Review of EDDG discussions on HMIe

We had two frank and interesting discussions this week on our recent HMIe experience.

We started the discussions by acknowledging some of the broader points made in Norman Lucas’s piece which highlighted concerns about the distorting influence of external inspections in further education (see EDDG blog post “HMIe: How was it for you?” 17 Nov 2009)

At Monday’s meeting Fiona Gunn gave a brief overview of the feedback from the HMIe. Their general message was that there are no major concerns and that we are doing good work. However, they did not feel that there was anything particularly innovative in what they witnessed in terms of learning and teaching.

On Thursday Jordi Pitarch-Marquino came along to talk about his experiences of being observed. He said that, as a languages lecturer, he was quite used to being observed, so the experience wasn’t too daunting. The inspector stayed with him for about an hour and they had an extensive discussion afterwards. Jordi found the inspector to be courteous and genuinely interested in his teaching.

However, one of the points that came out of the discussion was that Jordi’s experience was not by any means consistent across all observations: some people had no “professional dialogue” after the observation; in other observations the inspector didn’t stay quite so long; and, finally, the post-lesson “profession dialogue”, for others, focussed less on learning and teaching and more on the college culture.

I put quotation marks around “professional dialogue” as some lecturers felt that it was more like an interview than a dialogue.

The discussions highlighted some concerns about the validity and usefulness of the process and, in some instances, the lack of credibility in some of the HMIe team. The point was made that it is important for the inspectors to have current knowledge of the subject area and teaching in order for our teaching staff to enter into a meaningful dialogue.

One or two people suggested that the subject-specific reviews (the subject aspect reviews as they’re called) have more credibility with college staff. However, it is also important that the inspectors involved with that process are seen to have relevant and up-to-date skills and experience in the subject area.

Some people felt that there was a sense of the review being more of a “lighter touch”. In fact, there was some concern that the inspectors didn’t give the staff that they met at various meetings the opportunity to talk about examples of innovative developments and effective teaching methods in their area. On a related point there was a comment made that the inspection lacked rigour.

However, some people felt that the inspectors that they talked to were approachable and willing to listen.

Quite a number of people talked about HMIe inspectors asking frank questions about the culture, governance and leadership of the college. These discussions, it was reported, were frank and open. There was some concern that the content of these discussions were diluted in the initial oral feedback from the inspectors. It was pointed out that some staff made some brave comments to the HMIe at various meetings on this issue. The point was made that staff would have little trust or respect of the inspection process, and of HMIe in particular, if such comments were ignored or lost in ambiguous language of any future report.

It was noted that HMIe seemed to be interested in the role that individual staff play in the development of college-wide strategies, policies and resources. In a sense, this was something very positive to come out of the experience – there is a recognition that the direction of the college needs to be defined by staff and learners through meaningful and continuing processes of engagement.

Linked to that, the inspectors also, it seems, brought up the subject of communication systems within the college. They were interested in how, and how well, we communicate with each other.

There was some discussion about the distorting function of inspections. Most people felt that unannounced HMIe visits would be a good thing. It would be interesting to know what the feeling of all staff is on this. Unannounced visits might offset some of the distortion that, it was suggested, can go on in the weeks and months up to a HMIe inspection. This point tied in well with some of comments made by Lucas in his article.

There was also some chat about who reviews the HMIe and it was claimed that the HMIe have recently stepped back from a process where they had invited tenders to review their own effectiveness.

To conclude, there was a general feeling, by many, that the process was a bit of a “non-event”. There was some disquiet with a snapshot process which evaluates and makes broad judgements and statements on our teaching and the college as a whole.

So, what did we learn? Well, one answer was that we learned a little bit more about how the HMIe inspection process itself. But how does that help our learners or enhance our teaching? I suppose it helps us prepare for future HMIe inspections.

On a more positive note, I think another thing we learned was that HMIe are, rightly, interested in learner and staff engagement in the culture and governance of the college.

But maybe that most important thing we learned, or need to learn, is that we should trust our own professional judgement about what we do. We are probably the most critical of judges of our own practice.