Minutes of a meeting of the board of Leicester College Corporation
Held on 21 March 2024
Present: Danielle Gillett (Chair), Lesley Giles*, Shabir Ismail, Vipal Karavadra, Robert Radford, Nicky Randall, Jackie Rossa, Sophie Strevens-Robinson, Chan Kataria, Lee Soden*.
In Attendance: Louise Hazel - Director of Governance and Policy, Amanda Scott - Director of HR, Kully Sandhu - Vice Principal (items 1-9), Jane Parkinson - Director of Finance (items 1-9), Jody Kerrod - Quality Development Manager (item 4), Fran Monk - Director of Quality Improvement (item 5), Alex Stacey-Midgely - Prospective governor (observing).
*Joined meeting online via Teams
Declaration of Interest
1.1 The Chair welcomed Nicky Randall, Alex Stacey-Midgley and Amanda Scott to their first meetings.
1.2 Shabir Ismail, Louise Hazel and Jane Parkinson declared an interest in item 10.
Apologies for absence
2.1 Apologies for absence were received from Neil McDougall, Zubair Limbada, Kyle James and Chloe Bakewell. Louisa Poole was absent.
Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising
3.1 Members of the Corporation received and approved the minutes of the meeting on 11 December 2024.
3.2 As a matter arising, it was confirmed that the High Needs allocation had been received and was as expected.
3.3 In response to a question as to whether the additional charges from KPMG had been challenged, it was confirmed that they had been and had been reduced from £5,200 to £2,200.
3.4 Members of the Corporation received and approved the confidential minutes of the meeting on 11 December 2024.
3.5 Members of the Corporation received and approved the confidential minutes of the Special meeting on 30 January 2025.
Student survey term 1
4.1 The Quality Development Manager presented the results of the term 1 student survey. The following points were highlighted:
4.1.1 The report presented the findings from the first term's full-time student survey, highlighting key satisfaction trends, areas of strength, and opportunities for improvement.
4.1.2 The survey process was revised for the 2024/25 academic year, with the survey distributed at multiple points throughout the year, rather than once mid-year. Survey 1 covered enrolment, onboarding, induction, and teaching learning and assessment.
4.1.3 The overall return rate was 73%, consistent with the previous academic year. The highest return rates were from T Level students and Further Education students; the lowest were among Apprentices and Higher Education students.
4.1.4 Survey Results showed an Overall Agree of 89% which was identical to the previous year.
4.1.5 Highest Satisfaction was with EMES, HIED, and REEM curriculum areas. The lowest satisfaction was in Engineering and CAPA.
4.1.6 The areas with which respondents were most satisfied were teachers' subject knowledge, attendance and punctuality expectations, and the development of new skills. Areas where there was lowest satisfaction included receiving regular feedback on work, exams and assessments organisation.
4.1.7 A working group had been looking at induction and changes had already been made although there was work still to be done around induction.
4.1.8 Actions for individual areas and for the College as a whole were being included in QIPs and would be monitored through the performance review process.
4.2 Governors made the following comments and asked a number of questions including:
4.2.1 The scores looked high and were very positive overall; was there detail to show which areas needed further work and how was this being actioned? T levels were showing lower levels of satisfaction although these were new qualifications with different methodologies. Support was being put in place in these courses and monitored.
4.2.2 Was it known why apprenticeship return rates were lower? Since apprentices were only in College for a couple of days, it was harder to encourage them to complete the surveys. There had been an extended six-week window to allow more time and daily and weekly reminders were circulated but it was easier to target students who were in College more frequently.
4.2.3 The surveys worked best when PLs or lecturers worked through them with students; this enabled them to discuss and explain some of the questions which might not be understood by all students.
4.2.4 Was there any effort made to feedback the results to students? All results would be sent to the Director of the area, and they would share these in the course representative meetings. An action log had also been set up to track actions arising from the surveys for each area and pull them into the QIP where needed.
4.2.5 In terms of the responses around feeling safe, was there data on the responses on different campuses? Not specifically although it was clear that the courses with lower levels of students feeling safe were at APC and SMC. The installation of the fence at APC should help with this and with controlling access to the site. This was part of a wider strategy around security which included the wearing of ID badges.
4.2.6 The survey showed that 10% of students did not feel safe; was this a cause for concern? Further investigation was needed; this might include students’ views on travelling to and from College, or how they felt in certain areas of the College rather than just within their curriculum area. Prompt discussions with course representatives would enable further drill down on this and help identify if there were specific issues in particular areas.
4.2.7 What checks were in place to make sure that curriculum areas did complete the necessary actions? Once the curriculum meetings had been completed, the Quality team would follow these up and actions would also be followed up in Performance Review Meetings.
4.2.8 The positive responses on Maths and English did not correlate with lower attendance. The responses were based on main programme areas.
4.2.9 Was information collected on maths and English specifically within vocational areas? This was planned.
4.2.10 The quality of feedback came out lower in the survey but would have a big impact on the student experience; what was being done to address this? For T level courses which had lower satisfaction, the Curriculum Development Coaches (CDCs) were delivering sessions on effective feedback and feed forward.
4.2.11 Would further student feedback be gathered? It would through the deep dives and work scrutiny. Issues and actions would be fed into the performance review process and QIPs. This was the first time that the survey was done in this way and the term survey responses were already being reviewed to triangulate with attendance, retention and high grades data to identify specific courses where there appeared to be concerns, and the interventions needed.
4.2.12 Was there any correlation between the low scores and areas where lecturers were not committed to the process? What was being done to explain the importance to them? This would be followed up through the performance review process.
4.3 Members of the Corporation noted the responses to the term student survey.
Quality improvement and performance framework
5.1 The Director of Quality Improvement gave a presentation on the Quality Improvement and Performance Framework. The following points were highlighted.
5.1.1 This was essentially a pilot year with a new framework which was still evolving. The processes were all designed to improve the student experience and a data driven approach now enabled the drill down to course and student level to identify issues and target interventions more effectively. All parts of the process fed back into the College and departmental QIPs.
5.1.2 The framework was designed around four principles of quality and performance improvement. Strands of the framework included teacher professional development; curriculum provision development and the annual quality improvement cycle.
5.1.3 Elements of the cycle were explained. Staff had individual teaching and learning plans and benefited from support and coaching from managers and the Quality team. Deep dives were designed to test curriculum areas’ assumptions and were done on a risk basis.
5.1.4 Performance reviews were held half-termly and led by the Acting Principal with attendance from the curriculum area managers but also student services, maths and English and Quality. The second round of these had taken place and it was possible to see distance travelled since the first round. A new dashboard was enabling staff to drill down to student level and target areas of concern.
5.1.5 Key indicators were reported to CSQI. The College QIP was updated termly and also presented at CSQI which received a termly update on inyear themes emerging from deep dive activity, learning walks, and the ongoing annual quality monitoring cycle.
5.2 The Chair of CSQI commented that the committee had done a lot of work on the quality improvement reporting; the College was on a journey and there was still work needed to focus on and provide greater clarity on the impact on learners.
5.3 Governors asked the following questions:
5.3.1 The framework was clear; how was it ensured that the data was accurate? The Quality team worked closely with the IT team and went through a data checking process. Curriculum areas were asked to sense check data and wherever possible, data would be reconciled to externally validated data reports. The use of several new dashboards was enabling greater transparency and ownership of the data within curriculum areas.
5.3.2 How did it link to the staff appraisal process? The dashboard helped managers focus on improvements in year as part of the appraisal process; individual plans were also discussed during appraisal.
5.3.3 How did it link to any standards of behaviour or codes of conduct? A code of practice sat underneath the framework which had been created in line with the College’s other policies and discussed with the unions.
5.3.4 What checks were done to see if students had received feedback? This would be picked up through the progress point review process. It was possible to see where students had not received feedback. A key consideration was also how well students were achieving, not just whether or not they would pass, and the quality processes enabled more discussion and challenge to curriculum areas on this.
5.3.5 In addition to the teacher essentials programme, what level of training did new staff have before they were put in front of a class? No staff were put in front of a class for two weeks; after this they were supported by CDCs through team teaching. A mentoring programme had also been introduced and a community of new staff was being created to provide mutual support. The impact was a reduced turnover of new staff.
5.3.6 Governors were keen to see the impact of all the strategies; triangulation with external best practice was helpful.
5.3.7 It would also be useful to know what changes might need to be made to the framework following an assessment of impact. Noted.
5.4 Members of the Corporation noted the Quality Improvement and Performance Framework and requested further reports on the impact of the framework in due course.
Partnerships and projects report
6.1 The Acting Principal presented the partnerships and projects report. The following points were highlighted.
6.1.1 The current partnerships and projects were described. These covered a range of activities and some locally focussed activity.
6.1.2 A proposal was made to participate in a new Social Care Academy which involved s number of local partners. This would be a new model and reflected new ways of looking at partnership delivery.
6.1.3 There had been some national press coverage about the quality of subcontracted HE provision but the College no longer had any HE subcontracts.
6.2 Governors asked the following questions:
6.2.1 How close the College’s subcontracting was to the agreed 10% limit. The contract was small [£58,498] and so well below the limit.
6.2.2 What performance measures were in place for the various contracts? For formal projects, there would be appropriate governance processes, KPIs and reporting arrangements in place. For other less formal partnerships for example with the Highfields Centre, which was just on the basis of room hire, no formal measures were needed.
6.2.3 Was delivery reported through the quality improvement processes and quality assured in curriculum areas? It was; delivery such as the sector based work academies or delivery at the Highfields Centre would be included in the area’s SAR and improvement plans.
6.2.4 The report felt quite historical; the new government wanted to grow partnership working, with opportunities to redefine partnership working. How would this be picked up? This would be discussed in the strategic planning process but there was a lot of policy churn and some decisions and impact might be several years away. The College was developing a sector-based approach to strategy development and this would include how it could work in partnership with stakeholders and how it might access additional funding pots.
6.2.5 The College needed to think about how it could maximise its commercial income opportunities. Noted, although there were always issues with staffing and ensuring facilities were available for teaching. 6.3 Members of the Corporation noted the report and approved the participation in the social care academy.
Operating statement progress report
7.1 The Acting Principal gave an update on progress with the Operating Statement. The following points were highlighted.
7.1.1 There had been progress in respect of several of the KPIs.
7.1.2 Highlights included good enrolment for 16-18 students, with numbers exceeding allocation by around 200 students. This was expected to result in additional income and positively impact future financial positions.
7.1.3 There was high overall student retention with minimal gaps between different student groups. A revised Personal Development and Enrichment (PDE) framework and working group were in place to oversee cross-College activities and target interventions.
7.1.4 Most capital projects were progressing well, including the Office for Students (OfS) aeronautical building and the electrotechnical project.
7.1.5 Areas of concern included that the College would fall short of its ASF income target by £250k due to issues with the tailored learning allocation. Predicted achievement had been reviewed and adjusted to reflect a more realistic outcome, similar to the previous year. There was less favourable funding environment now than at the start of the year, impacting allocations and financial forecasts. The expected EBITDA surplus had decreased slightly, but the College would still meet its bank covenants and achieve a 'good' financial health rating.
7.2 In response to a question, it was confirmed that the national insurance contribution would impact this year although the contribution the College would receive would not be known until May with payment in September; however it would be liable from April.
7.3 Members noted the update on progress with the Operating Statement.
Finance report (Period 6) and spring reforecast
8.1 The Director of Finance presented the finance report (period 6) and spring reforecast. The following points were highlighted.
8.1.1 The year to date result was an EBITDA surplus after restructuring costs of £766k compared to the budgeted surplus of £865k.
8.1.2 The R06 data return showed that 16-18 learner responsive learner numbers were above allocation overall by 276 students, however, there had been under recruitment to T level courses. An estimate of £550k was included in the autumn reforecast for net in-year growth funding. Confirmation of how this would be calculated was still awaited.
8.1.3 Indications were that the College would fall short of its ASF target as a result of the changes to the tailored learning funding stream with an under achievement estimated at £250k. The tailored learning allocation would be spent by the end of term 2 but there would be an underspend against the ASF since the ALS which would previously have been associated with provision now funded under tailored learning would not be spent. Meetings had taken place with the DfE which acknowledged that the impact was not in line with the policy intent but there was nothing that could be done to address this in year.
8.1.4 Apprenticeship income was currently above budget and forecast to exceed the autumn reforecast target by £150k.
8.1.5 Additional high needs funding of £150k was expected to be received compared to the autumn reforecast.
8.1.6 A spring reforecast had been undertaken. Overall, the expected EBITDA surplus after restructuring costs had decreased by £78k, from a surplus of £2,022k to a surplus of £1,944k.
8.1.7 The holiday pay costs had been factored in. No adjustment had been made for the National Insurance (NI) increase because it was not yet clear how much of this would be funded.
8.1.8 The College would meet its bank covenants and achieve a ‘good’ financial health rating, following the spring reforecast.
8.2 Governors made a number of comments and asked the following questions:
8.2.1 The position had not moved much; how much did it need to move to fall into Requires Improvement financial health? This was sensitive; around £500k would move the College to RI. The position was still cautious and did not include expected additional funding from the £50m announced nationally.
8.2.2 Would it be possible to include the additional funding in the spring reforecast? It should be.
8.3 The Acting Principal reported on what was known about the allocations for 2025/26. The EPYP allocation of 3,999 students was positive and higher than pre-Covid levels. T levels were allocated 789 although this seemed optimistic and since there was no tolerance, a clawback might be factored into the balance sheet. There would be a 6% cut to adult funding; the tailored learning allocation would be insufficient and so a business case would need to be made. There was no increase to apprenticeships funding although some changes to the levy might help. There was likely to be more competition for HE students. The spending review was likely to be tough.
8.4 Members of the Corporation noted the period finance report and approved the spring reforecast.
Governor’s visit reports
9.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the governor visit reports. Shabir Ismail, Jane Parkinson, Kully Sandhu, Sophie Strevens-Robinson and Nicky Randall left the meeting
Leadership arrangements - Confidential
Safeguarding update
11.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the Safeguarding Update.
Items from audit committee: Risk Management Update
12.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the Risk Management Update.
Interim complaints report
13.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the interim complaints report.
Governor Appointments
14.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the Governor appointments report.
ESFA letter to accounting officers
15.1 Members of the Corporation received and noted the ESFA letter to accounting officers.
Dates of future meetings #
15 May Special Corporation
6/7 June 2025 (Away Days)
3 July 2025