Sports Academy Club House
CORPORATION BOARD
Minutes of a Meeting
10.00am onThursday 13th October2016
Sports Academy Club House
Present: / Mr Edward Keene (EK) (Chair)Ms Ingrid Barker (IB)
Mrs Barbara Buck (BB)
Ms Rachel Cowie (RC)
Mr David Crawford (DC)
Mr Sean Lynn (SL)
Mr Russell Marchant (RM)
Mr Chris Moody (CM)
Ms Zoe Nicholls (ZN)
Mr Graham Papenfus (GP)
Professor Ian Robinson (IR)
Dr John Selby (JS)
Mr David Seymour (DS)
Mr Charles Whitehouse (CW)
In Attendance: / Mr Graham Ledden (GL)
Mrs Rosie Scott-Ward (RSW)
Ms Claire Whitworth (CW1)
Mrs Lesley Worsfold (LW)
Apologies: / Ms Louise Cox
Professor Ron Ritchie
Mr Graham van der Lely
Ms Nicola Wheatley
Minutes: / Mr Rob Lee
ACTION / ACTION
DATE
90/16 / The Chair welcomed Ms R Cowie, Ms Z Nicholls and Professor I Robinson to their first meeting.
Apologies
Apologies were received from Ms L Cox, Professor R Ritchie, Mr G van der Lely and Ms N Wheatley.
91/16 / Declaration of Interest. Paper C91/10/16
The Clerk advised that members’ interests would be taken as those disclosed in the Register of Members Interests. There were no declarations of members interests for agenda items.
92/16 / Minutes of the Last Meeting.Paper C92/10/16
Minutes of the meeting held on the 14th July 2016 were agreed to be a true and accurate record and signed by the Chair.
93/16 / Matters Arising
93.1. (70/16) Matters relating to the Area Review have been circulated to governors.
93.2. (72/16) The Students’ Union have not responded as to whether they would like a Link Governor so this matter will not be progressed.
The Clerk advised that there seemed to be so confusion over this matter as the Students’ Union believe that Mrs B Buck is their Link Governor. LW advised that Mrs Buck also believed this to be the case.
Mrs B Buck will be the Link Governor for the Students’ Union.
93.3. (77/16) The Place, Estate and Infrastructure Enabling Strategy is Agenda Item 104.3.
93.4. (80/16) Discussion on possible future College structure is Agenda Item 95/16. / LW / Immediate
94/16 / Discuss Principals Annual Report on outcomes for 2015/2016. Paper C94/10/16
RM advised that this was his high level review of the performance of all the major areas over the last year and covered some of the strategic areas going forward.
RM advised that it had been a challenging year for FE but with structural and personal changes real progress has been made. The re-structure saved costs and all FE academic staff bar three are now teaching. Review of recruitment was completed and the changes that were made has resulted in record breaking enrolment with over a 1000 new students and nearly 200 more full time students than last year. Further improvements are being made to this year particularly to get more of our own students progressing which is currently around 17.5% whereas one of the CULTIVA Colleges achieves 40%. RM would like, however, to minute congratulations to all staff for the tremendous effort made to improve this area. RM advised that academically it had been a good year with retention remaining high and withdrawals down by 30%. English and Maths results have improved with English above sector average but Maths below and challenges still remain in this area. A Levels results remain average but last year’s changes have not as yet had a full impact. DS advised that he was the Link Governor for this area and can see the area lacked discipline and structure but believed that the changes that have been put in place will have positive results. BTEC results are above average. RM advised that planning for next year in resources and staff was essential for our journey back to achieving an outstanding Ofsted grade.
RM advised that there have also been significant changes made to the structure and staffing of HE to focus on TDAP scrutiny, key curriculum approval panels, developing new programmes and a new quality framework.RM advised that the Scrutiny Panels Report should go to the QAA in February 2017. RM was pleased to announce HE have also had a record recruitment but recruitment remains testing as we see traditional universities lower entrance requirements and the demographic curve of 18 year olds continues to go down until 2019. RM advised that scholarly activity has doubled in the last year. RM advised that there are many challenges for 2016/2017 with the completion of the TDAP process, the need to improve conversion rates, progression from Hartpury FE and TEF submission. There have been problems around our new Management Information System concerning timetabling and Staff and Student Advantage and planning for next year needs to resolve these issues. RM confirmed that we will be conducting a space utilisation survey in the Autumn and we need to get more flexibility in to our facilities.
RM advised that it was an outstanding year financially with the budget being significantly exceeded. Our recruitment and room occupancy targets have all been met or exceeded. The financial strategy to save and spend continues to be appropriate and this allied to the recent loan offer will allow us to address our immediate priority developments, Dingle2 and Sports Academy2. RM advised that the College Executive has decreased in size from 12 to 8 and this has resulted in further savings.
RM would like to celebrate our sporting achievements with all our sports recording successes. There have been 18 national team titles, 18 league titles and 6 individual national titles.
RM advised that in general terms staff turnover is at an acceptable level but high in some areas and addressing the Living Wage will be a focus for 2016/2017. The new Student Zone has been well received and outreach and widening participation was developing well. There has been an Ofsted audit of our residential and safeguarding provision and we have been awarded a grade of “Outstanding”.
DC believed that RM and staff should be congratulated on a very good year. EK thanked RM for this positive Report and for outlining the challenges ahead.
95/16 / Discuss options on possible future College structure. Paper C95/10/16
RM advised that since the last meeting he had had further discussions with BIS and Eversheds on possible options available for us to move forward with our strategic vision for the creation of Hartpury University and Hartpury College, two specialist institutions with parity of esteem on one campus ensuring the advantages of their symbiotic relationship are maximised. RM advised, that as we are already aware, the fundamental issue that prevents us from converting to a Higher Education Corporation (HEC), seeking University Title and operating Hartpury College as a brand within the HEC is the requirement for 55% of our delivery to be HE. After the further discussions it had come down to 2 options which are very similar. RM outlined both options.Option 1 is to set up two companies limited by guarantee, HE company wholly owns the FE subsidiary company. Option 2 is the FEC sets up a company limited by guarantee subsidiary to deliver FE and converts to a HEC. Both separate HE and FE within a group structure so that there are distinct HE and FE institutions with symbiotic objectives, capable of managing themselves with powers reserved to the parent board. RM advised that both options require the designation of a subsidiary as a recognised body for the receipt of funding and currently the Minister and BIS are considering clarification of the designated powers and the announcement is expected by the end of November 2016. After discussion with BIS RM advised that they are happy with either option. RM outlined what the structure could look like. Both models will have a main board and a subsidiary board. The main board will have 12 non-executive members plus the Principal and staff and student representation. The FE subsidiary will also have 12 non-executive members made up of 4 from the main board and 8 who sit on this board only which will include the Principal and staff and student representatives. The make-up of the 4 representatives would have to be agreed but it would be unlikely that the Chair would sit on both as this could lead to a conflict of interest. In response to GP RM advised that in relation to how the subsidiary board reports to the main board a scheme of delegation will need to be agreed. In response to DS RM confirmed that FE funding will go direct to the subsidiary. In response to EK RM confirmed that there were no current examples of institutions splitting similar sized functions only examples of splitting different size functions. CM questioned the make-up of the boards particularly the 8 members on the subsidiary to include the Principal, staff and student members plus the four members from the main board leaving it with a potential minority of FE focused governors. RM confirmed that the make-up was still open to discussion and the 8 members on the subsidiary board could exclude the Principal and staff and student members. RM continued to outline the possible future structure and emphasised that the security of our vision of having two institutions with parity of esteem will be written in to our Instruments and Articles to make sure that in future it is very difficult to alter the vision. RM outlined the advantages and disadvantages of each option and advised that there are many similarities between the models. Model 1 may be achievable more quickly but possibly requires more direct political support, to in effect designate two bodies. It could bring forward our achievement of University Title and the ability to enrol undergraduates as a University and is attractive despite the increased risk of potential VAT repayment.Model 2 is close to an evolution from our current status, could take longer to establish and gives the Secretary of State for Education ongoing if rarely used powers. RM confirmed that both models will work in delivering the strategic vision. In response to EK RM agreed that the subsidiary board would be responsible for FE quality. EK questioned whether the rest would therefore be with the main board, which would help with flexibility by managing the resource but controlling such areas as the MW Centre would this cause problems? RSW advised that we need to show that we are setting up two individual institutions. In response to CW GL advised that it could also lead to a VAT bill of £750K. RM agreed with EK in that it would be better for the main board to control the resources and the earliest any structure change is likely to happen is 12 months and this will reduce any potential VAT bill. In response to RC RM advised that staff are key and would not expect there to be any changes to their terms and conditions from now particularly on pension schemes. In response to CW RSW believed that relating to parity of esteem the value of university title will be an advantage to FE in progression to HE. In response to CW on how two boards would engage with committees RM advised that you would mirror the committees across both boards. In response to DC RM believed that the committees should have some cross fertilisation. RSW believed that having two boards would make it easier for the different deadlines in HE and FE to be met. In response to EK GL advised that he had not spoken to our Bank relating to these two options and EK believed that we should gain their opinion before we make a final decision. JS advised that it is critical to see we have taken control of education and all aspects of quality and standards. RM agreed and believed this can be best achieved through two separate committees for quality which would also say we are two organisations. IB advised that she was still struggling with the necessity of having two separate entities and creating their visions, values and culture and what happens when they cannot agree. RM advised that we would have to give up the possibility of obtaining university status as we do not hit the 45:55 FE: HE ratio and the two bodies is a way of overcoming this. RM believed that the overall strategic plan will be agreed jointly by both boards. CM has concerns over the direction we are being asked to consider concerning the composition of the main board and potential academic drift. FE needs to be protected or it will go the way of other institutions who have merged with HE and be marginalised or disappear. RM believed that being on one site would help this not to happen. IB believed that if both options work we need to be imaginative in how we make it work and we need to do some modelling on cross over governors, joint committees and understanding the importance of QuESt. JS believed that the Instruments and Articles will be critical and we should also question the potential workload of governors. EK also pointed out there were unresolved questions from the last meeting relating to possible structure of the Executive, their roles and responsibilities and the cost implications of the new structure.
A further review will take place considering the above discussion and report made to next meeting. / RM / 08/12/16
96/16 / Discuss Vice Principal (HE) Report. Paper C96/10/16
RSW advised that the data on new enrolments is still provisional as enrolments are still continuing and updated the figures shown in her Report. RSW advised that there were currently 536 new Year 1 students against a prediction of 525 and exceeded last year’s figure of 509 by over 5%. Returners and top ups were currently 898 against a prediction of 879 but remained the same as last year giving the number of undergraduates as 1434 against 1407 last year. RSW also confirmed that there has been an increase in postgraduate students from 102 last year total to 134 this year. RSW advised that this was the highest ever total headcount for HE students. RSW stressed that these were currently headcount and not FTE’s which still had to be calculated. RSW advised that there was still work to be done in the future as honours degree conversion had not been as good as predicted with Foundation Degrees being up. DC questioned whether this will reflect on the quality of our students and RSW agreed that generally it will mean more of a challenge. RSW confirmed that she expected to hit the financial budget. RSW advised that applications from FE had significantly improved from 72 last years to 107 this year, and interestingly spread across the provision. RSW advised that there were pleasing results from the National Student Survey with overall satisfaction increased by 1% to 87% equal to UWE and 1% above the Higher Education Institutes national average and 7% above the Further Education Corporation average and there had been improvements in 25 of the 28 categories. RSW advised that 85% of formally observed teaching had been graded excellent or commended which was below target and advised that a fuller report will be coming to the next meeting of QuESt. RSW advised that relating to achievement all three measures have exceeded target and that it is especially pleasing to see Good Degrees, 1st and 2.1, reaching its highest level of 63%, 8% above the previous year. RSW advised that the investment that had been made in our Innovation, Careers and Enterprise Centre (ICE) was beginning to show significant benefits with 98.8% of our students in employment or further study 6 months after graduation and 70% in positive graduate destinations which exceeded the target of 60%. EK felt this showed the College was preparing students for work and was an excellent result. RSW outlined some curriculum developments for 2017/2018 which included two racing programmes and outlined the reasons for this. JS advised that he could see why this would be complimentary to our equine strengths but stressed that diversity of the student body was going to be hugely important in the future. EK congratulated RSW and the HE team on their performance to the Key Performance Indicators and the excellent enrolment data.
97/16 / The Student Voice.
ZN advised that the FE Enrolment went very smoothly in the main although there had been some problems over paperwork not being available. ZN advised that she had received communication from the HE Student Governor who is unable to be present at the meeting that communication before enrolment was very late going out. ZN advised that the major concern at the moment was the number of timetable and room changes that were taking place and quoted an example that they had been timetabled to go from Equine to the Farm and then Equine for three consecutive lectures. ZN also advised that Student Advantage looks as though it could be very good but unfortunately it is not working at the moment. RM advised that he was aware of these big issues that were affecting the students and regretted that we had not achieved our targets for this year but planning had already started for next year to ensure these problems did not arise again.
98/16 / The Principal will outline the proposal for the construction of Sports Academy2.
RM outlined the current situation with the sports facilities, why there needed to be improvements and the proposals for a new sports academy building. The current academy was built in 2007 when there were 600 students and this figure is now 1400. Sports Academy2 was needed to improve student experience and maintain and increase recruitment; centralise sport student activities; increase changing facilities as currently they are dictating sports fixture timing; respond to increased competition and to have top class facilities to attract the best students. RM outlined the proposed facilities and the timescale of the project with completion for the start2018/2019 academic year. RM confirmed that it will be necessary to convert the current building by putting in a mezzanine floor over the sports hall at the same time as constructing the new building as we will need the classrooms. RM explained where the new building will be built and advised that all car parking from the area will disappear but the bus park will remain. RM showed the governors drawings of the potential facilities.