LETR conference: Professional Panel

The panel comprised three representatives of regulatory bodies.  First up, Julie Brannan, Director of Education and Training.  Her slide points out which of LETR recommendations the SRA accepted:

She also pointed out the themes that were recognised by the SRA and the evidence drawn upon.

She also outlined the SRA response, its view of regulation, emphasising the targeted nature of regulation, whether it’s proportionate, accountable, fair and transparent, and the origin of the SQE:

I have to say that I agree with this; but as always, it’s how it’s carried out that matters.  Eg on transparency, SQE will publish ‘performance data’.  But surely this leads to more league tables, and the marketisation of legal education.  Julie said that SRA will evaluate market impact, performance by protected characteristics, by provider, and the assessment’s predictive validity.  One commenter raised the issue that on performance, there will be different providers, so how that will be disaggregated and used.  Another doubted, as do I, that there can be an assessment of predictive validity of the SQE.  There’s a considerable and complex educational literature on this; and maybe I’ve missed it but I haven’t seen any of it applied to SQE.  Also, I think it’s interesting how the SQE maps on to the QLTS, which has been an educational success for the SQE.

Next up, CILEx regulator, and Vicki Purtill.  Moving fast!  I caught what CILEx is doing on the recommendations of LETR, with some of the slides below:

Vicki also outlined what CILEx already knew…

Finally, revised education standards are expected by the end of the year, enhanced risk-based supervision, simplified progression routes and other projects.  Interesting approaches, lots of good work, especially on legal technology standards and outcomes.  It’ll be interesting to see them.

Finally the Bar Standards Board, and Victoria Stec.  She pointed out the background in the BSB educational literature that preceded LETR eg the Wood reports (and which we took on board in the literature review). Post-LETR there were seven major consultations, with a focus on outcomes; and future Bar Training policy-making phase will complete in 2018.  The BSB response was as follows:

And as Victoria points out the emphasis on process assessment, especially of providers, was reduced.  On content, at the academic stage, common protocols were developed, with a curriculum and assessments review and a pupillage review. On structures, four permitted pathways: academic, vocational, work-based, and three other variants of that.  The last was an apprenticeship.  On pupillage, minimum 12 months, no more than 24 months, with a pupil supervisor ratio; and with changes to CPD.  LETR asked for more information, so the BSB give Annual Key Stats reports, a detailed CEB Chair’s reports, and the involvement of the comms team, especially on the website.  Victoria described the next period as one of consolidation and evaluation.