Setting

Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.do c Version 5.0 Page 1 FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGE

p.1

NG31 9AP

Lead Inspector Alison Marshall Announced Inspection 30th January 2006 10:00 Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.do c Version 5.0 Page 2 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to:

p.1

NG31 9AP

• Put the people who use social care first • Improve services and stamp out bad practice • Be an expert voice on social care • Practise what we preach in our own organisation

p.2

NG31 9AP

Reader Information Document Purpose Inspection Report Author CSCI Audience General Public Further copies from 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) Copyright This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Internet address www.csci.org.uk Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.do c Version 5.0 Page 3 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Further Education Colleges. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop

p.2

NG31 9AP

Every Child Matters, outlined the government’s vision for children’s services and formed the basis of the Children Act 2004. It provides a framework for inspection so that children’s services should be judged on their contribution to the outcomes considered essential to wellbeing in childhood and later life. Those outcomes are: • Being healthy • Staying safe • Enjoying and achieving • Making a contribution; and • Achieving economic wellbeing.

p.3

NG31 9AP

In response, the Commission for Social Care Inspection has re-ordered the national minimum standards for children’s services under the five outcomes, for reporting purposes. A further section has been created under ‘Management’ to cover those issues that will potentially impact on all the outcomes above.

p.3

NG31 9AP

Copies of Every Child Matters and The Children Act 2004 are available from The Stationery Office as above. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.do c Version 5.0 Page 4

p.3

Name of college

Address Grantham College Stonebridge Road Grantham Lincs NG31 9AP Telephone number 01476 400200

p.4

inspection

14 January 2003 Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.do c Version 5.0 Page 5

p.4

Brief Description of the College:

Grantham College is located close to the centre of the town with access to local services and facilities. Grantham College is easy to travel to, from any part of the UK. The college benefits from excellent road and rail links with Kings Cross, London just 75 minutes away. Locally there are frequent public buses to Newark, Sleaford and Nottingham. Self-catering accommodation is available on campus in Sedgwick Hall and Sedgwick Mews. Students under 18 years all live in Sedgwick Hall. The building is on three levels with an accommodation office situated on the middle floor. All the students have their own furnished rooms with ensuite. Each set of eight rooms has a kitchen with dining area. Some students live with families in Grantham: this is arranged by the college. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.do c Version 5.0 Page 6

p.5

SUMMARY

This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection.

p.6

SUMMARY

The main inspection activity took place over two days by two inspection officers. The third day focused on clarifying information and providing feedback to the college. Questionnaires were sent to students and their parents: 17 student questionnaires and 6 parent questionnaires were returned. Inspectors had discussions with students and toured Sedgwick Hall. Key staff were interviewed and a number of records were seen.

p.6

What the college does well:

The outcomes for students were good. Students reported that the staff were approachable and fair. They said that punishments were rarely used and that any imposed were deserved and appropriate. Students and staff said that bullying was not an issue. There were good relationships between the home and international students.

p.6

What the college does well:

Students liked that they had ensuite within their rooms and felt this contributed to the good levels of privacy. Health needs were well met.

p.6

What the college does well:

There was a good system of pastoral support within the college with student tutors and access to a counsellor and a nurse. There was good communication between academic tutors, student tutors, accommodation staff and coaching staff.

p.6

What the college does well:

The staff team were a stable and consistent group. There was good informal communication between them. They seemed willing to do more than was expected of them and it was clear that much activity took place due to the goodwill and care of the staff.

p.6

What has improved since the last inspection?

Supervision of students had increased. There were four accommodation officers and an accommodation manager. This meant that a staff member was available to the students at all times besides 7 am to 5 pm on Saturday and Sunday. An on call system had been set up to provide cover during these times.

p.6

What has improved since the last inspection?

Improvements had been made to the accommodation. New industrial laundry facilities had been provided. All of the kitchens had been replaced as well as the kitchen flooring. The cleaners had allocated time to clean the kitchens weekly which meant that standards of cleanliness and hygiene had improved.

p.6

What has improved since the last inspection?

Security of Sedgwick Hall had increased with the introduction of an electronic key to the main entrances with self-closing doors installed. New security locks to the corridors had been fitted. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.do c Version 5.0 Page 7 Students felt that the rules and boundaries regarding behaviour had been made more explicit and that they were more rigorously enforced.

p.6

What they could do better:

The college needed to review how it provided information to students, parents and staff. A lot of information was provided informally and verbally and as a consequence there were some inconsistencies in practice. The parents who responded to the questionnaire reported that they had insufficient written information about how the college supervised their children.

p.7

What they could do better:

Although it was clear that the accommodation staff were responding to issues and concerns regarding the welfare of the students there was little written evidence detailing the actions or the outcomes. Record keeping in these areas could be improved upon.

p.7

What they could do better:

Recruitment practice was not in keeping with the standards.

p.7

What they could do better:

The Head of Learner Support acknowledged the concerns above and had ideas about how to develop them. The inspectors are confident that these would all be addressed by the next inspection. The recommended action section at the end of the report contains a large number of actions. This is because it includes best practice actions that the college were keen to implement.

p.7

What they could do better:

Please contact the Principal for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 8

p.7

CONTENTS

Recommended Actions identified during the inspection Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 9

p.8

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Under-age drinking, substance abuse and possession of obscene material by students are appropriately countered.(NMS 6) • Students receive first aid and health care as necessary.(NMS 14) • Students are adequately supervised when ill.(NMS 15) • Students are supported in relation to any health or personal problems.(NMS 16) • Students receive good quality catering provision.(NMS 22) • Students have access to food and drinking water in addition to main meals.(NMS 23) • Students are suitably accommodated when ill.(NMS 43)

p.9

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Students had good access to health resources and their health needs were promoted.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

The student license and diary clearly laid out the college policy on under age drinking, substance misuse and possession of obscene material. These included the measures that the college would take if a student were to defy the policy. The students were all encouraged to register with the local GP. College staff would support students with this process and with any other medical appointments if necessary. A Nurse visited the college every Monday morning for a drop in session. A number of college staff were first aid trained.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Students managed their own medication. There was nobody known to the college who required any support with health needs. A counsellor was available to the students. The written information provided to the students required that they make an appointment with the counsellor through the Information and Advice Desk. The college may want to consider how students can make an appointment in a more confidential manner.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Staff seemed aware of those students who were or might be homesick and provided suitable support. There was good communication between the accommodation staff, student tutor, academic tutor and coaching staff to ensure that all were aware, when necessary, of any particular concerns regarding a student.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

There was no sick bay available. Students had their own room with ensuite and would remain in their rooms if unwell. Some home students chose to Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 10 return to their parents at times. If a student were unwell over the weekend accommodation staff said they would come in to supervise the student.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Kitchens were provided for all of the students. These were furnished with cooker, microwave, toaster, kettle, fridge and freezers. Students supplied their own cooking utensils and equipment. There was a refectory on site that was open Monday to Friday which the students could use: all chose to cater for themselves. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 11

p.10

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Students are protected from bullying and harassment.(NMS 2) • Students are protected from abuse.(NMS 3) • Use of discipline with students is fair and appropriate.(NMS 4) • Students’ complaints are adequately responded to.(NMS 5) • Students are protected from the risk of fire.(NMS 24) • The welfare of any young people accommodated by the college other than its own students is safeguarded and promoted.(NMS 26) • Students’ safety and welfare are protected during high risk activities.(NMS 27) • Students’ personal privacy is respected.(NMS 33) • There is careful selection and vetting of all staff and volunteers working with residential students.(NMS 34) • Students are protected from unsupervised contact with adults who have not been, subject to the college’s complete recruitment checking procedures.(NMS 35) • Students have their own living accommodation, secure from public intrusion.(NMS 37) • Any security or surveillance measures provide security to protect

p.11

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

students without compromising their privacy.(NMS 38) • Students are given reasonable protection from safety hazards.(NMS 42)

p.11

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Students said they felt safe on campus and within Sedgwick Hall. Some management systems could be improved upon.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The college had an appropriate bullying policy but it was not made explicitly known to students or parents, as it was only available on the college intranet. It was covered with the students during their induction period. Students and staff did not report bullying as an issue. Of the 17 student questionnaires returned only 2 (12%) said they had ever experienced any bullying. All the other responses said that they had never experienced bullying.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The child protection policy was in the process of being updated and included reference to the local procedures. The Head of Learner Support was the designated lead within the college and had received appropriate training. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 Records relating to child protection were not inspected. Staff had received training and were due to receive refresher training. The student license and student planner contained the student disciplinary code. Students spoken to were clear about how the code worked and felt that punishments were rarely used. They said if they were used they were deserved and were fairly applied. The college had a policy on physical intervention.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The college had a complaints procedure and detailed records of any complaints were kept. There had been no formal complaints made about the residential facilities this academic year.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

An independent consultant had recently completed a fire risk assessment for Sedgwick Hall and the actions identified were being implemented. Discussion with students highlighted that one sensor seemed to be sensitive and was regularly triggering the fire alarm. However, because of the frequency of this, students and staff had become desensitised to the alarm and were not always evacuating the building. The fire log did not record when this had happened.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Students had to sign in and out when they left the building after 5 pm. The book was situated on the middle floor in the accommodation office and students could leave the building by the top or bottom floor. The book and discussions with students confirmed that not all students followed this procedure. Other methods had been tried but with similar results.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Standards 26, 27 and 42 were not fully inspected. The structure for implementing and taking responsibility for health and safety within the college had changed in September 2005 and a Safety and Quality Officer had been appointed to assist the Head of Quality and Safety. He had provided risk assessment training to staff and a new risk assessment process was actively being implemented. There were procedures within the health and safety policy regarding trips away from the college.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Students felt that there were good levels of privacy. The conditions under which room searches by staff could be carried out were detailed in the student license. Staff and students reported that room searches were very rarely carried out.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Sedgwick Hall was a secure building. The introduction of an electronic key to the main doors and the installation of self-closing doors meant that it was very difficult for anybody else to access the building. There were additional security measures within the building itself. Students said that they felt safe on site. The college were considering CCTV for the whole site which would include cameras at the entrances to Sedgwick Hall. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 13 There were a number of shortfalls in the staff recruitment process. These were discussed with the Human Resources Officer who undertook to update the procedure. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14

p.12

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Students have access to a range and choice of activities.(NMS 11) • Students receive personal support from staff.(NMS 13) • Students do not experience inappropriate discrimination.(NMS 17) • Student welfare is not compromised by unusual or onerous demands.(NMS 25) • Students have access to a range of recreational areas.(NMS 41)

p.14

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Students were well supported by the college pastoral system and encouraged to achieve to their full potential.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

There were no organised out of curriculum activities on campus. Most students thought that there was sufficient to do and realised that it was up to them to organise their own free time. Grantham town centre was within walking distance.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The college had a good pastoral support system. All students were allocated to a student tutor group. There was good communication between tutors and accommodation staff. In addition there was a student counsellor and the EFL tutor provided extra support to the international students.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Students and staff with the residential accommodation did not identify discrimination as an issue. The majority of home students belonged to either the water polo or table tennis academy. This involved them undertaking a lot of training outside of the main college day. The accommodation staff and student tutors liaised with each other and the coaches to ensure that students were not under excessive pressure with training and academic study.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

There was no common room on site: there was no physical space for such a room. This had been discussed and addressed through the Student Council Meetings. The accommodation staff were working to improve the kitchen/diner areas on each corridor to make these more homely. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 15

p.14

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Students are enabled to contribute to the operation of residential provision in the college.(NMS 12) • Students can maintain private contact with their parents and families(NMS 18) • Students receive guidance, both on arrival at the college and in preparing to leave the college.(NMS 20) • There are sound relationships between staff and students.(NMS 32)

p.15

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

There were sound relationships between staff and students. The written guidance to students could be improved upon.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

The college had regular student council meetings that addressed whole college issues. There was no formal method of consultation with the residential students. However, those students spoken with did not feel there was a need for a formal process. They felt able to approach the Head of Learner Support, the Accommodation Manager and accommodation staff as an individual or group with any pressing issues and that these would be addressed.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

There was one payphone in Sedgwick Hall which was close to the accommodation office. This meant that phone calls could be overheard. Most students did not identify this as an issue as they used their own mobile phone. Students could pay to have access to the internet from their computers in their own rooms. Parents could also contact the accommodation staff direct by phone or email if they wanted to. Parents and family were welcome to visit at any reasonable time.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

On arrival at college students received and signed a copy of the student license and also received a student planner. These provided some information to the students primarily relating to the terms and conditions of living in halls. There was no other written guidance/information booklet detailing things such as how the laundry worked. The Head of Learner Support agreed that this was necessary and that information would be produced and made available. Discussion with students and staff and observation showed that there were good relationships between them. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16

p.15

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• The college’s organisation of residential provision safeguards students’ welfare.(NMS 10) • Students’ personal possessions and money are protected.(NMS 19) • Students are provided with satisfactory living accommodation.(NMS 36) • Students have satisfactory sleeping accommodation.(NMS 39) • Students have adequate and adequately private toilet and washing facilities.(NMS 40) • There are arrangements to ensure that students’ clothing and bedding are adequately laundered.(NMS 44) • Students can buy food and personal requisites while accommodated at college.(NMS 45)

p.16

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Students were provided with satisfactory living accommodation and the campus was situated close to Grantham town centre.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

There were no reported incidents of theft within the residential accommodation and students felt that their belongings were safe.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

Students were provided with satisfactory living accommodation. Students had their own room with ensuite. There was a rolling programme for redecoration and refurbishment. There was a system for reporting faults and maintenance issues. Most students reported that faults were repaired quickly although some did say that some things seemed to take a long time.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

The laundry facilities consisted of two industrial washing machines and tumble dryers situated on the bottom floor of halls. Students had to pay to use them. These were provided by an external company and were on contract to repair any breakdowns within 24 hours.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

The college was situated close to Grantham town centre and so students could walk to obtain most things they wanted. There was a small café/shop on site that sold some basic provisions. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 17

p.16

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• A clear statement of the principles of residential provision and student support at the college is available to those needing this information.(NMS 1) • The safeguarding and promotion of students’ health and welfare are supported by appropriate records.(NMS 7) • There is clear leadership of residential provision in the college.(NMS 8) • Crises affecting students’ welfare are effectively managed.(NMS 9) • Risk assessment and college record keeping contribute to students’ welfare.(NMS 21) • Students are appropriately supervised during free time.(NMS 28) • Students are adequately supervised by staff.(NMS 29) • Staff responsible for residential students have specific residential and welfare duties, with adequate induction and continued training.(NMS 30) • Students are looked after by staff following clear residential and welfare policies and practice.(NMS 31) • The welfare of students placed by the college in lodgings is safeguarded

p.17

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

and promoted.(NMS 46) • The welfare of students is safeguarded and promoted while accommodated away from the college site on a short-stay basis.(NMS 47)

p.17

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Outcomes for students were good and the residential provision appeared well managed. Written information provided to parents and staff could be improved upon. Similarly there was little record keeping and written documentation relating to welfare issues although it was clear these were being addressed in practice.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

Information detailing the principle of residential provision and student support at the college were contained within the college prospectus, the student license and the student planner. However, this information was not always explicitly stated and not always made available to parents. For example, the student agreed night return times were detailed in the license. However, changes to these had been made but the college could not be sure that all parents had a copy of the new licence. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 18 It was clear that health needs were being met. However, not all students had completed a personal information sheet detailing any medical needs or support they may require.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

There was clear leadership and accountability of the residential provision. The college may want to consider developing some form of self-assessment relating to the residential side. The college had a crisis management plan which was under regular review: this was not seen at the time of inspection.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

The level of student supervision had improved since the last inspection. There was now a member of the accommodation staff on duty at all times besides between 7 am to 5 pm on Saturday and Sunday. The officer was also responsible for the other hall housing over 18 studnets but had a mobile phone and could be contacted on this. There was no written agreement with parents detailing the extent to which the college monitored and supervised the activities of under 18 years students during their free time.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

On Saturdays and Sundays during the day an on call system had been introduced. This was provided by senior staff of the college on a rota basis. Some students seemed unsure how this system worked. One student said they had tried to use it but had been unable to get through on the number. As a result students tended to contact accommodation staff directly who came into the halls at the weekend on their own time to sort any issues.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

There was a stable and consistent staff team in post. Appraisals took place annually and did identify some training needs. There was no planned programme of training for residential staff. Nor was there any clear written guidance or policies specifically for the accommodation staff. The Head of Learner Support agreed that this was necessary and that information would be produced and made available.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

Some under 18-year-old students lived in lodgings off site. The families had been used by the college for a number of years. Although the accommodation manager made regular visits to the lodgings and reviewed the accommodation provided there were no written records or agreements to evidence this. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19

p.18

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Further Education Colleges have been met and uses the following scale.

p.19

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

4 Standard Exceeded (Commendable) 3 Standard Met (No Shortfalls) 2 Standard Almost Met (Minor Shortfalls) 1 Standard Not Met (Major Shortfalls)

p.19

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

“X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable

p.19

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

BEING HEALTHY ENJOYING AND ACHIEVING Standard No Score Standard No Score 6 3 11 3 14 3 13 3 15 3 17 3 16 3 25 3 22 3 41 3 23 3 43 3 MAKING A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION STAYING SAFE Standard No Score Standard No Score 12 3 2 3 18 3 3 3 20 3 4 3 32 3 5 3 24 2 ACHIEVING ECONOMIC 26 X WELLBEING 27 X Standard No Score 33 3 10 3 34 2 19 3 35 3 36 3 37 3 39 3 38 X 40 3 42 X 44 3 45 3 Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 20

p.19

Continued

MANAGEMENT Standard No Score 1 2 7 2 8 3 9 3 21 3 28 2 29 2 30 3 31 2 46 2 47 X Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 Are there any outstanding recommendations from the last inspection? NO

p.20

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

This section sets out the actions that must be taken so that the proprietor meets the Children Act 1989, Inspection of Schools and Colleges Regulations 2002 and the National Minimum Standards.

p.21

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

No. Standard Recommendation Timescale for action (Serious welfare concerns only) 1 FE1 The college should ensure that the statement of principles of residential provision and student support is made explicit. There should be a formal system for ensuring that this is available to all parents. 2 FE7 The college should ensure that it has complete records relating to the medical and/or health needs of all students. 3 FE24 The college should ensure that the fire evacuation procedure is followed at all times when the alarm sounds. A record should be made every time the fire alarm sounds. 4 FE28 The college should ensure that there is a written agreement with parents in line with 28.2 that details the extent to which the college monitors and supervises the students. 5 FE29 The college should ensure that the on call system that is in operation between 7 am to 5 pm on Saturdays and Sundays is made explicitly known to all students. The college should review this at

p.21

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

regular intervals to ensure that it is operating correctly. 6 FE31 The college should provide written guidance to staff in accordance with standard 30. 7 FE34 The college should ensure that the staff recruitment process covers all of the checks as in Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 22 this standard. Evidence that these checks have been made should be available on file. 8 FE46 The college should ensure that all of the checks and assessments with regards to this standard are made and recorded. 9 FE2 The college should consider making the bullying policy explicitly available to students and parents. 10 FE3 The college should consider providing refresher child protection training to staff, including ancillary staff. 11 FE20 The college should consider providing an information pack to students on their arrival at college that details some of the key ‘soft’ information regarding residential provision and

p.21

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

procedures. 12 FE24 The college should consider keeping the signing in an out system under review. 13 FE29 The college should consider making the mobile phone number that the accommodation officer can be contacted on, available on the pay phone. 14 FE30 The college should consider developing an induction pack and training programme for residential staff. 15 FE37 The college should consider providing the accommodation staff with a radio to allow them to directly contact the security staff on site. Grantham College DS0000039105.V269485.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 23

p.22

Commission for Social Care Inspection

Lincoln Area Office Unity House, The Point Weaver Road Off Whisby Road Lincoln LN6 3QN

p.23

Commission for Social Care Inspection

National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI.

p.23