Agenda item

Dylan McTaggart, from Uxbridge College, introduced HRUC, and thanked Members for the opportunity to present the item.

The college group had 15,000 students, growing at 7% annually. 8,500 students were aged 16-18, with 50% at Level 3 and above. 4,500 adults were enrolled, with about 2,000 of these on part-time programs.

The college had a diverse student body, including 450 looked after children, which had doubled in the last two years. These young people achieved only 1% below their peers and amongst the highest achievement in the UK.

There were 850 high-needs students, ranging from low, profound and multiple learning disability where you might have three staff members and one student, up to those who were on their journey to university.

About 60% of students came to the college without both English and maths GCSE. The college had the highest progress despite this and was in the top 10% of all colleges nationally. This achievement was 8% above national average, despite merging with Richmond College which was a failing college financially and achievement-wise at the time. Harrow and Uxbridge Colleges were both rated outstanding by Ofsted, and including Richmond College the overall rating was good.

The college was very employer-focused. The college boasted a 96% positive destination rate for students (i.e. a job or moving up a level).

The college had a 97% retention rate across the 15,000 students. Of the 3%, some were for relocation purposes. Exclusions were under 20 for the entire year, which the college was very proud of.

Significant investments were being made in STEM and engineering, including a £12 million investment to develop the Institute of Technology.

There was a strong partnership with the local authority. Hillingdon was very outward looking compared to other local authorities that the college group were stationed in.

There had been some groundbreaking work on the 14-19 education strategy and good partnerships with schools.

The college had just purchased Barra Hall in Hayes for a new facility. This would be of benefit as the college was growing by 15% a year in high needs students alone.

Members asked about the number of students who leave with GCSEs in Maths and English. For those who came to the college without this, the pass mark was around 23%, which was significant for this cohort. It was reiterated that there was a 96% positive destination. This meant that despite poorer starting points, those students were achieving merits and distinctions in their main vocational course, and 80% got their first choice of university. Students were generally at the college for three to four years and so by the time they left the college the vast majority had GCSEs.

Members asked about moving staff around the different sites. Some teachers did move across the sites, in engineering for example. The growth of the college was vast and they were constantly recruiting. There was a constant 7% vacancy factor with 3% agency on top. The college did not cancel classes.

Members inquired about the partnership with MIT. This was an exciting new project and the college was trying to focus their curriculum on the future. They did this be engaging with partners such as MIT. This was about upskilling staff and giving students the opportunity to visit MIT and experience MIT aspiration. There were internal scholarships for students and the college had started a national competition where schools and other colleges can put forward students to present approaches to changing environmental challenges and he judges of the competition were MIT. The college funded prizes for these students even when they were external to the college.

Members asked about whether the college was competing with local schools or offering something different. Students or parents may choose the college because their staff have worked in Microsoft or Google or other engineering firms and bring this experience into the classroom. The college also had facilities beyond traditional classrooms such as a nutrition suite that was set up like a hospital. They were also investing in aero technology. Students do as well as talk about.

Members asked about partnerships with secondary schools. It was noted that this was a strong and significant partnership that had evolved a lot in the last two to three years. A lot of work had been done with the education team such as curating a headteacher network. While there may have been initial hesitation about the college form schools, the college had worked hard to dispel these concerns and to try to complement schools. The college attended regular networks to discuss working together. A key focus had been on the 14-19 strategy, looking at young people who were at risk of becoming NEET. There was a large learner voice network where class reps would go to student conferences and talk about their experiences of the college and their aspirations. There were brave conversation networks that focused on groups who may have underperformed. One cohort that had been underperforming was black Caribbean students. Conversations were had with young people about what they need when they come from secondary school and the college conducted initial and diagnostic assessments. The college also conducted knowledge gap assessments. The 60% of students who arrived without a GCSE was in the lowest 20^th percentile nationally, but the left in the top 10%.

Members inquired about addressing challenges faced by disadvantaged students and ensuring that further education was accessible to these young people. This was an important cohort for the college, particular 18-21 year olds in full time programmes. The college offered hardship bursaries and loans. The vast majority of students came for free because they will not have done their first Level 3 qualification and therefore they were funded. There was a small number of co-funded students doing part time courses who were already in work.

Members asked how the college ensured that students from low-income backgrounds and those facing social barriers received the necessary academic and pastoral support. Members also asked about mentoring schemes. This was a growing portion of the student body. There was a mental health tracking list for students with PIPs. There was training around this. There were safeguarding lists including for domestic violence. There was a significant student services offer with specialist wellbeing staff, specialist mental health staff, specialist looked after children staff, and counsellors. The college was good at tracking the student journey and would notice when students were falling away. There was a dedicated student services team on site. There was a tutorial offer where every student received one hour a week one-to-one with an academic tutor to ensure they were on track. Students could monitor their progress on the college app. The college were trying to make more use of AI and were investing in this. they were also experimenting with more mentoring programmes; there were a team of people who walked through the campus looking for signs.

Members further asked how the college addressed challenges faced by disadvantaged students. The college may enrol students in smaller groups so they get more support. There was a significant programme of workshops and additional teaching. There was a digital learning system to help engage students who had missed lessons.

Members asked about the numbers of withdrawals of students. The overall withdrawal rate was 3%, which was very low. Some students may withdraw due to relocation. For example, some of these students were ESOL students. There was a very small number of students who would be removed because of behaviour/ engagement.

Members asked about tracking destinations of students. The college measured the destination of every student, of which there were 96% positive destinations. About 35% went into work, a significant number came back into the college for the next year. Of the roughly 2,000 final year Level 3 students, they often went into university or work or the internal Higher Education programme. The other 4% were also tracked, for example they may be NEET. This tracking was done via an intended destination and then a prolonged destination tracked in the following January.

Members asked how the college ensured consistency in tracking student progress across different campuses. The college had groundbreaking tracking tools at the headline, group, college and school levels (e.g. engineering school), and down to the student level. This included assessment tracking, attendance and retention. Every student had an individual leaning plan (ILPs). Students had three ILP 1-2-1 sessions per year, with targets to help them get a higher grade or improve attendance or engage in a more productive way. These targets would be monitored alongside academic performance. These are signed off as ‘met well’, ‘partially missed’ or ‘referred’. If referred the target carried to the next term. Specific targets were set for high needs students based on their EHCP and there was extra engagement with students where needed.

Members asked about the college’s capital programme and plans for future capacity. It was both capacity and student experience focused. The college was growing quickly and wanted to invest in what it was like to be on campus. This would include new reception spaces and learning resources centres. The college was also investing in immersive classrooms.

Members commended the witness for their passion.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report