work in progress.

     • 7.1.2 The new reporting would assist with understanding impact and improvement.

     • 7.1.3 The suggestion around understanding the policy context would be something that would be brought back to governors throughout the year.

   • 7.2 Governors noted the outcome of the self-assessment process and commented on any further actions to be included in the Governance Improvement Action Plan or Committee Workplan.

8. Agenda Items for Next Meeting

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

   • 8.2 Governors made the following suggestions.

     • 8.2.1 The QIP would be a substantial item on the next agenda.

     • 8.2.2 The next meeting would be too early to discuss the implications of the Autumn Budget Statement.

     • 8.2.3 ELT and governors could provide feedback from the AoC Conference.

     • 8.2.4 This group would need to continually return to policy. There were policy issues emerging especially around Skills England, which may have a medium-term impact. A big impact of Skills England would be their interim assessment of skills. It might be worth including policy updates on agendas. Noted. The Strategic Sessions would also look at the longer-term issues.

9. Any Other Business

   • 9.1 There was no other business

10. Date of Next Meetings

    • 14 November 2024

    • 27 February 2025

    • 27 March 2025

    • 19 June 2025