Spot check report Organisation name Bristol Language Centre (BLC) Inspection date 10 February 2015 BACKGROUND Organisation profile Inspection history First inspection 2006 Dates/details Last full inspection 17-18 July 2014 Subsequent spot check (if applicable) Subsequent supplementary check (if applicable) Subsequent interim visit (if applicable) Other related schools / centres /affiliates Other related non-accredited activities (in brief) at this centre Current accreditation status and reason for spot check Current accredited status Accredited Reason for spot check Signalled: follow-up on Points to be addressed in Care of under 18s Premises profile Address of main site Details of any additional sites in use at the time of the inspection Details of any additional sites not in use at the time of the inspection Sites inspected 3 Portwall Lane, Redcliffe, Bristol BS1 6NB Main site Student and staff profile Total ELT/ESOL student numbers (FT + PT) 51 Minimum age (including closed group or vacation) At inspection 16 years (at the time of this spot check: one 15 year-old was studying 1:1) In peak week July 2014 150 (total adults and juniors) Adults: 16 years Juniors: 13 years Adults: 24 years (average) Typical age range 24 years (average) Juniors: 15 years (average) Adults: 4 weeks Typical length of stay 9 weeks Juniors: 2 weeks Variety of nationalities. Largest 20 nationalities. language groups were as follows: Predominant nationalities Largest language Adults: Russian, Italian group: Spanish Juniors: Spanish Total number of teachers on eligible ELT courses 6 15 Total number of administrative/ancillary staff 3
INTRODUCTION Background Bristol Language Centre (BLC) was last inspected in July 2014. The ASAC awarded continued accreditation but expressed concern over the care of under 18s. The school was asked to submit evidence by 15 December 2014 that the issues concerning the care of under 18s had been addressed. They were also informed that a spot check would take place in early 2015. Preparation Two inspectors were asked to carry out this spot check, one of whom had been the reporting inspector on the July 2014 inspection. They received relevant papers from the Accreditation Unit but had no prior contact with the school. Programme and persons present The spot check took place on Tuesday 10 February. The inspectors arrived at 9.02 and left at 13.05. The visit included discussions with the director and the team leader, a scrutiny of relevant documentation, and a brief meeting with the director of studies (DOS) and teachers. FINDINGS The focus of the visit was the care of under 18s, and the inspectors also checked on some of the other Points to be addressed from the July inspection. There have been no major changes in staffing since July 2014. The team leader is still responsible for the care of under 18s. The ADOS who was in post in July is on maternity leave and an acting ADOS has been appointed. The courses offered have not changed, and a part-time course has just been introduced in the evenings. There have been no major changes in premises or academic resources. The team leader sent an action plan relating to the care of under 18s to the Accreditation Unit in December. This was sent to the inspectors in January together with some other documents which the team leader had started working on. She gave the inspectors further draft documents during the spot check. The inspectors' findings in relation to the care of under 18s are summarised in the section below. Care of under 18s Criteria Not met Met Strength C1 Safeguarding policy C2 Guidance and training C3 Publicity See comments C4 Recruitment materials C5 Suitability checks C6 Safety and supervision C7 Accommodation C8 Contact arrangements Comments The school runs a junior summer programme for 13 17 year olds. 16 and 17 year olds are also enrolled yearround onto the adult courses. At the time of this spot check visit, there was one 16 year old, one 17 year old, and, exceptionally, one 15 year-old who was having one-to-one tuition. She travelled to and from the school each day with her brother, who is also studying in the school, and was living with her father who accompanied her throughout her stay in Bristol. C1 The team leader has been working on revising the safeguarding policy and she showed the most recent draft to the inspectors. Although it is clear that some work has taken place on revising the policy, it has not yet been finalised and therefore cannot be implemented. The inspectors advised that the team leader should finish it as soon as possible so that she can implement it as required in C2.
C2 The team leader reported that she was planning to train staff and hosts as soon as the policy has been finalised. However, the criterion is still not met as this training has not yet taken place. The inspectors suggested that it would also be helpful to ask staff and hosts to complete online Level 1 training. The team leader said that she was looking into Stage 2 training for herself. The draft safeguarding policy has been placed in the staff handbook on the server, but teachers had not been notified of this. The team leader had been planning to begin training staff and informing hosts just before the start of the junior summer course. However, the inspectors advised her of the need to implement the training as soon as possible because of the under 18s currently in school. Group leaders and activity leaders will need appropriate training when they take up their responsibilities in the summer. An agreement has been drawn up for group leaders, but has not yet been used as the first group will not arrive until June. C3 Although parents and students are given information at the time of enrolment about the level of support given to students under 18, the provision is not described in sufficient detail in the publicity. However, it is made clear that students under the age of 18 can only enrol on adult courses after parents have signed a consent form. In the action plan, the team leader stated that the new welfare section of the website would be launched in January 2015. However, this has not yet happened: there is no description of the level of care in either the brochure or the website, and the old 2014 safeguarding policy still appears on the website. The information available to parents/guardians before enrolment needs to make clear the level of care and support offered to under 18s, and needs to differentiate between those enrolled on the junior course and the 16 and 17 year olds recruited on the adult year-round courses. C5 All staff and homestay hosts are required to have appropriate suitability checks. In addition, all people over 18 living in homestays are required to sign a declaration stating that they are not unsuitable to be in the same home as under 18s. This criterion was not met at the July inspection because agents had not been informed of the need to carry out safeguarding checks on group leaders. This has now been addressed in that the new agreements with agents include this requirement. Group leaders will also be asked to confirm that checks have taken place. However, as noted above, the first booked group will not arrive until June. C6 Students on junior courses have a full programme of classes and activities, with very little time when they are not accompanied by a responsible adult. Parental consent is sought if students wish to shop independently. Parents of students aged under 18 on adult courses sign a consent form which describes the rules and curfew times. The inspectors suggested that it would be helpful to have different versions of the parental consent form for students on junior courses and for 16 and 17 year olds enrolled on the adult courses. C7 All students under 18 are required to live in homestays and there are curfew times and additional rules, made known to activity leaders, homestay hosts, parents and students. The register of hosts for under 18s has not yet been confirmed. Guidelines for hosts have not yet been finalised. The new draft parental consent form includes a statement that they agree to their children buying their own lunch. The inspectors suggested that the consent form should be differentiated for under 18s on junior courses and those studying on the year-round adult courses. They suggested that parents should be asked to indicate their agreement to their 16 and 17 year olds studying in class with adult students, and their understanding of the fact that the school does not offer supervision. Care of under 18s summary The section standard is met overall. Although a number of improvements have been made since the 2014 inspection, the revised safeguarding policy is still in draft form. It has not yet been implemented with all adults who come into contact with under 18s. Publicity does not make clear the level of care and support offered to under 18s, on junior and adult courses. The register of hosts for under 18s has not yet been confirmed, and guidelines for hosts have not yet been finalised. POINTS TO BE ADDRESSED Other points to be addressed from the previous inspection report with comments (in bold) to indicate how far these have been addressed. Management M4 There was one instance of a lack of communication which came to light during the inspection. An under 18 year old was staying in accommodation as an au pair and staff responsible for student welfare were not aware of this. The inspectors were told that this was a one-off incident which has not happened again. M14 The attendance policy for adults is more relaxed than for juniors, and needs to be tightened up for pastoral and pedagogic reasons as well as for visa compliance. The inspectors were told that the attendance policy has been tightened up, and that any absences are notified on a daily basis. Teachers told the inspectors that under 18s are identified on registers and that they report the late arrival or non-attendance of any under 18s immediately. M29 The publicity includes a reference to a junior residence being 'accredited by the British Council'.
The residence is no longer used. The British Council logo, rather than the Accreditation marque, is used on some documents such as the Staff Handbook. Both these points have been addressed: the junior residence will be used again in the summer but the reference to accreditation by the British Council has been removed. The British Council logo is no longer used. Resources and environment. Teaching and learning T23 There were occasional instances of inaccurate use of language, in particular in collocations, sounds and word stress. T24 Occasionally teachers spoke rather too quickly. T27 Whiteboard use was variable. More could be done to exploit the wall space. T28 Vocabulary teaching was variable and sometimes relied on an explanation or a definition rather than being put into a context. Not much pronunciation work was seen in the adult classes. The inspectors did not carry out any classroom observations. Welfare and student services W4 There is insufficient information, in language accessible to students (particularly younger students and those with a lower level of English), which explains what bullying is and what students should do if they feel they are the victims of bullying/abuse. The team leader said that she was still working on the best way of conveying the concept of 'bullying'. W9 One of the rooms in the homestays visited was very small with little storage space (no hanging space) and no study table. Three out of the five rooms visited in the two homestays did not have study tables although the school publicises single room, with desk available for study. Towels are not provided in the residential accommodation. The arrangements for the weekly change of bed linen in Elephant House are not clear. Towels are not provided; sheets are provided but not laundered. The team leader is in the process of re-visiting hosts to ensure that they all meet Scheme requirements. It is now made clear to students that towels are not provided in residential accommodation, and that they will be responsible for laundering their bed linen. There are 130 hosts, about 60 of whom are due to be visited in 2015. W12 There was evidence that some homestay details were not up-to-date. See the comment at W9. W17 Hosts had not been informed by the school of their legal requirement to conduct a fire risk assessment. See the comment at W9: the team leader is in the process of re-visiting hosts and during the re-visits, hosts are informed about the need to carry out a fire risk assessment. However, the school needs to ensure that all hosts on the register are informed immediately about the importance of carrying out risk assessments. The first monthly newsletter to hosts was sent out in January. Although currently not very detailed, the newsletter has the potential to become a useful means of communication with hosts. W23 At Elephant House the warden (who is not always in the residence when students are in the house) is not first aid trained. It is not clear whether the students (most of whom are young adults) are informed about action to take in case of a medical emergency. The new warden is first aid trained. W24 Insufficient information is given about the implications of students making their own accommodation arrangements and about the advice available in case of difficulties. There is some information available about making independent accommodation arrangements, but the inspectors suggested that it would be helpful to produce a hand-out to give students. CONCLUSIONS Although the school provided an action plan in December 2014, as requested, the plan has not yet been fully implemented and some aspects of the care of under 18s remain to be addressed. RECOMMENDATION The next inspection falls due in 2018. In view of the unsatisfactory findings, the Accreditation Unit should write to request that evidence be provided within three months to demonstrate that the PTBA in Care of under 18s have been addressed. A further spot check should be carried out.
PUBLISHABLE STATEMENT Changes to publishable statement No changes need to be made to the publishable statement. Publishable statement The British Council inspected and accredited Bristol Language Centre (BLC) in July 2014. The Accreditation Scheme assesses the standards of management, resources and premises, teaching, welfare and care of under 18s and accredits organisations which meet the overall standard in each area inspected (see www.britishcouncil.org/education/accreditation for details). This private language school offers courses in general English for adults (16+) and for closed groups of under 18s, and vacation courses for under 18s. Strengths were noted in the areas of quality assurance, premises and facilities, learner management, and leisure opportunities. The inspection report stated that the organisation met the standards of the Scheme. Points to be addressed outstanding from the previous inspection(s) or arising from this visit Classroom observation T23, T24, T27, T28 The inspectors did not carry out any classroom observations. Welfare and student services W4 The team leader said that she was still working on the best way of conveying the concept of 'bullying'. W9 The team leader is in the process of re-visiting hosts to ensure that they all meet Scheme requirements. Care of under 18s C1 The safeguarding policy has not been finalised and implemented. C2 There has been no training of staff, and hosts have not been informed. Group leaders and activity leaders will need appropriate training when they take up their responsibilities. C3 There is no description of the level of support given to students under 18 in either the brochure or the website, and the old 2014 safeguarding policy still appears on the website. C7 The register of hosts for under 18s has not yet been confirmed. Guidelines for hosts have not yet been finalised. The new draft parental consent form does not differentiate between under 18s on junior courses and those studying on the year-round adult courses.