HMIE issued confidence statements for each college reviewed, covering the three main focal points of review: Learning and teaching process; Learner progress and outcomes and Leadership and quality management.
Statements of confidence can be unqualified, qualified by the term "overall" drawing the college’s attention to some inconsistency in practice or outcomes, or qualified by reference to specifics.
HMIE expressed confidence in all seven colleges reviewed in 2004/05 in relation to Learning and teaching process. In one college, HMIE further commented that processes were very effective. In all other colleges, Learning and teaching process was deemed effective or effective overall. In one college, the statement of confidence was qualified by identification of the college’s need to address weaknesses in a specific subject area.
HMIE expressed confidence in all colleges reviewed in 2004/05 in respect of Learner progress and outcomes. In four colleges, HMIE concluded that learners were progressing well and achieving outcomes or doing so overall. In the remaining three colleges, statements of confidence were qualified. For two of these colleges, the reports identified the need to address low retention and achievement in some areas. In the third college, a need to address low attainment was specified.
HMIE also expressed confidence in all colleges reviewed in 2004/05 in respect of Leadership and quality management. In four colleges, HMIE concluded without qualification that the college being reviewed was managing well and improving the quality of experience of its services to learners. In the other colleges, qualifications related to the need to improve the effectiveness of self-evaluation processes, the need to develop further some aspects of monitoring, evaluation and improvement, and the need to address some important weaknesses in relation to guidance.
Key messages from the seven reviews are detailed in section 7 of this report. The overarching finding was that the seven colleges reviewed in 2004/05 were mature institutions with a positive approach to quality assurance and improvement. SFEFC (latterly SFC) decided that in only one instance was a formal follow-up required, to ensure that the important weaknesses in guidance had been addressed. In all other cases, varying degrees of continuing engagement by the college with the college HMI were considered sufficient to satisfy public accountability requirements. Importantly, engagement with the college HMI would also ensure that these colleges’ continuing quality enhancement activities and good practice were picked up for wider dissemination across the college sector.