Report expires 31 March 2022

Organisation name Language Study Centres, Head Office London

Inspection date 24–28 July 2017

Section standard Met Not met

Management: The management of the provision will operate to the benefit of its students, in accordance with its publicity and in accordance with the Declaration of legal and regulatory compliance.

Resources and environment: The learning resources and environment will support and enhance the studies of students enrolled with the provider, and will offer an appropriate professional environment for staff.

Teaching and learning: Teachers will have appropriate qualifications and will be given sufficient support to ensure that their teaching meets the needs of their students. Programmes of learning will be managed for the benefit of students. The teaching observed will meet the requirements of the Scheme.

Welfare and student services: The needs of students for security, pastoral care, information and leisure activities will be met; any accommodation provided will be suitable; the management of the accommodation systems will work to the benefit of students.

Care of under 18s section N/a Met Not met

There will be appropriate provision for the safeguarding of students under the age of 18 within the organisation and in any leisure activities or accommodation provided.

Recommendation

We recommend that accreditation be placed under review because the section standard for Care of under 18s was not met and there were weaknesses in staff management, publicity, W1, accommodation and leisure opportunities. The period of review to be ended by a full inspection within twelve months focusing on care of under 18s, staff management, publicity, accommodation and leisure opportunities.

Summary statement

The summary statement has been withdrawn and should not be used.

Inspection report

Organisation profile: multicentre 1. COLLATED DATA FOR WHOLE ORGANISATION (INCLUDING ELIGIBLE CENTRES NOT INSPECTED)

Inspection history Dates/details

First inspection 2005

Last full inspection 2013

Subsequent spot check (if applicable) N/a

Subsequent supplementary check (if applicable) N/a

Subsequent interim visit (if applicable) N/a

Current accreditation status Accredited

Other related non-accredited activities (in brief) by this multicentre organisation

N/a

Other related accredited schools/centres/affiliates N/a

Other related non-accredited schools/centres/affiliates N/a

Private sector

Date of foundation 1999

Ownership .

Name of company: Language Study Centres Ownership: Student Travel Schools (Sweden) Company number: 03790349

Other accreditation/inspection

N/a

Premises profile

Address of Head Office (HO) Screenworks G01, 22 Highbury Grove, London N5 2EF

Addresses of centres offering ELT at the time of the inspection

London Harrow (Res + HF) University of Westminster, Northwick Park, London, Middlesex HA1 3TP Oxford (Res + HF) Oxford Brookes University, Headington Campus, Headington Road, Oxford OX3 0BP Bristol (Res) University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY London Roehampton (Res) University of Roehampton, Southlands College, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PU London Greenwich (Res) University of Greenwich, Old Naval College, 30 Park Row, London SE10 9LS Brighton (Res) University of Brighton, Moulsecoomb Campus, Cockcroft Building, Lewes Road, Brighton BN2 4GJ Brighton (HF) Brighton College, Eastern Road, Brighton BN2 0AL Bournemouth (HF) Bournemouth University, Bournemouth House, 19, 17–19 Christchurch Rd, Bournemouth BH1 3LH Hastings (HF) Sussex College, Ore Valley Campus, 1 Turning Way, Hastings TN34 3TA

Torquay (HF) Torquay Boys Grammar School, Shiphay Manor Drive, Torquay TQ2 7EL

Addresses of any additional centres not open or offering ELT at the time of the inspection

Jersey Fort Regent, Mount Bingham, St Helier JE2 4UX Chelsea (football only programme no English language tuition) Chelsea Football Club, Cobham Training Ground, 60–64 Stoke Road, Stoke D'Abernon, Cobham, Surrey KT11 3PT

Profile of sites visited

Brighton College LSC has exclusive use of the Brighton College Preparatory School. The premises consist of 11 classrooms, a staff office, a separate staffroom (for teachers and activity leaders), a common room (where students can eat their packed lunches), and an external garden area. There is also an all-weather football pitch that can be hired when needed. There is a residence located 20 minutes by bus from the teaching premises, which houses 33 of the 240 students studying at the centre. Southlands College, University of Roehampton LSC has exclusive use of the ground floor of the Queens Building at Southlands College campus at the University of Roehampton. The premises consist of seven classrooms, a staff office and a communal corridor. LSC has use of the dining hall for meals and relaxation, a large hall for meetings and events, and garden areas. The residence accommodation is on the same site. University of Greenwich LSC has use of six classrooms and a staff office in the Queen Anne building at the University of Greenwich. There is a courtyard for outdoor relaxation and a dining room and café. The school can also rent a lecture hall for meetings and events and a space in the Students’ Union for the twice-weekly disco. Outdoor events can take place in Greenwich Park. LSC has shared use of two of the university residences. Head Office, London The Head Office is located in a modern studio and office workspace complex in north London. LSC has year-round use of an office which can accommodate all the central management and administration staff. Extra meeting rooms can be hired as required.

Student profile at peak at all centres

Collated totals in peak week: July

all centres

Of all international students, approximate percentage on ELT/ESOL courses 100

ELT/ESOL students (eligible courses)

Full-time ELT (15+ hours per week) 18 years and over 0

Full-time ELT (15+ hours per week) aged 16–17 years 637

Full-time ELT (15+ hours per week) aged under 16 1182

Part-time ELT aged 18 years and over 0

Part-time ELT aged 16–17 years 0

Part-time ELT aged under 16 years 0

Overall total of ELT/ESOL students shown above 1819

Predominant nationalities Italian, Swedish, Finnish,

Danish, Norwegian, Chinese, Spanish

Staff profile at peak at all centres and HO

Collated total in peak week: HO and all centres

Total number of teachers and academic managers on eligible ELT courses 97

Total number activity managers and staff 110

Total number of management (non-academic) and administrative staff 24

Total number of support staff (e.g. houseparents, matrons, catering) 10

Academic manager qualifications profile at peak at all centres and HO

Profile at peak: collated totals at HO and all centres

Professional qualifications Total number of academic

managers

Diploma-level ELT/TESOL qualification (TEFLQ) 9

Academic managers without TEFLQ qualification or without 3 years relevant experience (NB Rationales need to be prepared for academic managers in this category at centres inspected; inspectors may ask for rationales for academic managers at other centres)

3

Total 12

Comments

None.

Teacher qualifications profile at peak at all centres

Profile at peak: collated totals at all centres

Professional qualifications Total number of teachers

Diploma-level ELT/TESOL qualification (TEFLQ) 11

Certificate-level ELT/TESOL qualification (TEFLI) 63

Holding specialist qualifications only (specify) 0

YL initiated 0

Qualified teacher status only (QTS) 3

Teachers without appropriate ELT/TESOL qualifications (NB Rationales need to be prepared for teachers in this category at centres inspected; inspectors may ask for rationales for teachers at other centres)

8

Total 85

Comments

None.

Course profile (across all centres covered by this accreditation)

Eligible activities Summer Other times of year Other - N/a

Run Seen Run Seen Run Seen

General ELT for adults

General ELT for juniors (under 18)

English for academic purposes (excludes IELTS preparation)

English for specific purposes (includes English for Executives)

Teacher development (excludes award-bearing courses)

ESOL skills for life/for citizenship

Other

Comments

All programmes consist of 15 hours of tuition (plus a package of activities and excursions), with the exception of the Oxford centre where the homestay programme consists of 20 hours of tuition.

2. DATA ON CENTRES VISITED

1. Name of centre Brighton: Brighton College

2. Name of centre London Roehampton: University of Roehampton

3. Name of centre London Greenwich: University of Greenwich

4. Name of centre

5. Name of centre

Student profile Totals at inspection: centres visited Totals in peak week: centres visited

Centres 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Of all international students, approximate percentage on ELT/ESOL courses

100 100 100 100 100 100

ELT/ESOL students (eligible courses)

At inspection In peak week

Full-time ELT (15+ hours per week) 18 years and over

8 0 2 0 0 0

Full-time ELT (15+ hours per week) aged 16–17 years

82 47 36 100 52 38

Full-time ELT (15+ hours per week) aged under 16

150 85 66 180 98 72

Part-time ELT aged 18 years and over

0 0 0 0 0 0

Part-time ELT aged 16–17 years

0 0 0 0 0 0

Part-time ELT aged under 16 years

0 0 0 0 0 0

Overall total of ELT/ESOL students shown above

240 132 104 280 150 110

Junior programmes: advertised minimum age(s)

12 12 12 12 12 12

Junior programmes:

12 12 12 12 12 12

actual minimum age(s)

Junior programmes: advertised maximum age(s)

17 17 17 17 17 17

Junior programmes: actual maximum age(s)

18 17 18 17 17 17

Adult programmes: advertised minimum age

N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a

Adult programmes: actual minimum age

N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a

Typical length of stay (weeks)

2 to 3 weeks

2 to 3 weeks

2 to 3 weeks

2 to 3 weeks

2 to 3 weeks

2 to 3 weeks

Predominant nationalities

Italian, Chinese, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Spanish

Italian, Chinese, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Spanish

Staff profile at centres visited At inspection In peak week

Centres 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Total number of teachers and academic managers on eligible ELT courses

10 7 5 12 7 7

Total number of activity managers and staff 14 10 10 17 10 10

Total number of management (non-academic) and administrative staff

2 1 2 2 1 2

Total number of support staff (e.g. houseparents, matrons, catering)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Academic manager qualifications profile at centres visited

Profile in week of inspection: at centres visited Total number of academic managers

Centres 1 2 3 4 5

TEFLQ qualification and 3 years relevant experience 1 0 1

Academic managers without TEFLQ qualification or 3 years relevant experience (NB Rationales need to be prepared for academic managers in this category at centres visited)

0 1 0

Total 1 1 1

Comments

Academic managers are not scheduled to teach, but may cover classes if necessary. A rationale for the DoS at Roehampton is supplied.

Teacher qualifications profile at centres visited

Profile in week of inspection at centres visited Total number of teachers

Centres 1 2 3 4 5

TEFLQ qualification 2 3 1

TEFLI qualification 9 3 1

Holding specialist qualifications only (specify) 0 0 0

YL initiated 0 0 0

Qualified teacher status only (QTS) 0 0 0

Teachers without appropriate ELT/TESOL qualifications. (NB Rationales need to be prepared for teachers in this category)

1 0 2

Total 12 6 4

Report expires 31 March 2022

Comments

None.

Accommodation profile

Numbers at time of inspection: at centres visited

Types of accommodation Adults Under 18s

Arranged by provider/agency

Centres 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Homestay 8 0 0 199 0 0

Private home 0 0 0 0 0 0

Home tuition 0 0 0 0 0 0

Residential 0 0 0 33 132 96

Hotel/guesthouse 0 0 0 0 0 0

Independent self-catering e.g. flats, bedsits, student houses

0 0 0 0 0 0

Arranged by student/family/guardian

Staying with own family 0 0 0 0 0 0

Staying in privately rented rooms/flats 8 0 2 0 0 6

Overall totals adults/under 18s 8 0 2 232 132 102

Centres 1 2 3 4 5

Overall total adults + under 18s 240 132 104

Introduction

The parent company of Language Study Centres (LSC) is STS Educational Group Limited (STS), based in Sweden. They have been operating for 58 years offering and promoting a range of educational products and services. This includes: language schools (including LSC), ‘High School’ programmes (immersion in UK state schools from September to May), au pair programmes and study abroad services. Only the language school programme operating in the UK and run by LSC is accredited by the British Council. STS runs language schools outside the UK, in Malta, Orlando and San Diego. Up until 2016 STS managed language schools following the homestay programme from its Brighton office (and then from the London office, which they moved to in October 2015); these STS schools were not accredited. LSC managed accredited schools following the residential programme from its Manchester office (and from the London office from October 2015). In September 2016 a re-structuring process took place in time for the 2017 season; this involved the homestay and residential programmes being merged and managed by LSC from the London head office. The managing director of LSC reports to the vice president of STS but otherwise operates autonomously. LSC only recruits students from language tour operators (LTOs) and agents, and does not accept direct enrolments. Approximately 60 per cent of the students are recruited by STS and follow the homestay programmes, which are now run by LSC. The remaining 40 per cent are recruited through other agents at, for example, trade fairs and promotional events and generally follow the residential programme. STS no longer officially operates any summer schools in the UK, although the homestay programmes still carry some STS branding and the students who have been recruited by STS are often referred to as ‘STS students’ and carry bags with the STS logo. At peak there are approximately 1,800 students in the ten centres. All programmes consist of 15 hours of tuition and a package of activities and excursions. LSC operates a ‘zigzag’ timetable so classes may be in the morning or the afternoon. The activities and excursions part of the programme,

together with accommodation and other services, are negotiated separately by the head office with each LTO; an individual contract, listing the details of the package and the terms and conditions, is drawn up. There were two inspectors and the inspection lasted four and a half days. One and a half days were spent at the head office in London (half a day at the beginning and one day at the end). One day each was spent at the Brighton College centre, the Roehampton centre and the Greenwich centre. At the head office the inspectors had meetings with the managing director, the operations and welfare manager, the academic manager, the recruitment and logistics manager, and the homestay accommodation manager, and looked at documentation. At each of the centres the inspectors had meetings with the centre manager, the director of studies (DoS), the activity manager, the assistant activity manager (Brighton College only), the student welfare officer (Roehampton only), the person at the host school responsible for liaising with LSC, the group leaders, the activity leaders and the teachers. Focus group meetings with the students were held at each centre. All teachers timetabled to teach at each of the three centres were observed. One inspector visited three homestay providers at Brighton College and residences at Roehampton and Greenwich. The other inspector visited the residence at the University of Brighton as it was being used by students studying at Brighton College.

Management Legal and statutory regulations

Criteria See

comments

M1 Declaration of compliance

Comments

M1 The items sampled were satisfactory.

Staff management

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

M2 Management structure

M3 Duties specified N/a

M4 Communication channels

M5 Human resources policies

M6 Qualifications verified N/a

M7 Induction procedures

M8 Monitoring staff performance

M9 Professional development

Comments

M2 There are organograms for the head office staff and for the overall operation. However, in some cases the management and administration structure was not sufficient to maintain operational continuity and consistency across the ten centres. In particular, this occurred at Brighton College where the sudden departure of the DoS left the centre without suitable academic support for more than two weeks, resulting in confusion over timetabling, an apparent shortage of teachers, class sizes rising above the stated maximum and a lack of appropriate support for teachers. Furthermore, there are no job descriptions or indications of lines of management for any safeguarding roles, other than a comment that all staff should ‘carry out the school’s safeguarding policy’. M3 In most areas duties are specified for all staff, and this includes job descriptions for the activity leaders and a handbook for group leaders. However, the job description of the operations and welfare manager does not make reference to his role as designated safeguarding lead and, as noted in M2, there is insufficient reference to safeguarding roles. M4 At the centres communication channels are largely informal as the management and administration team share the same office. Operational decisions taken at the centres are not always recorded in writing. Staff at the centres said communication with head office was good and that the relevant managers were responsive and helpful. M5 The job advertisement for teachers mentions the requirement for a Level 6 qualification, although this is not mentioned in the recruitment policy. The job advertisement mentions that referees will be asked about the candidate’s suitability to work with children and that gaps in CVs will need to be explained. In several cases only one reference had been taken up (see C4). M6 All reasonable steps are taken to verify certificates and experience. Originals of certificates have to be produced

at the training day or on arrival at the centre. M7 There are induction procedures in place. These include a training day and the issue of handbooks. However, the organisation does not provide effective induction for all group leaders to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities. Guidance on assessing risk in the various operational sectors is not included in induction. M8 Policies and procedures for handling unsatisfactory performance are given in the staff handbook and contract. Permanent head office staff have an annual appraisal with the managing director. Centre staff are monitored informally on a daily basis. There are no formal appraisal procedures for summer activity staff or for teachers, other than through lesson observations. Feedback forms completed by students do not identify individual members of staff and do not therefore assist with appraising performance. M9 Arrangements for the provision of continuing professional development (CPD) are in place, particularly with regard to teaching staff (see T10).

Student administration

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

M10 Administrative staff and resources

M11 Information on course choice

M12 Enrolment procedures

M13 Contact details

M14 Student attendance policy

M15 Students asked to leave course

Comments

M10 The main administrative tasks to do with enquiries, negotiation of programme content and enrolments are carried out at head office. Staff at head office and in the centres were seen to be helpful and courteous. However, the online database appeared difficult to access for many of the staff and was not fully exploited, particularly at Brighton College and Roehampton, either as a result of a poor Wi-Fi connection or a lack of training. At one centre incorrect information had been entered at head office concerning the availability of ensuite rooms, which caused a problem for one group. M13 Emergency contact details, including next of kin information, are collected on arrival for all students and held on paper files which are available 24 hours a day at the centres. This is in addition to information submitted in the original application by the LTO.

Quality assurance

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

M16 Action plan N/a

M17 Continuing improvement

M18 Student feedback and action

M19 Staff feedback and action

M20 Complaints and action

Comments

M16 Points to be addressed from the last inspection have largely been addressed, with the exception of aspects of W1 and W35 (now incorporated in the Care of under 18s section). M17 All systems, processes and practices are reviewed by the head office once the summer season has finished. Use is made of the detailed reports submitted by the centre managers and directors of studies, and feedback forms from students and teaching and activity staff. M18 There are systems for gathering student feedback; these include a ‘day three’ and an ‘end of course’ questionnaire alongside ongoing informal monitoring. Action taken is recorded on a separate analysis form. The information from the feedback forms is used to help plan for next year. In some sections the points on the form do not go into sufficient detail or give the opportunity to discover specific areas of dissatisfaction. M19 In addition to the reports written by centre managers and directors of studies, ongoing feedback is gathered from all staff during the course. This includes formal online feedback from teachers and activity leaders given towards the end of their contract. All feedback is used to evaluate the service and make improvements where possible. M20 A complaints policy is on display at all the centres. The policy is appropriate, but the language would not be accessible to the level of some of the students.

Publicity

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

M21 Accessible accurate language

M22 Realistic expectations

M23 Course descriptions

M24 Course information N/a

M25 Costs

M26 Accommodation

M27 Leisure programme

M28 Staff qualifications N/a

M29 Accreditation N/a

Comments

Publicity includes a website and brochure, but as LSC only recruits students by negotiating contracts with LTOs, there is greater reliance on mail shots and direct negotiations, with the website and brochure operating as an ancillary information tool. As a consequence of this, there is no information on prices provided in the website or brochure. The inspectors looked at the prices, terms and conditions in contracts made by LSC to some of their LTO suppliers in order to assess M25 (and to inform other publicity criteria). M21 There are a number of typographical errors in some of the text on the website. In some places sentences are quite long and complex (and the website and brochure are not available in translation). M22 Pictures and text used in the website and brochure were largely realistic. However, in some instances groups did not receive the services they had booked. For example, one group at Brighton College were moved to the University of Brighton teaching site at the start of their course. Another group at Roehampton, who had booked ensuite accommodation, were placed in rooms without this facility. M24 The maximum enrolment age is given as 17, but there were eight 18 year-old students enrolled at Brighton College and two 18 year-old students enrolled at Greenwich. The maximum class size is given as 15, but at Brighton College there was evidence of this having been breached in the period before the inspection took place. M25 Sampled contracts with a number of LTOs included all the points required in this criterion. M26 Students at one centre were placed in residential accommodation, even though they had booked homestay.

Management summary

The provision just meets the section standard. In many aspects the management of the provision operates to the benefit of the students and the staff. However, there are some concerns that the management and administration structure is not sufficiently proactive to deal with operational challenges and safeguarding requirements in all areas of its provision. As a result of this, the publicity did not always reflect the reality of the provision. There is a need for improvement in Staff management and Publicity.

Resources and environment Premises and facilities

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

R1 Adequate space

R2 Condition of premises

R3 Classrooms and learning areas

R4 Student relaxation areas and food

R5 Signage and display

R6 Staffroom(s)

Comments

R1 All three centres offer a very comfortable and pleasant environment for students and staff with large classrooms and access to communal areas and external grounds and facilities.

R2 The premises at all three centres are in a reasonable state of repair, cleanliness and decoration. Minor repairs and decoration are carried out by the maintenance staff of the host schools. R3 The classrooms are all of a very good size and able to take the maximum number of students. They are adequately lit and ventilated and free from extraneous noise. The layout of furniture is flexible and sight-lines to the board are clear. R4 At all centres there are areas for students to relax, both outside and inside. There are suitable places for students to take their meals. At two of the centres there is a good choice of nutritious and healthy food. However, at Roehampton this was not the case on the day the inspectors were there, and at other times too, according to students in the focus group meeting. Special diets are catered for. Salad bars are available at all centres. R5 Signage around the centres is clear and appropriate. There are attractive photoboards of staff members in the halls or corridors. R6 Staffrooms are spacious and provide a suitable working environment. At some centres the staffrooms are shared by teaching staff and activity staff, but there is sufficient space and this arrangement can in fact have a positive effect for both groups. The staffrooms are big enough for meetings.

Learning resources

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

R7 Learning materials for students

R8 Resources for teachers

R9 Educational technology

R10 Self-access facilities

R11 Library/self-access guidance

R12 Review and development

Comments

R7 The extensive in-house coursebooks (and integrated video and digital components) at four levels provide the core material needed by the students, together with some supplementary materials. Some of the content material is a little inappropriate for summer school students, particularly those coming from non-European speaking cultures. R8 The in-house coursebook is designed to provide all the material needed to teach. It includes a teacher’s book with guidance on how to exploit the material and suggestions for additional activities, plus a USB stick which contains digital versions of the printed material and other exercises. A limited amount of other supplementary materials is available. At some centres teachers also produced additional materials of their own. R9 Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) and digital projectors are available. The technology in both centres worked efficiently and was used competently by teachers. Onsite technical support is available. R12 The academic manager reviews teaching and learning materials annually, taking into account feedback from teachers and the DoSs at the centres through a detailed ‘materials feedback form’. She was already aware of some of the concerns with the course material this year and was preparing revisions accordingly.

Resources and environment summary

The provision meets the section standard and exceeds it in some respects. The premises and environment provide a very suitable learning and teaching environment for the students and teachers. Considerable effort has been put into producing materials for LSC students, and there are systems in place to review them. Premises and facilities is an area of strength.

Teaching and learning Academic staff profile

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

T1 General education (and rationales) N/a

T2 ELT/TESOL teacher qualifications

T3 Rationales for teachers N/a

T4 Profile of academic manager(s)

T5 Rationale for academic manager(s) N/a

Comments

T1 Two of the teachers do not have a Level 6 qualification. Rationales were accepted for both of them. One is currently taking the final module of a degree course and has relevant life experience in business and marketing; the other has started a degree course and has relevant life experience. T2 Three of the sampled teachers did not have appropriate ELT qualifications. T3 Rationales were provided for the three teachers and were accepted. One has a PGCE in post-16 education and experience as a drama teacher. The other two have followed initial TEFL training programmes with reasonable academic input and some teaching practice. All three are well supported by their TEFLQ DoS. T4 The academic management profile is appropriate at each of the centres. Members of the team who are not TEFLQ are given appropriate roles and are supported by TEFLQ colleagues. T5 The rationales for the three academic management team members without TEFLQ were accepted in the context of this inspection as they all have initial ELT qualifications, have appropriate experience and are supported and deployed appropriately alongside TEFLQ colleagues. See attached rationale.

Academic management

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

T6 Deployment of teachers

T7 Timetabling

T8 Cover for absent teachers

T9 Continuous enrolment

T10 Formalised support for teachers

T11 Observation and monitoring

Comments

T8 Arrangements for covering absent teachers (and DoSs) are not adequate. Inspectors were told that in the larger centres they try to ensure there is a non-timetabled teacher available throughout the day. However, this was not the case at the three centres visited, one of which might be described as ‘a larger centre’. In practice the DoS is the first line of cover. At the Brighton Centre there was no DoS in post for more than two weeks. Teachers said that classes were combined when there was a need for cover. T9 Groups of students can arrive on any day. They are tested and placed in class after their induction. No specific advice is given in the ‘Teacher’s Handbook’ or at induction about how to integrate new students arriving into their classes. T10 CPD is integrated into the working day with regular sessions on relevant areas, such as warmers and fillers, error awareness and other topics immediately applicable to the teaching situation. Content is generally based on feedback and observations. At Roehampton and Greenwich there is usually one 30-minute session per week. Brighton College now also has regular and appropriate CPD sessions. T11 At all centres new teachers have a 15-minute ‘drop-in’ observation from the DoS in the first two or three days of their teaching contract. Follow-up guidance and support is given as appropriate. There is a further formal signalled 60-minute observation for all teachers, with structured feedback. Very useful notes and action points are given. The same system has now been established at Brighton College, but for a period of at least two weeks teachers were largely unmonitored.

Course design and implementation

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

T12 Principled course structure

T13 Review of course design

T14 Course outlines and outcomes

T15 Study and learning strategies

T16 Linguistic benefit from UK

Comments

T12 The course structure is largely prescriptive. Course material is supplied by the four-level in-house coursebooks, backed up with a teacher’s book. The aim is to reduce the need for supplementary material and to minimise the amount of preparation time for teachers. Each unit has a topic and the lessons follow a sequence of grammar, function, and subject content.

T13 The academic manager gets feedback from the teachers and DoSs informally during the course and formally in reports at the end of the course. As stated in R12, she was already aware of some of the concerns with the course material this year and was preparing revisions accordingly. The ‘End of course student questionnaire’ asks for feedback on books and materials and the content of the three different lessons. T15 Some study and learning strategies are included in the coursebooks and dictionaries, and references to the phonetic alphabet are used. However, there was no evidence of systematic work on learning strategies or guidance on suggested study techniques. T16 The functional language taught in the second lesson combined with the project work in the third lesson aims to help students benefit from their experience on excursions and when they are outside the classroom in general.

Learner management

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

T17 Placement for level and age

T18 Monitoring students’ progress

T19 Examination guidance

T20 Assessment criteria

T21 Academic reports

T22 Information on UK education

Comments

T17 Students complete a placement test on arrival which consists of a multiple-choice language exercise, a piece of written English and an interview. Thought is being given to using a pre-arrival online placement test. T18 Monitoring of progress is carried out informally through a short progress test at the end of each week. The results of this test are used to inform the grades given on the final ‘Certificate of achievement’. T19 An external English speaking examination is available at the Oxford centre. T21 Students are given a certificate at the end of the course which gives a grade for oral work, written work and overall language ability in line with the Common European Framework of Reference levels (CEFR).

Classroom observation record

Number of teachers seen 20

Number of observations 20

Parts of programme(s) observed All

Comments

None.

Classroom observation

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

T23 Models and awareness of English in use

T24 Appropriate content

T25 Learning outcomes

T26 Teaching techniques

T27 Classroom management

T28 Feedback to students

T29 Evaluating student learning

T30 Student engagement

Comments

T23 In the stronger segments there was good awareness of language forms which were explained clearly to students. In the weaker segments teachers were less confident with their linguistic knowledge, particularly in the area of phonology. T24 Many of the chosen topics from the coursebook were interesting for the group and could be supplemented by

activities suited to the learning style of the group. However, in several segments the material was too complex for the students and included too much emphasis on reading. Much of the material was Eurocentric and often inappropriate for the Chinese students. The specific needs of the different first language users were not addressed in the planning stage. T25 Most activities and exercises led to a productive outcome, especially in the project lessons. Schemes of work were available. In the weaker segments intended outcomes were not made clear and lessons consisted of working through a series of exercises without obvious coherence or variety of interaction. T26 Some appropriate teaching techniques were evident, such as the use of questions, elicitation, mind-mapping and timelines. However, in the majority of segments some of the techniques were not appropriate to the focus of the lesson or the needs of the students. Techniques such as getting the students to read aloud from the book did not appear to have any purpose, words were taught in isolation from their context, meaningful tasks were not set for reading texts or other input, and checking understanding was often done by asking questions like “Do you understand what I mean?” T27 Data projectors, IWBs and digital material was used effectively. Video and song were used. Boards were generally spacious and well organised. There was, however, very little moving around or mingling by the students to vary the type of interaction and maintain student interest. T28 Teachers were supportive and helped and prompted students when monitoring. In the stronger segments errors were identified and dealt with through a combination of prompted self-correction and peer correction. However, in many of the segments there was no evidence of errors being addressed with a view to improvement. There were many missed opportunities for correcting key first language errors. T29 There was little evidence of teachers evaluating whether learning was taking place, for example through the use of concept checking of understanding or short assessment activities. T30 There was a positive learning atmosphere in most of the classes. In stronger segments students were engaged and contributing, with the teacher showing an awareness of the students’ names, able to personalise where relevant and giving and checking instructions. In the weaker segments the pace was slow and there was less engagement, with some students looking bored and unchallenged, and with the teacher unable to use differentiation strategies for early finishers or only getting answers from one student and tending to leave out the others.

Classroom observation summary

The teaching observed met the requirements of the Scheme and ranged from good to just satisfactory, with the majority of lesson segments observed being satisfactory. There was evidence of appropriate language awareness and effective use of the course material and technology. Some teaching techniques were not appropriate to the needs of the students and the focus of the lesson, opportunities to correct students were missed and there was limited evidence of the evaluation and assessment of learning taking place.

Teaching and learning summary

The provision meets the section standard. The academic staff profile is generally satisfactory and teachers are well supported by their academic managers in order to ensure that their teaching meets student needs. Programmes of learning are managed for the benefit of the students. The teaching observed met the requirements of the Scheme.

Welfare and student services Care of students

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

W1 Safety and security onsite

W2 Pastoral care

W3 Personal problems

W4 Dealing with abusive behaviour

W5 Emergency contact number N/a

W6 Transport and transfers

W7 Advice

W8 Medical and dental treatment N/a

Comments

W1 Roehampton offers a secure environment and the residences are located on the campus. Entrances are controlled by security staff, who also provide a 24/7 patrol service. At Greenwich, one of the residences is a ten-minute walk from the university and the other is a one-stop journey on the train. Security staff offer a very thorough

service at both these residences and there is regular patrolling of the teaching premises. Brighton College does not have security staff, and entrance to the building is controlled by the reception staff in the mornings and LSC staff at other times. All the centre managers receive the same generic premises risk assessment, which had been carried out by head office staff before the courses began. However, each centre has its own specific risks and these had not been identified or assessed. These risks result from current situations, such as contractors carrying out works at Brighton College and Roehampton or from the permanent conditions, such as buildings being open and accessible to the public at Greenwich and an unsupervised outside area used for breaks at Brighton College, which has open street access. Risks have not been assessed for the journeys made by the unaccompanied students to and from their homestays, returning after evening activities at 23.00. Fire drills are carried out in the residential accommodation at Roehampton and Greenwich. However, overnight the group leaders are responsible for their students, not LSC staff. Group leaders are given some instruction in fire procedures, but in some cases their level of English is not good enough to fully understand these. In a recent fire drill, the group leader was unaware that the premises had to be evacuated and had remained in her bedroom. W3 The residential courses have dedicated full-time student welfare officers. They introduce themselves to students during their welcome meetings and are available for students to see them at all times. If students approach their group leaders or other members of staff with a problem, the welfare officer will be consulted or brought in as appropriate. On the homestay programme at Brighton College, the centre manager has the welfare role. However, the centre manager can be extremely busy and may not be available to deal with welfare issues when they arise. W4 There is a comprehensive abusive behaviour policy. This is made known to staff during their induction and appears in handbooks. There are notices for students on noticeboards, but these could be presented in more accessible language. W7 Students are given a welcome talk and a ‘Welcome letter’, which gives essential phone numbers, rules and advice about personal safety. There is no additional advice about personal safety given to students on homestay programmes, who are using public transport to and from the homestay.

Accommodation profile

Comments on the accommodation seen by the inspectors

Brighton College: three homestays, all a 30–40-minute bus journey from the school. Residence at University of Brighton used by Brighton College students, a 20–30-minute bus journey from Brighton College. Roehampton: three separate residential blocks, all on the campus. Two with en-suite facilities and one without. Greenwich: the two residences used by LSC. One a ten to 15-minute walk from the teaching premises. The other a longer walk or one stop on the DLR train. All residences have between four to seven bedrooms to a flat. Each flat has a kitchen, but all appliances are switched off. Group leaders’ bedrooms are located in some of the flats.

Accommodation: all types

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

W9 Services and facilities

W10 Accommodation inspected first

W11 Accommodation re-inspected

W12 Accommodation registers

W13 Information in advance

W14 Student feedback

W15 Meals in homestay/residences

Comments

W9 The bedrooms in both residences and homestays are generally in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, although some of the bedrooms in the residences would benefit from a deep clean and renewal of flooring. Both en-suite and shared bathrooms in the residences are adequate and sufficient. Bed linen and towels are changed weekly at Roehampton, but at Greenwich the towels are not changed or laundered. In one of the homestays visited there were two sets of bunk beds in a small bedroom. The room was not spacious enough to accommodate the four students sharing this room. In another homestay hosting three teenage girls, a 17 year-old male relative was sleeping on the sofa in the communal sitting room. Two of the students in this homestay were sharing a bunk bed in a bedroom, which was not sufficiently spacious because there was another bed in the room.

W10 The need for a fire risk assessment is outlined in the homestay handbook. However, providers are not required to show evidence of a fire risk assessment to the local organiser and one homestay host visited was unaware of this requirement. W12 There is no record of fire risk assessments on the database. The database is not used effectively and information about dates of re-visits and Gas Safe certificates is not easily accessed. W14 Students are asked to fill out a questionnaire on the third day. However, the questions about accommodation do not provide homestay programme students with the opportunity to give feedback on important aspects of their accommodation. W15 Brighton College homestay students and students at Greenwich generally reported favourably on their meals. Although not always to their taste, the meals provide a nutritious and balanced diet. However, feedback on the meals at Roehampton were not so favourable and various issues had been raised about the quantity and quality of the food served there. Some, but not all, of these issues were being addressed.

Accommodation: homestay

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

W16 No more than four students N/a

W17 Rules, terms and conditions

W18 Shared bedrooms N/a

W19 Students’ first language N/a

W20 Language of communication N/a

W21 Adult to welcome N/a

Comments

W16 Students reported that in some cases, there were more than four students in the homestay, although not students from LSC. The local organiser was not aware of these cases. W17 The rules, terms and conditions are set out clearly in the homestay handbook. W18 Language tour operators and agents are informed that there will be up to four students in a bedroom and are required to sign an agreement, but they do not specifically request this. Of the three homestays visited, one bedroom was accommodating four students. W19 The homestay guidelines state that two students of the same ‘nationality’ must not be placed together. However, they are not informed that two students with the same first language must not be placed together. Students from the same group are often placed in homestays together, but this is always at the request of the tour operator or agent.

Accommodation: residential

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

W22 Cleaning

W23 Health

Comments

W22 Bedrooms are cleaned once a week and communal areas daily. W23 Some LSC staff and all the university security staff are first aid trained.

Accommodation: other

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

W24 Information and support

W25 Other accommodation N/a

Comments

None.

Leisure opportunities

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

W26 Information and access

W27 Leisure programmes

W28 Health and safety

W29 Responsible person

Comments

W26 Students are kept informed of the schedule by activities staff and group leaders. The homestay providers are also given a copy of the programme so that they can remind students about the day ahead. W27 The programmes are agreed with groups before they arrive and offer students two three-hour sessions a day, one session either in the morning or afternoon and the other in the evening. The programmes offer a variety of activities and excursions, which are planned according to the requests of the group, the location of the centre and the facilities available. There are full-day excursions on both Saturdays and Sundays. All the centres have access to large halls for evening activities, such as disco nights and talent shows, and can also be used in wet weather. Sports activities take place at the centres or in local parks. W28 There are generic risk assessments for excursions and activities. There are no specific risk assessments for the separate events. No assessment of risks is made with regard to the composition of the group or the conditions of the day. W29 There are very useful guidelines in a handbook and activities staff recruited by LSC receive specific training during their induction. Staff for the homestay programmes are recruited by STS in their home countries. They have a joint role of group leader, accompanying their groups from their home countries to the centres, and activity leader, after they arrive at the centre. Their training, received in their home countries, covers both roles, and some of them reported that they did not feel that they had been adequately prepared for the activity leader role, especially when accompanying groups on excursions.

Welfare and student services summary

The provision just meets the section standard. Although the students receive satisfactory care from staff and welfare officers, the premises have not been adequately risk assessed and measures to minimise specific risks are not in place. The residential accommodation is generally of a satisfactory standard, but this is not always the case for homestay accommodation and there are inadequacies in the record keeping. The leisure programmes are varied and well organised, but are not adequately assessed for risks. There is a need for improvement in Accommodation and Leisure opportunities.

Care of under 18s

Criteria Not met Met Strength See

comments N/a

C1 Safeguarding policy

C2 Guidance and training

C3 Publicity

C4 Recruitment procedures N/a

C5 Safety and supervision during scheduled lessons and activities

C6 Safety and supervision outside scheduled lessons and activities

C7 Accommodation

C8 Contact arrangements N/a

Comments

The maximum advertised age is 17. However, there were eight 18 year-old students enrolled at Brighton College and two 18 year-old students enrolled at Greenwich during the week of the inspection. C1 The safeguarding policy names the designated safeguarding lead (DSL) at head office and states that there are designated safeguarding officers (DSOs) at the centres. However, the DSOs are not named and it was not clear at the centres who was responsible for implementing the safeguarding policy at the local level. A safer recruitment policy is included and states that specific measures will be put in place when police check results have not arrived. However, these measures are not specified or made clear to staff. C3 The website contains clear information about the level of care that parents or legal guardians should expect their children to receive. However, this information is not always accurate. It states that there is a DSL at each centre,

and this is not the case (see C1). It is not made clear that the supervision and safety of students outside lessons and activities is not always carried out by LSC staff. Group leaders are responsible for overnight supervision, and group leaders also arrange alternative activities with their groups, under their own supervision. C4 Records confirm that the main carer in the homestay, as well as all resident members of the household, have been checked. Signed agreements with agents confirms that the group leaders have all been checked. Staff and teachers have had appropriate suitability checks, but at one of the centres a teacher who had been in post for a week had not yet completed the application for a check to be made. Only one reference had been obtained for a significant proportion of activity leaders. C5 The staff/student ratios are good and generally the group leaders are additional to requirements. It is made clear that group leaders should only take responsibility for their own students. However, the group leaders on the homestay programmes become activity leaders once at the centre and, although generally they are only allocated duties with their own groups, this is not always the case as the groups are mixed for certain events. C6 The rules are the same for all, and there are no additional rules or guidance for students on the homestay programmes. These students are expected to return to their homestay for an evening meal at 18.00. However, sometimes they decide not to, giving very short notice to their homestay host. Although students on the homestay programme are expected to return for the evening activity, the hosts are not always aware of this and allow students to stay at home. Rules for students in different groups vary according to decisions made by the group leaders. For example, the amount of free time that the students have during an excursion and what remote supervision procedures are put in place during this free time. Group leaders are instructed to ‘inform’ the centre manager if they are arranging an alternative activity or excursion, but they are not required to discuss safety issues beforehand or to modify or cancel the plans if advised to do so. C7 All the accommodation is provided on a full board basis, apart from one group at Greenwich, who arranged their own homestay accommodation. The group leaders have overnight responsibility for the supervision of their students in the residences and the supervising adult/student ratios are adequate. However, because of the arrangement of bedrooms into self-contained flats, it is not possible to have group leaders in every flat. Students are given keys or electronic fob entry to both their flats and bedrooms and group leaders are not allowed, for reasons of security, to have pass keys. Group leaders are allowed to create their own rooming lists and in some cases place boys and girls in the same flat, with no adult. Children in these flats are not receiving adequate supervision.

Care of under 18s summary

The provision does not meet the section standard. There are no clearly designated staff at the centres with adequate training or experience to implement the safeguarding policy. The safeguarding procedures, in the absence of risk assessments, are not specific to the centres and the rules are not always clear for students or homestay hosts. Risks are not assessed adequately regarding overnight supervision in the residences or when group leaders have supervision of their own groups. There is a need for improvement in Care of under 18s.