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

Meeting of the Curriculum Strategy and Quality Improvement Committee Held on 8 February 2023

Present: Anne Frost (Chair), Danielle Gillett, Zoe Allman, Verity Hancock, Lisa Armitage, Maureen Magutu, Sam Emery

In Attendance: Louise Hazel- Director of Governance and Policy, Kully Sandhu- Vice Principal Adult and HE, Claire Willis- Director of Quality Improvement (items 7-11), Jody Kerrod- Quality Development Manager (item 6), Marco Salotti- HE Manager (item 4), Sharon Drury- Mentoring Team Leader (item 5)

1. Declaration of Interest

   • 1.1 There were no new declarations of interest. Zoe Allman had an interest in item 4 as an employee of DMU

2. Apologies for absence

   • 2.1 Apologies were received from Shaun Curtis, Jai Sharda and Debi Donnarumma.

3. Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising

   • 3.1 The minutes of the meeting on 9 November 2022 were agreed as an accurate record and approved.

4. Personal Development Update (Adult and He)

   • 4.1 The HE Manager gave a presentation on the work of the area and the College’s submission to the Teaching Excellence Framework. The following points were highlighted.

     • 4.1.1 The College was measured annually again the Office for Students (OfS) B3 student outcomes and on four-year basis through the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).

     • 4.1.2 The methodology for completing the TEF submission was outlined. A wide range of evidence had been gathered including student voice, external examiner reports, tutors report, surveys. This had enabled the team to identify strengths and areas for improvement.

     • 4.1.3 The TEF was set up for typical three-year undergraduate courses so did not fit well with the nature of the College’s offer, shape and size. It had therefore been necessary to explain the particular context of the College and provide additional evidence to support the narrative. For example, most students were not covered by the NSS and so the College’s own student survey information had been used.

     • 4.1.4 The themes emerging from the process were highlighted. The shape and size of the College’s HE offer had changed significantly with the end of partnership activity. The OfS indicators were largely positive and had been supplemented by additional evidence. The progression metric (graduate outcomes) was below threshold although this was largely due to many students studying healthcare courses already being employed in the sector; delivery took place during the pandemic and so students were likely to be focusing on their existing work commitments. The College was nevertheless proud of the work with these students, many of whom were non-traditional HE students.

     • 4.1.5 There was still work to do around the educational gain measure; guidance from the OfS on this was vague.

   • 4.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

     • 4.2.1 What was the likely outcome? It was difficult to say and it would depend on the TEF panel’s view of the College’s evidence. It should be at least a strong bronze, if not better.

   • 4.3 Governors thanked the HE Manager for his presentations and noted the information.

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. Internal Progression Report

   • 6.1 The Quality Development Manager presented a report on Internal Progression. The following points were highlighted:

     • 6.1.1 Overall, 27% of students internally progressed. Internal progression was stable with a 1% increase in students who completed and achieved and a 3% decrease in students that completed but did not achieve.

     • 6.1.2 Internal progression for full-time students had decreased by 1% and by 3% for part-time students. 6.1.3 Students progressing to a higher level increased by 19% with 56% of full-time students and 48% of part time students progressed to a higher- 4 level programme.

     • 6.1.4 The College’s data compared well against other colleges.

     • 6.1.5 There was little variance in rates of progression by ethnic group. There were 9% fewer females progressing internally compared to male students but this was mainly due to the qualification nature of some of the larger programme areas which tended to attract more male students.

     • 6.1.6 The rate of internal progression for students with an Educational Health Care Plan (EHCP) increased by 14% from the previous year but there were 30% fewer students with an EHCP progressing to a higher-level programme than those without.

     • 6.1.7 Recommended actions were highlighted including ensuring clear careers education and Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) at all stages of the student journey and ensuring internal progression opportunities were included in curriculum design.

   • 6.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

     • 6.2.1 Where were the pockets of lower progression to higher levels?

       This was mainly in areas with level 3 BTECs; students might progress from a diploma to an extended diploma and this would look like lateral progression. ESOL also had a lot of students at entry level but it was not possible to disaggregate data by the three entry levels.

     • 6.2.2 Why might some disadvantaged students not want to aim higher?

       There might be lots of reasons; for some students it was not just about the qualification but about the life skills they needed. There was work to be done to promote positive role models particularly for supported learning students. Work was underway with the ETF.

     • 6.2.3 How were the recommendations to be implemented?

       SLT had already considered and agreed the recommendations and they would be taken forward by the Vice Principals.

     • 6.2.4 Was it possible to see progression where a student might have taken a break and then come back to the College?

       It was not possible to look at that level of data at the moment.

   • 6.3 Governors noted the report on Internal Progression.

7. Lower Performing Areas

   • 7.1 The Director of Quality gave a presentation on lower performing areas. The following points were highlighted:

     • 7.1.1 Compared to 2018/19 EPYP NARs, the College had 17 programme areas below NARs. When trend data was reviewed against subject sector areas, five stood out: public services, engineering, service enterprises (hair and beauty), sport and accounting.

     • 7.1.2 Action had already been taken in several areas including removing provision; sport was showing an improving trend.

     • 7.1.3 Students had reported issues with uniform public services and this was now not felt to be a useful pathway. The offer was being reviewed while trying to ensure the best experience for existing students.

     • 7.1.4 Hairdressing and beauty were being monitoring carefully. Attendance in 5 hairdressing was showing improvement on the previous year and some management issues had been addressed. Further work around initial vocational assessment was underway. Feedback from employers was very positive.

     • 7.1.5 Accounting was showing a four year declining trend. The College needed to think about whether this was the right route for young people; the synoptic assessment was a hurdle. AAT had been contacted to see if there could be any changes made to the assessment methods but if no changes were made, it not be offered to 16-18s. Other providers would still offer it and so students would be directed to them. Alternative routes into accountancy including a level 1 pathway were needed.

     • 7.1.6 Strategic and operational issues were highlighted. These were being worked through during curriculum planning, QAs and deep dives.

   • 7.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

     • 7.2.1 Was there something about how the qualifications were valued?

       There was a different between practical and theory for hairdressing. Practical sessions were delivered confidently.

     • 7.2.2 When would a decision be made about AAT?

       After the exams in March/April.

   • 7.3 Governors noted the information and requested an update on the decisions on the lowest performing courses in due course.

8. Language Strategy

   • 8.1 The Vice Principal presented the Language Strategy. The following points were highlighted.

     • 8.1.1 The need and rationale for the strategy was outlined. The 2021 census showed that 26.7% of the post 16 population in Leicester did not have a GCSE or equivalent qualification. 35% of the College’s intake of 16-19 year olds had achieved neither English nor maths.

     • 8.1.2 The objectives of the strategy were to aid access to learning; improve progression; provide high quality discrete ESOL; improve the provision of language development and support; and improve staff continual professional development.

     • 8.1.3 Immediate priorities were to focus on staff CPD including providing opportunities for staff to enhance their English language skills and develop appropriate learning strategies to support students’ language development needs.

     • 8.1.4 Improvements to the provision of language development and support would be put in place by implementing the learning support strategy, developing specialist learning support workshops to include language specific options and developing the underpinning language skills required for the subject sector areas.

   • 8.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

     • 8.2.1 How would the action plan be achieved? A working group was overseeing this, meeting twice a term and reporting to SLT.

     • 8.2.2 Had the levels of achievement of English in Leicester got worse during the pandemic? Achievement had historically been low and although showing improvement was still below the national. The College continued to recruit from areas of highest deprivation. Two thirds of the Leicester population lived in the 40% most deprived areas nationally; some students might have English speaking and listening at Entry or level but had literacy skills at pre-entry.

     • 8.2.3 Did the College’s funding reflect the levels of deprivation and the additional costs? There was a weighting factor but this was not enough to cover the additional costs.

     • 8.2.4 When would the impact of the KPIs be known? This would take a while; training for staff was still needed but ultimately the strategy should impact on gaps in achievement in 2023/24 onwards.

   • 8.3 Governors noted the Language Strategy.

9. Deep Dives: Summary Term 1

   • 9.1 The Director of Quality Improvement presented a summary of issues from the deep dives in term 1. The following points were highlighted.

     • 9.1.1 There were 13 deep dives planned for 2022/23 on a three-week rolling cycle. Five had been undertaken in the first term and two more this term.

     • 9.1.2 Strengths identified during the deep dives included strong curriculum intent, with a clear rationale linked to local and regional needs; teachers having expert subject knowledge that enabled them to deliver their sessions well, with clear links to industry and the world of work; good participation in pedagogical and digital pedagogy CPD; clear expectations set by all staff in relation to student behaviour; good behaviour; students felt safe.

     • 9.1.3 Areas for improvement included more holistically planning and sequencing of delivery at programme level; more consistent participation in vocational CPD; improvements to feedback/forward; incomplete/inconsistent and poor quality target setting; attendance was too low; some aspects of personal development were patchy including Prevent with opportunities missed in vocational delivery to highlight naturally occurring topics.

     • 9.1.4 Actions to address these themes were outlined; these would be followed up during the QAs and future deep dives. 9.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

     • 9.2.1 There seemed to be inconsistencies in some areas; could these areas be targeted? The intention was to focus on where training and support was needed in individual areas. CDCs would pick these up in Team Time.

     • 9.2.2 Had the Deep Dives been useful? They had, for those conducting them as well as in the areas being reviewed.

   • 9.3 Governors noted the information.

10. QIP Update

    • 10.1 The Director of Quality Improvement gave an update on progress with the Quality Improvement Plan (QIP). The following points were highlighted.

      • 10.1.1 KPIs were monitored throughout the academic year in termly VP compliance meetings, QA meetings and at CSQI. The evidence of impact for several actions would not be in place until the end of the academic year. However, KPI indicators showed that progress was being made.

      • 10.1.2 Work to improve holistic sequencing was underway; new schemes of work and curriculum planning for next year would be picking this up.

      • 10.1.3 Attendance was not where the College wanted it to be but it was on a par with other institutions.

    • 10.2 Governors asked a number of questions including:

      • 10.2.1 Most actions would be amber for a while; was this a concern? Not if action was underway and KPIs showed there was progress. Progress points, monitoring of at risk students and rapid interventions would continue.

      • 10.2.2 It would be helpful to have a sense of movement and any areas of concern in future reports. Noted. 10.3 Governors noted the progress with the QIP.

11. KPI Monitoring

    • 11.1 The Director of Quality Improvement gave an update on KPIs. The following points were highlighted.

      • 11.1.1 Attendance was showing as 83.5% overall, which was down on the previous year. For 16-18-year olds it was 84.4% and adults 81.3%.

      • 11.1.2 Retention was high at 96.7% overall and 95.9% for 16-18-year olds.

      • 11.1.3 Progress data showed -0.04 against the target position. The new target setting methodology was felt to be working well. There were 326 students above target, 4500 on target, 2040 below and 790 on track to fail. English and maths and attendance issues accounted for around half of those identified at risk of failing. Lots of interventions were being put in place to support these students.

      • 11.1.4 The data would be interrogated further in QA meetings.

    • 11.2 In response to a question as to why progress at PP1 was higher, it was explained that by PP2 tutors would know students better; retention was also usually higher at PP1.

    • 11.3 Governors received and noted the update.

12. Any Other Business

    • 12.1 There was no other business.

13. Date of Next Meetings

    • 26 April 2023

    • 14 June 2023