Minutes of the East Durham College Curriculum, Quality and Standards Committee held on 6th June 2024

Stuart Laverick (Chair), Alex Brennan, David Butler, Suzanne Duncan, Kirsty Tate (Staff Governor), R Harrison, M Young 

C. Tomlinson – Vice Principal

S King – Director of Quality 

H McCoy – (Assistant Principal Performance)

J Lanagan (Assistant Principal)

A Wilkinson – Campus Director 

L Haggis – Campus Director 

S Pritchard (Clerk to the Corporation)

No apologies

Chair asked for committee members to declare their interests in relation to any item on the agenda.  No conflicts of interest were declared.

There were no matters arising that were not substantive items on the agenda

There were no matters arising that were not substantive items on the agenda. 

The Assistant Principal Performance and Quality Director presented the report.  

It was highlighted in particular that target setting was an area for improvement and that Ofsted had verified that improvements were made and the college will continue to work on this.  Ofsted also highlighted that retention continued to be challenging and a working party had been established to consider this in more depth.  

The committee were pleased to note the learner voice update and the outcome of the student governor conference which had generally been positive.  Issues fed back around food and buses were noted.

It was noted that through internal observations 6% of staff had been identified as having need for support with teaching, including new members of staff.  The committee was also pleased to see that the mitigating actions the college has implemented to address staff retention were starting to have an impact but that teacher turnover was now 25% and had more than doubled therefore further action was required.  The chair of the committee highlighted his experience with similar challenges nationally.

A member welcomed the AI policy and acknowledged that this was becoming a huge challenge and offered to share thinking from a University’s perspective.  They queried if any guidance was being shared centrally on this topic.  It was confirmed that awarding bodies and JISC guidance had informed the AI policy and that staff training was planned but that it was likely to be an iterative process as new issues became known.  The college also uses their knowledge of student’s performance and their abilities in the classroom to identify issues.  It was noted that the staff governor had presented on this topic to the AoC conference.

A member queried if the HE quiet space requested from students at the student governor conference has been able to be actioned and how the college has responded was fed back.

The outcomes of internal and external peer review activities were noted.

The report was presented to the committee by the Vice Principal Curriculum and Performance.  The committee noted in particular the need to improve progress of adults on distance learning programmes and that face to face delivery was planned in light of combined authority guidance.  The committee discussed the need to be clear where there were specific areas for improvement in relation to any unsatisfactory performance.

Progress on the QIP was noted.

The report was presented to the committee by the Vice Principal Curriculum and Performance.

The committee noted that attendance was good overall and improving.  There was a need to focus on retention which has dropped compared to previous years.  Learners were leaving for employment right before their assessment.  A task and finish group had been established to look at this issue, and those relating to mental health.

A member queried whether the lack of motivation or interest (which was predominantly amongst adults on short courses) was an issue of the choice of course and noted the high number of drop outs.  It was explained that most adult learners want to learn without assessment.

[Jackie] agreed to unpack the lack of motivation in distance learning courses and bring this back to a future committee, in particular considering the modes of assessment.

In response to a query from a member, it was explained that the implications of having to put students on 2 year courses and the lack of options arising from curriculum reform would increase retention risk, and that therefore information advice and guidance would become crucial.

The curriculum KPIs were noted.

The Assistant Principal Curriculum, Planning and Partnerships presented the report and the planned recruitment for 16-18 and AEB were noted, in particular the planned increase in T-level provision and the increase in the apprenticeship target.

The issues around the need for work placement opportunities for T-level students was discussed.  A member noted the intention to increase all targets and queried how likely it was to be able to meet those targets if not reached by November, and what impact this would have on the budget in July.  It was explained that with 16-18 there was little that could be done in year (other than Kings Trust and LEAP programmes), and that this was therefore the biggest risk to funding.  With 14-16 there is little concern as there is a waiting list for spaces, however it is the physical estate that constrains numbers and therefore income stream.  Apprenticeship targets can be tackled in year.

A member was pleased to hear about the clarity and rigour of the target setting process and queried the financial implications.  This was to be taken away as an action.

It was noted that an application would be made to register with OfS but that it was a lengthy and costly process.  This arose through changes to lifelong learning entitlements that could now only be accessed through the OfS but that the new Principal would bring experience in this regard and support was offered by R Harrison and M Young.

It was requested that organic growth be added to the budget report in July to provide an insight into the level of risk exposure around the proposed targets.

The committee noted that the risk was particularly high owing to the connection between the need for student growth but the potential impact of staff retention on the college’s ability to grow.  It was noted that the college was working on achieving efficient class sizes to address this challenge.  

The college noted that CLG would be looking to evidence exceptionality through teaching and learning reports and that the [Director of Quality?] was overseeing this process.  The committee was invited to challenge staff on their evidence of exceptional teaching and learning progress as the new year progresses.

Action: An explanation to be given to governors by Assistant Principal Curriculum and Partnerships on what is meant by “exceptionality”.

The report was noted.

The annual schedule of reports was reviewed and accepted.

The chair of the committee noted the Principal’s contributions to the college and this committee and thanked her for her work.