The Legal Education and Training Review, five years on Julie Brannan Director of Education and Training

Frolic of our own?

Recommendations accepted Standards Statement of Solicitor Competence developed following input from over 2,000 stakeholders Particular curriculum areas to receive greater focus (eg ethics, probate, communication skills) Taken forward in SoSC and SQE Reflective approach to CPD New approach to continuing competence introduced in 2016, based on reflective cycle Solicitor apprenticeships Launched in 2016

Themes recognised Greater flexibility: “The development of alternative pathways into the legal services sector could play a critical role in enhancing diversity, particularly if they reduce cost and other barriers to LSET.” (para. 6.51) Standardised assessment: “A more rigorous approach to standard-setting: the problem of disjunction between standards within individual institutions and the standards associated with the discipline or profession is widely acknowledged, and one which the external examiner system struggles to address.” (para. 5.170) Lack of transparency “There is also a lack of information on the performance of vocational providers, including pass rates and data on the diversity profile of the institution or centre. Without such information, the development of a properly transparent and competitive market in vocational training is inhibited.” (para. 6.52)

Evidence drawn upon Access Standards Cost of training too high; Lack of information; Focus in recruitment on A levels and “known brands” Standards Stakeholder and market concern about standards Doubts about effectiveness of external examiner system Pressures from increasing student numbers

So where did the SQE come from? “[the report] has highlighted a number of persistent and in some cases fundamental challenges for the LETR: reliance on relatively shallow, vague or narrow conceptions of competence; a failure generally to adopt robust methods for deriving outcomes; the widespread absence of standardised assessment processes; reliance on assessment practices that possess conformity rather than practice validity.” (para. 1.141) “LSET requires more robust and more creative approaches to assessment.” (para. 4.145) “Large centralised assessments can be as problematic as localised ones, unless appropriate resources are put into training question-setters and assessors, and moderation. Separating teaching from assessment may also create additional challenges in terms of assuring fairness, consistency and authenticity of assessment.” (para. 5.174)

Regulatory context 2014 and 2015 SRA Policy Statements: Approach to regulation and its reform “The purpose of public interest regulation in the legal services market is relatively simply captured. There is a common good or public benefit, in ensuring: that consumers of services are protected where the nature of those services mean that some consumers are inherently vulnerable in transactions with suppliers; and that the rule of law is upheld and that the legal system and courts operate effectively.” “At the very core of the SRA's regulatory purpose…..is the assumption that the benefits to the public, or society as a whole, achieved through regulation outweigh the restrictions and costs necessarily imposed as a result of that regulation.”

Implication for education and training? Education and training requirements not end in themselves, but mechanism to assure competence “…taken to a logical extreme in a system of OFR, much specific regulation of formal education could be said to be redundant, because formal education is ultimately a process, and only one of a number of potential processes by which the outcome of competence is achieved.” LETR, literature review, chapter 3, para. 25

Principles of better regulation Targeted: “benefits of regulatory intervention must outweigh the costs and any disbenefits of restrictions imposed by regulation” (SRA 2015 Policy Statement on Regulation); SQE must be focused on core competences, and on what is distinctive about practice as a solicitor Proportionate: SQE is proportionate response to need to protect consumers and uphold the rule of law Accountable: SQE holds us, and the assessment provider and training providers to account Fair: demonstrably fair to all candidates to assess in the same way; but also fair to remove unjustifiable barriers Transparent: SQE is what enables us to publish performance data

The future of the SQE We will evaluate We will refine Market impact Performance by protected characteristics, and provider Predictive validity We will refine SQE will change over time, as competences change. And LETR played a huge part in this.