Agenda
14 October 2014
1. / Apologies for absence / 5.302. / Declarations of interest
3. / Minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2014
To approve the minutes of the last meeting
Paper attached
Allison Howe / 5.40
4. / Matters arising from the minutes
5. / Feedback from Ofsted mock inspection and monitoring visit
Ioan Morgan / 5.50
6. / SAR validation
To review and analyse the content of the data dashboard
Presentation
Rob Rees and APs / 6.00
11. / Any other business / 7.40
12. / Date of next meeting
9 December 2014 / 7.45
/ Quality Recovery Board
Minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2014
Present:
Monica Duncan (Chair)
John Landeryou
John Litchfield
Kate Shoesmith
David Wilson
In attendance:
Allison Howe
Jo Lomax
Rob Rees
1. / Apologies for absenceApologies were received from Steve Carney, Ioan Morgan and Maureen Salmon. The Committee noted the resignation of Helen Klier.
2. / Declarations of interest
There were none.
3. / Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2014
The minutes were approved as an accurate record of the meeting subject to the following amendment to the bullet point at the top of page 2:
“The timescale should be until the College received at least a Grade 3”
It was noted that the curriculum tutor and academic tutor referred to in the minutes were the same thing.
4. / Matters arising from the minutes
The Clerk updated the Committee on progress against the actions from the last meeting
Meeting
date / Action
no / Action / Officer responsible / Status
9 Sept 14 / 1 / The College Charter and student agreement should be brought to next meeting / RR
9 Sept 14 / 2 / Clerk would amend the terms of reference, circulating them for approval / AH / Complete
9 Sept 14 / 3 / The dashboard would be updated for 2014/15 following the Corporation meeting (See 5 below) / JP / On agenda
9 Sept 14 / 4 / To remove ‘best case’ from the dashboard and replace with national averages in every area / JP / Complete
9 Sept 14 / 5 / Governors asked that the new dashboard for 2014/15 should be available at the next meeting (See 3 above) / JP / On agenda
9 Sept 14 / 6 / the redrafted PIAP be brought to the next meeting / RR / On agenda
9 Sept 14 / 7 / Regular reports on apprenticeships to be brought to the Quality Recovery Board / JLo / On agenda
9 Sept 14 / 8 / Process for Governors attending observation sessions would be put in place / RR / To be in place before December window. Training to be provided beforehand.
9 Sept 14 / 9 / The draft curriculum plan be brought to the next meeting / IM / On agenda
9 Sept 14 / 10 / An entitlement section and student responsibilities would be added to the tutorial policy / TT / Complete
9 Sept 14 / 11 / The Chair requested that she observe a tutorial 2.30 on 23 September 2014 / MD / To be rearranged.
9 Sept 14 / 12 / The student handbook and parent guide to be available at next meeting / RR / Complete
9 Sept 14 / 13 / A range of students from a range of courses and age ranges, including apprentices should also be asked to meet with Governors prior to the meeting / RR / Complete
9 Sept 14 / 14 / the amended tutorial policy incorporating the comments sent in by absent governors would be circulated by email for approval / TT / Complete
9 Sept 14 / 15 / Apprenticeships would be a standing agenda item / AH / Complete
9 Sept 14 / 16 / Ofsted should be added to the Quality monitoring calendar and this should be submitted to the Corporation Board meeting (ACTION 16) / RR / Complete
5. / Learner voice feedback
It was noted that 9 learners had met with the Committee members prior to the meeting.
Students spent a lot of time on feeling safe and supported with their learning needs. That mattered a lot. They were clear about what subjects were good. Some students were evangelical about those subjects such as music. Lateness was an interesting issue – they understood why it was important, but there seemed to need some modification in the way it was handled.
Students were particularly engaged around the differing perception between before coming and arriving at the College. They didn’t think it would be safe. They were keen to be part of the effort to change the perception of the College, particularly in schools.
The feedback about the “long and boring” learning centre induction was consistent among all the students. There was no indication about whether they felt they would be challenged and successful.
John Landeryou arrived.
All the students had indicated they felt safe at College. There had been an interesting debate about lateness. There needed to be a consistent approach to both students and staff.
A number of students had indicated they had been at College for some time on a number of different courses. Governors were concerned about this and asked to see the data behind the students (ACTION 1).
The Board requested that the same students be invited back at the end of the spring term (ACTION 2).
6. / Success rates 2013/14 and data dashboard 2014/15
The success rates data was introduced by the Vice Principal Curriculum, Quality and Learner Experience. The areas that were most significant in size were long level three 19+ students in SSA1 (Health and Childcare, Social Care and Public Services). This was affected by poor access recruitment and the Myrrh subcontract.
SSA6 (IT) was an area of high concern. While it was on a three year improvement trend, improvement was not quick enough. Achievement was not consistent with retention and was being investigated.
SSA7 (Hospitality, hair and beauty) was being pulled down by hair.
SSA14 was where the majority of students sat. Approximately 10,000 learners were in ESOL. The English and maths qualifications had changed and disadvantaged the College’s results. Work was to be done on improving achievement in this area.
Construction was a surprise this year and had an indicative grade 2, while the data was showing a potential grade 1 there was no consistency to justify such a grading.
Dance and drama was definitely a 1 and music and media was a 2.
Teacher education was grade 4 but was in tiny numbers. The College was looking at a grade 3 overall on outcomes. If teaching and learning came out as a grade 2 this meant that leadership and management would be a 2. However the Board was made aware that the reality was that the most likely outcome of an Ofsted inspection was a Grade 3.
Governors present were keen to understand the varying indicative grades for ESOL. While it was accepted that differing numbers of students in the long and short courses could impact on outcome percentages, Governors were extremely concerned that one curriculum area in 16-18 (General Studies) did not put 78 students’ achievements through in time for the submission deadlines. An investigation was being conducted into this event.
Governors present were concerned that with the outcome statistics presented it would not be possible to evidence progress to OFSTED. The Vice Principal Curriculum, Quality and Learner Experience explained that attendance and punctuality would be considered, retention would be considered, any exams sat in the current academic year would be considered and all very short and short qualifications would be considered.
Progression data for students would be based on scheme of works, distance travelled and progress against targets would be reviewed. There was lots of information for individual students but there would also be top level aggregate information.
It was noted that 70% of lesson observations would be conducted by the end of the week commencing 20 October 2014.
It was further noted that staff had not been presented the success data in such a stark way before.
How are the messages about the requirements and expectations of Ofsted being communicated? There was a teaching conference session that all teachers had to attend. Meetings were taking place with Curriculum managers on a weekly basis.
Staff needed to understand the grading of all SARs. The mock inspection that was taking place during the week commencing 20 October 2014 would be the same as a full inspection although it would cover a wider range of subject areas. The lesson observation for the year would be submitted to Ofsted as part of the College observation records.
The SAR validation process will be the main subject of the next meeting with Assistant Principals presenting their subject area SARs. The SAR validation panels were taking place at the moment and had an external assessor supporting the curriculum manager.
The Board were concerned that there was no Governor challenge into the SAR validation process, and there would be little opportunity to challenge by the time of the next meeting. The Vice Principal Curriculum, Quality and Learner Experience explained the process had been done this way to ensure that all the SARs were of high quality prior to presentation to Governors.
The Quality Recovery Board noted the report.
7. / Post inspection action plan (PIAP)
The Vice Principal Curriculum, Quality and Learner Experience presented an updated RAG rated version of the PIAP, highlighting the fact that there were no red ratings and that all actions would be complete by the following week.
In terms of attendance and punctuality, late timetabling of tutorials had led to some clashes of tutorials and lessons. Punctuality was less than 90% therefore amber. There was a correlation between good provision and attendance. General Education was such an area. Attendance Officers had now been appointed. Three additional Learner Support workers had been allocated to that area. An attendance officer had been put into that department.
English and maths observations been incorporated into workshops. It was noted that 95% staff without and English and maths qualifications, had not all achieved the qualifications yet.
There was some catch up on implementing the OTL process.
In terms of the “at risk” risk register, implementation of Pro Monitor late in the day meant that there had been slow progress in ensuring all ‘at risk’ students had not had triggers put in place. Parameters for at risk students now in place and progress coaches catching up with that area. It was noted that target setting in Pro Monitor was deemed to be sensible.
Assessor caseloads were being reviewed but that is yet to be completed.
Investing learning support into curriculum areas, has meant that not all learning support staff had been observed.
What is the narrative about the PIAP going in the right direction against the success rates for last year. Outcomes were probably dictated prior to the start of the last academic year, students were placed on wrong courses and there had been a lack of initial assessment. The PIAP was measuring the implementation of targets and not impact.
The Quality Recovery Board noted the report.
8. / Apprenticeships
The interim Head of Academic Recovery reported that apprentice success data was currently at 53%, which was below SFA minimum level of achievement (MLA), however with the withdrawal of wrongly enrolled apprenticeships, most areas were above the MLA. That would be argued with the SFA however, they had not been supportive of this approach to date.
It was noted that while the local SFA might be sympathetic, the decision about the future contract award would be made by the SFA national office in Coventry. Students due to complete in August and September had high success rates with timely success and an improving trend, there could be a much different result going forward.
There was a need to keep in mind that the withdrawn learners who were scheduled to complete across the coming year would still count against us. It was noted however that there had been a PFA audit which had been clean.
The Quality Recovery Board thanked all the staff who had been involved in the apprenticeship data cleansing project and those who were now ensuring delivery was of a high quality.
Subcontracting
The Quality Recovery Board received the sub-contracting procedures noting that the only sub-contractors currently being used were those providing to existing learners. All PQQ documentation had been received and was being assessed. There were not plans to use many sub-contractors, but there was a process in place that all sub-contractors had to meet to ensure quality provision in the future.
The Quality Recovery Board noted the content of the report
9. / Curriculum Plan update
This item was deferred on account of the Interim Principal not being present.
10.
11. / Committee risk register
It was noted that the Audit Committee expected the Quality Recovery Board to take responsibility for risk management. The Committee noted that there needed to be work done to the risk register.
It was noted that the risk register was improving but was still a work in progress. However, it was further noted that all the high risks had been covered during the discussion of the agenda items.
Any other business
The Chair asked for a marketing report in January 2015.
12. / Date of next meeting
11 November 2014
Action sheet
Meetingdate / Action
no / Action / Officer responsible / Status
9 Sept 14 / 1 / The College Charter and student agreement should be brought to next meeting / RR / Due 11 November 2014
9 Sept 14 / 8 / Process for Governors attending observation sessions would be put in place / RR / Due by 9 December 2014
9 Sept 14 / 9 / the draft curriculum plan be brought to a future meeting / IM / Scheduled for 20 January 2015
9 Sept 14 / 11 / The Chair requested that she observe a tutorial / MD / Waiting for Chair’s availability
14 October / 5 / Governors to receive data on students College records / RR / Complete
14 October / 5 / Students to be invited to Quality Recovery Board meeting on 17 March 2015 / AH / All students emailed and thanked for attending and invited to meeting on that date. Reminder to be sent closer to the time