Student Liaison Committee Minutes 27 November 2024

Student Liaison Committee Minutes 27 November 2024

Corporation and Committee Minutes

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

Student Liaison Committee Minutes Held on 27 November 2024

Present: Tom Wilson (Chair), Kyle James (Co-Vice Chair), Shabir Ismail, Sophie Strevens-Robinson Lee Soden, Vipal Karavadra, Neil McDougall

In Attendance: Louise Hazel- Director of Governance and Policy, Harshad Taylor - Director of IT, Harjinder Singh- Student Liaison Officer, Matt Widdowson- Governance and Policy Officer (Minutes), Gail Pringle- Head of Inclusion

SET Team Course Representatives and Student Union Representatives (See attached list)

  1. Declarations of interest

    • 1.1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the academic year.

    • 1.2. There were no declarations of interest.

  2. Apologies for absence

    • 2.1 Apologies were received from Chloe Bakewell.

  3. Minutes and matters arising from the last meeting held on 15 May 2024

    • 3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2024 were agreed as an accurate record and approved.

  4. Responses to issues raised at previous meetings

    • 4.1. The Head of Inclusion presented the responses to issues raised at previous meetings. 

    • 4.2. Governors and students made the following comments:

      • 4.2.1. Further discussions had taken place with the Director of Estates about the lack of social space at APC B Block.  This included asking about the possibility of space being used in the new Aeronautical building when it was completed.  More work needed to be done to find space.  It was always difficult to identify space.  Directors had been asked again about this.  There would be the possibility of using free classrooms for students to run their own lunchtime clubs, and any student who had an idea for a club was encouraged to speak with Student Services.

    • 4.3. Governors noted the responses to issues raised at previous meetings.

  5. Student Voice - Changes for 2024/25

    • 5.1. The Director of Student Services could not be at the meeting in person but provided a video presentation on the changes to Student Voice for 2024/25.  The following points were highlighted.

      • 5.1.1. The College already had a vibrant student voice structure and the changes were intended to move from “better to best”.  Students at every level had the opportunity to provide feedback.  Students had reported that they had felt valued by the College when providing feedback.

      • 5.1.2. The College had a good relationship with the Student Union (SU) which helped to improve the student experience.

      • 5.1.3. Feedback on student voice had indicated that students had felt that there was a lot of repetition.  It had also been difficult to make changes in-year due to the timing of the surveys and the fact that the Student Voice process did not align with the College’s quality improvement cycle.

      • 5.1.4. The changes would include:

        • Half-termly student surveys which would be much shorter and aligned with course rep meetings.

        • Termly course rep meetings to discuss the survey outcomes at a curriculum level, and to identify cross-college themes.  A local ‘You Said, We Did’ would come out of these meetings.

        • Student Liaison Committee to discuss cross-College themes

        • College-wide ‘You Said, We Did’ feeding back into course rep meetings.

      • 5.1.5. The changes would provide better links with the College’s performance review cycle.

      • 5.1.6.The ‘You Said, We Did’ would showcase how student feedback had made a difference across the College.

      • 5.1.7. Intended Outcomes:

        • More frequent surveys would help students to better recall their experiences and make their feedback more meaningful.

        • There would be less “survey fatigue”.

        • The student voice cycle would enable more in-year improvement.

        • Students would feel more valued as there would be a larger response to surveys, and students would see that the loop was being closed on issues that they had raised.  Where issues could not be resolved, the College would be honest with students about the reasons why.

        • These changes would be kept under review and feedback would be welcomed.  Student Services would be happy to hear any suggestions or answer any questions regarding this.

      • 5.2. Governors noted the responses to changes to Student Voice for 2024/25.

  6. IT Update

    • 6.1. The Director of IT provided an update which set out the changes which would be coming over the next few months.  The following points were highlighted.

      • 6.1.1. USB storage devices (pen drives) would be blocked for most students.  This was a security step to help prevent issues such as malware and data loss.  Cloud technology meant that most students no longer needed to use USB storage devices.  However, it was recognised that there were certain groups of students who still relied on USB devices and so special arrangements would be agreed for these areas.  Blocking these devices would commence in February 2025 and any concerns could be raised with lecturers.

      • 6.1.2. It had been highlighted that some students had been re-using the same password for all their accounts. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA or 2FA) for students would be rolled out in February 2025 and provide an additional layer of security. This was common practice in many organisations.  MFA would only be required when logging in from outside of the College’s network and might require downloading an app.  Instructions would be sent out in due course.

      • 6.1.3. An email would be sent out detailing how students could raise IT issues by logging a ticket with the 121 helpdesk.  When raising a ticket, it was useful to include as much information about the problem as possible.

      • 6.1.4. Students were able to print directly from their mobile devices.  An email would be sent out with instructions on how to do this.

    • 6.2. Students asked the following questions.

      • 6.2.1. Regarding USB storage devices, what would happen with transferring data to exam computers?  USB devices would be allowed for this as there was a recognised need.

      • 6.2.2. There was an issue with a specific room used by graphics students as, although they usually used Macs, the computers in the room used Windows.  The Director of IT would pick up this issue with the student.

      • 6.2.3. Could digital production be exempted from the block on USB devices as there were issues with the size of Python files being stored in the cloud?  IT were working with curriculum staff to identify any potential issues with blocking USB devices.

    • 6.3. Governors noted the IT Update.

  7. Facilitated Discussion

    • 7.1. The topics discussed during the facilitated discussion included the following. 

      • 7.1.1. How do we ensure that students understand the importance of cyber security?

      • 7.1.2. How do we best communicate with students (and staff) about the impact of student voice?

        • What should we be saying?

        • How should we be saying it? (Which channels work best?)

        • Any ideas for what we call it.

    • 7.2. Course representatives and governors provided the following feedback.

      • 7.2.1. Cyber Security

        • 7.2.1.1. Induction was the correct time to introduce cyber security.  However, there were mixed views on how useful these sessions were, with some students feeling that they were “…a bit childish and not useful”.

        • 7.2.1.2. There was a good understanding of cyber security among the course reps in the room.

        • 7.2.1.3. An in-year refresher session would be useful.

        • 7.2.1.4. Staff had access to Boxphish and students might also benefit from these training modules.

        • 7.2.1.5. Students suggested regular cyber security emails and perhaps a Cyber Security Week with guest speakers.

        • 7.2.1.6. Personal development time should be used to discuss cyber security.  Cyber security was a life skill.

        • 7.2.1.7. Learning about cyber security should be a part of every course as all students used IT.

        • 7.2.1.8. Cyber security awareness could be rebranded as “Online Safety” to help simplify it.

      • 7.2.2. Student Voice

        • 7.2.2.1. Students knew who they could talk to if they had any problems with their tutors.

        • 7.2.2.2. There were mixed views around opportunities to provide feedback, with some students stating that they had the opportunity during personal development sessions.

        • 7.2.2.3. Students had discussed how campus security differed between campuses.

        • 7.2.2.4. The contact details for the Student Union were difficult to find.

        • 7.2.2.5. There should be a ‘one stop shop’ on Teams which provided all the information about student voice.

        • 7.2.2.6. Students had made several suggestions for enhancing student voice including podcasts, newsletters or College radio.

        • 7.2.2.7. The best way to cascade information was verbally via student representatives.

        • 7.2.2.8. Digital screens had been effective and well received but could be better utilised with information being updated more frequently.

        • 7.2.2.9. There was too much information being put on via certain student channels such as updates about spaces available on trips.

        • 7.2.2.10. Students were supportive of the changes to Student Voice detailed by the Director of Student Services.

        • 7.2.2.11. It was important that each group of students was represented.

        • 7.2.2.12. Student Information System (“SIS”) was suggested as a name.

    • 7.3. Governors noted the feedback from the facilitated discussion and requested updates at the next meeting.

  8. Report from the Chair of the Student Council

    • 8.1. The Chair of the Student Council provided a report from the first meeting of the Student Council.  The following points were highlighted.

      • 8.1.1. The Student Liaison Officer had provided information about the aims of the Student Council.

      • 8.1.2. Eight Super Reps had stood for election as Chair.  Shawn George had been elected as Chair.  Brandon Powell had been elected as Vice Chair.

      • 8.1.3. The SU had given a presentation on their purpose and objectives for the coming year.  The Student Council discussed the priorities for the SU.

      • 8.1.4. The Vice Principal, Study Programmes and Apprenticeships, had spoken to the Student Council about Sustainability and Personal Development.  There would be further termly meetings with the Vice Principal.

      • 8.1.5. The IT Support Manager had provided an update.

      • 8.1.6. The SET Team leader had spoken to the meeting about fundraising for a local Primary School and a toy collection for Christmas.

      • 8.1.7. Student Liaison Officers had provided information about the trip to Parliament.

      • 8.1.8. The Student Council were looking forward to meeting with directors and managers from across the College.

    • 8.2. Governors and students made the following comments.

      • 8.2.1. When would the trip to Parliament take place?  The SET Team were waiting for a response from local MPs.

    • 8.3. Governors noted the report from the Chair of the Student Council.

  9. Presentation on the Work of the Student Union

    • 9.1. Members of the Student Union Executive presented an update on their work.  The following points were highlighted.

      • 9.1.1. The SU had been present at the Freshers’ Fair.  While the SU had been promoted there had not been as many sign-ups as previous years.

      • 9.1.2. The executive team had been elected.  234 votes had been cast.  There was still a vacancy for a Site VP at FPC which would be filled soon.

      • 9.1.3. The SU had raised £600 by holding a Macmillan Coffee Morning with the support of Food Inc.

      • 9.1.4. Two training days had taken place: an inhouse training session and a teambuilding event at Leicester Outdoor Pursuits Centre.

      • 9.1.5. SU representatives had participated in an NUS Small SUs Conference.  This had been an opportunity for networking and to attend various workshops.

      • 9.1.6. Two SU representatives had attended the Association of Colleges (AoC) Annual Conference in Birmingham.  

      • 9.1.7. The AoC’s Young Student of the Year Award had been awarded to the SU’s Vice President, Brandon Powell.  The SU Executive were very proud of his achievement.

      • 9.1.8. SU representatives had taken part in this year’s Remembrance ceremony at APC.  There had been a performance by students followed by a wreath laying.  This had been a moving event.

      • 9.1.9. As part of Love Your Campus, a green space had been installed at FPC.  The SU were now working with the Vice Principal to expand this to SMC and APC.  It was hoped that the College would achieve a Green Flag Award.

      • 9.1.10. The Vice President had taken part in a sponsored skydive in memory of staff member, Lee Bates.  The SU had felt that it was important to support staff members and £2,100 had been raised for Macmillan.

      • 9.1.11. Culture Day had been a great success.  The SU had helped provide food by partnering with Greedy Gorillas and arranging for an ice cream van to be present.  Next year, the SU would be taking song requests from students to play during Culture Day.

      • 9.1.12. SU members had visited the National Holocaust Memorial to learn about radicalisation.  This experience had provided SU members with an insight into the history of the Holocaust and the events in Nazi Germany. 

      • 9.1.13. The Don’t Curb Access Campaign asked students to consider the needs of disabled students when using lifts.  Posters had been put up in lifts and there was a plan to place footprints leading from the lifts to the stairs at APC.

      • 9.1.14. The SU had been represented in the following forums:

        • Four SU Executive Meetings

        • Freshers’ Fair 2024

        • Macmillan Coffee Morning

        • The Curriculum Strategy and Quality Improvement Committee (CSQI)

        • The Equality Diversity and Inclusion Committee (EDI)

        • The Health and Safety Committee

        • Small SU’s Lead and Change Event

        • Training Sessions

        • AoC Annual Conference

        • Student Council meeting 

    • 9.2. Governors and Students asked the following questions.

      • 9.2.1. How could more students be persuaded to vote in SU elections?  There was currently a prize draw.  However, the main issue had been communication – not everyone knew that there was an election.  The best way to communicate is by speaking to people.  It would be useful for lecturers to mention the election to students.

      • 9.2.2. Could there be more SU posters put up in classrooms?  The SU was limited as to where posters could be placed.  There were dedicated notice boards which were used.

      • 9.2.3 .The Don’t Curb Access posters should be more eye catching and placed outside of lifts.  Posters had already been placed on the doors of lifts.

      • 9.2.4. It would be useful for lecturers to tell students about the Don’t Curb Access Campaign.

      • 9.2.5. The SU could make use of the digital screens.

    • 9.3. Governors noted the presentation by the Student Union Executive.

  10. Committee Self Assessment

    • 10.1. The Director of Governance and Policy presented the results of the committee’s self assessment.  The following points were highlighted.

      • 10.1.1. Students had said that this committee had a positive impact and that they could see results.

      • 10.1.2. Most students had said that they found this meeting helpful and both students and governors had said that it had been useful to have a forum in which to talk to one another.

      • 10.1.3. The suggestion for governors to sit with students had been put into practice at today’s meeting.

      • 10.1.4. Attendance would need to be maintained throughout the year.

      • 10.1.5. Students would need to prepare for this meeting so that they could get the most out of it.

      • 10.1.6. If there were any further suggestions, course reps could speak to the Student Liaison Officers.

    • 10.2. Governors noted the update on the Committee Self-Assessment.

  11. Any Other Urgent Business Notified to Chair Prior to the Meeting

    • 11.1 There was no further business

  12. Dates of Next Meeting

    • 26 February 2025, APC

    • 15 May 2025, FPC