The ABA Committee examining the review of accreditation standards next meets in Chicago July 24-25 to continue its development of outcome measures standards and to begin its consideration of amending or deleting the security of position provisions in Standard 405(c).  In this post, I will focus on the current debate around development of outcomes measures.    In  a post later this week, another blogger or I will provide an update on security of position issues. 

The current subcommittee draft is dated May 5, 2010 and you can find it on my CELT webpage at   (or if you want to navigate the unwieldy ABA page )  Previous BP posts have discussed these standards — most recently noting the AALS Executive Committee’s strong  letter outlining three principles for the Standards Review Committee to consider.

 CLEA president Bob Kuehn sent me the latest CLEA submission commenting  on outcome measures and revisions to ABA Accreditation Standards 302 & 303 .  I will also post to by CELT site.  (It should appear on the ABA site before too long).  CLEA finds that the current proposed revisions (the May 5, 2010 version)  “diminishes legal education” by significantly “weakening the professional skills requirement”   and “reduces outcome assessment to an empty promise.”  CLEA concludes that,  if the draft standards are adopted,  law school education will “shift back toward more passive learning in large classes” and that law graduates will become “less ready for the challenges of our changing profession.”  Do you find CLEA’s position persuasive?

%d bloggers like this: