1. Restructuring the Governance and Operation of the ABA Accreditation Process
Concept and Overview Report to Council
Work Group: Lewis (Chair), Bales, Bosse, Currier, Lysaght, Murphy
August 2017

2. Why? Too much work - to do well - with current resources and staff -
with other work that could/
should be done left to the side.

3. Why?
Current structure has many redundancies; moreover, Council, with the overall responsibility for accreditation, may be too distant from the day-to-day of how it’s working.
Current structure is too slow, too cumbersome, and not transparent enough for the current environment, particularly for schools with serious issues (present or probable).
Current structure is too slow, too cumbersome, and not nimble enough for the current environment, particularly to support innovation or business decisions that would be beneficial to schools and to legal education as a whole.

4. Why?
Without structural/process reforms, demands of the work will require significant revenue growth – staff and technology.
But revenue challenges loom large. Current enrollment-driven fee structure for schools, declining ABA support, no support from bar admissions process.
Each could/should contribute more: (a) still a bargain for schools; (b) core ABA function and important part of its brand; and (c) bar admissions processes benefit substantially but currently do not contribute to its support.
That said, prospects for significant revenue increases are small and should not be relied on in charting a pathway forward.

5. Accreditation process reforms
Supporting structural change should be process reforms. Theses can proceed on a parallel timeline. Reforms and restructuring are good ideas, independently of each other,. But some of these reforms make restructuring much easier to implement.
Reforms might include:
Extend periodic school reviews from 7 years to a longer period. If move to 10 years, go from ~29 RSRs to ~20 per year. (30% savings). If move to 8 years, go to per year (19% savings).
Improve and enhance interim monitoring to follow schools in, or moving toward, difficulty.
Create a “monitoring” or “warning” status – not probation, but not “in good standing” either. This status would remove a school from regular cycle and be ongoing/continuous oversight. Status would be public.
Enhance role of staff: develop process to allow action on certain matters by staff (with reports to Council or after consultation with Chair, EC, or Council via and opportunity to object).
Expand ways for Council or Executive Committee to act between meetings, including on accreditation matters.

6. Implementation
August 2017: Status report at council meeting; Council approves concepts for restructure and reform
August-November 2017: Develop plan, drafting, outline transition
November 2017: Further report to Council and actions as appropriate, including putting out matters for notice and comment
November 2017-February 2018: Post and received notice and comment
February 2018: Adopt changes, as appropriate; socialize plan with courts, schools, and other groups
February – May 2018: Continue process, approvals further notice and comment, as needed needed
May 2018: Approvals, as appropriate; finalize timeline and transition plan, including Section, Board of Governors, House of Delegates approvals

7. Recommendation The work group is likely to recommend at the Council meeting that the Council adopt a motion endorsing the concept of merging the work of the Accreditation Committee and the Standards Review Committee fully into its work, in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the ABA law school accreditation process.* The work group is also likely to recommend that the Council adopt a motion to refer the process reforms set out on slide 5 to the SRC for consideration and committee action. The work group will recommend that it and staff be charged with identifying and pursuing these matters, seeking advice and counsel from the full Council by and conference calls as appropriate, and report the progress made at the Council’s November 2017 meeting.
* The work group considered other options, including (1) a full merger but doing some of the Council’s work through panels; and (2)a plan to have two bodies – an accreditation council with full authority over school accreditation matters, and a section council with responsibility for standards and questionnaires, appeals from the accreditation council, and the “Section” work of the section work of the section (collaborating with other legal education organizations, conferences and publications, policy development and leadership role) .

8. Sample meeting schedule
Wednesday: Gather for dinner
Thursday session I: Accreditation hours
Thursday session II: Standards and Questionnaires – 2 hours
Thursday session III: Education programming/strategic discussion – 1.5 hours
Friday session I: Accreditation – 4.0 hours
Friday session II: Open session (Stds/Q’aires; non-accreditation) – 2.5 hours
Friday session III: Accreditation – 1 hour
Saturday session I: Accreditation – 3.0 hours
Saturday session II: Standards/Questionnaires – 1.0 hours
Saturday session III: Education programming/strategic discussion – 1.0

9. Hours of meeting time per year (assumes 4 meetings for each option)
Accreditation Stds/Q’aires Non-acc Total hours/year
Estimates for :
Estimates w/ reforms from June est
Merged