LETR: It's the taking part that matters, really

With LETR entering its implementation stage and law schools expected to be at the forefront of the day-one outcomes' challenge, Rebecca Huxley-Binns runs through some of the options for the higher education sector

What should and could higher education institutions (HEIs), and specifically law schools, be doing to manage the transition to a post-LETR, competence-framework, outcome-driven legal services education and training future? Forgive me if I preach or patronise, but I would suggest:

'¨1. Participate in the debate, in person with the regulators if you are asked, invited or able to cajole your way onto the the right committees, agenda, or meetings; otherwise by attending the conferences, debates and reading the press and literature. Get engaged. Have an opinion about how to define competence in terms of outcomes. Decide if you think outcomes can adequately embrace the processes and reasoning behind and within the law. Some people do think so, some don't. The devil's advocate will be an important voice. The protagonist and the advocate have their roles. Apathy is the bullet in the foot to the success of the LETR future. Those who think the future is a dumbed-down version of the past really do have an obligation to contribute to the discussion and ensure standards are high. That, or forgo the post-event moaning. Engage, don't whinge.

'¨2. After the day-one outcomes are finalised and published, think. Think and talk. Think about how your law school's learning activities could and should be changed. Talk with colleagues about whether your legal services education and training offering does need to change, even if it doesn't meet any of the day-one outcomes, because you, for example, select rather than recruit. If so, don't change it. Don't change either if your law courses already meet required learning outcomes because they are defined in terms of outcomes already (perhaps reshape if needed but not a whole-scale change).

But if, on reflection, you '¨think that your law portfolio '¨can and must better meet learning outcomes, change is definitely due.

'¨3. Talk more, debate, consult. Discuss with academics within and outside your institution, with local employers who have a stake in your portfolio and with alumni, with visiting fellows, professors, legal service professionals and current and future students. Never forget your educational ethos and culture. Each law school is in competition with other law school(s) for students, so each school has to find its brand, its niche, its uniqueness, if indeed it hasn't already. Does your school specialise in critical legal education at undergraduate level? If so, which outcomes for which legal professional day one authorisation (the SRA's? The BSB's? IPS's? Which one?) does or can your portfolio meet? If, instead, you have a portfolio which has a skills-orientated approach already, you need to target your activities to show your market what you offer meets these many "..." (insert for open day material as relevant) outcomes. The LPC and BPTC, at least as stand-alone programmes, may have to be rethought, compartmentalised, repackaged and available as off-the-peg, but with a feeling of bespoke, courses. Or, keep them as stand-alones, because they are high quality courses that meet student expectations and needs, but perhaps weave the work-based learning opportunities throughout to allow students to meet the day-one outcomes on competition. The real skill of the course designer is in aligning activities to outcomes. It's rarely reinventing the wheel.