Working it out with WBL
updated on 30 November 2010
In Autumn 2008 the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) launched a major two-year pilot, designed to assess whether the traditional training contract should be replaced by a work-based learning (WBL) model that would improve the "quality assurance of, and access to, the vocational training stage of qualification as a solicitor". It was in part a response to two weaknesses it had identified in the current system. First, that there is no structured way of measuring the skills and knowledge gained during the two-year contract. Second, the shortage of training contract places leaves competent LPC graduates with no way to qualify.
The pilot took on 98 candidates (trainees and paralegals) at a number of firms and organisations. The candidates were either assessed in-house, or by Nottingham Law School (NLS) or the Oxford Institute of Legal Practice (OXILP) at Oxford Brookes University. OXILP was the external assessment organisation for the trainees, while NLS was the external assessor for the paralegals.
The pilot has now finished and is being assessed by the SRA, but we talk here to Julie Brannan, director of OXILP, and Jane Ching, academic team leader at NLS. Each was heavily involved with the pilot and they offer their views on how things went and what the introduction of WBL might mean for trainees and paralegals in the future.
What are the aims of WBL?
The SRA states that "the overall objective of the WBL project is to develop an approach to ensuring the competence of qualifying solicitors that is quality assured, consistent and reliable". Julie's view is that WBL can provide a safety net that is missing from the current training system: "Currently, the training contract is essentially a mark of time served. The aims of WBL are to provide a kite mark at the point of qualification showing that the trainee is competent to practise law. In addition, and addressing the SRA's concerns that some firms were not providing training of a sufficient standard, WBL would tighten up the process and improve training." Jane agrees: "As I understand it, the aims are to ensure a common minimum standard of performance at the point of qualification based on an individual's performance and capabilities as shown in the workplace."
Another of the SRA's aims is to widen access to the profession. This is reflected in the fact that the WBL pilot was extended to paralegals. The SRA states: "The current training contract system may not offer opportunity to some competent candidates who are unable to obtain a contract. As well as trainees within the traditional training contract route to qualification, the WBL pilot includes paralegals doing training contract type work but not within a training contract. WBL potentially offers a route for such candidates who can demonstrate the required level of competence, and may therefore widen access to the profession from more diverse individuals." Julie comments: "For paralegals, WBL would provide a mechanism for those who have got a degree and the LPC, but who don't have a training contract, to qualify as a solicitor."
How did the WBL pilot work?
Trainees and paralegals had to produce examples of their work to put into a portfolio, which was assessed at the end of their training contract against a set of competencies set by the SRA. The pilot allowed for a firm to either assess its trainees/paralegals in-house, or use an external assessor.
Jane says: "At the outset, and because we were working with people in a wide range of different organisations, we had a consciously open mind. We knew we needed to establish that people were doing at least three different areas of work, that they were doing both contentious and non-contentious work and that they needed to work towards achievement of the outcomes. The challenge was in educating people to demonstrate what they were doing and to prove their level of competence in each of the outcomes."
Julie describes how OXILP conducted its assessment: "During the pilot, each candidate met with their own reviewer six times over the two years for him or her to look at the candidate's portfolio, and to offer help and guidance. At the end, the portfolio was submitted for final assessment by one of our assessors. The person could then pass or fail - failure would mean that they did not go on to qualify as a solicitor."
However, there was a chance for trainees to try again if their first attempt at submission didn't go so well. Julie explains: "We asked our trainees to submit their portfolios in June, and provided they met at least half of the competencies, we allowed them to resubmit the necessary sections before their training contacts finished in September. A real strength of this process is that you see the problems emerging over the two years through the review process, so if someone is going off track, you can put in extra training and resources."
What were the SRA's competencies about?
A key component of the WBL pilot was the set of 37 competencies, as determined by the SRA. Candidates had to demonstrate that they met the competencies, using evidence and "justifications". Where it was a technical legal competency, the assessor's role was more to look at how the candidate reached their conclusion, rather than the law itself, as Julie explains: "All of our assessors are former solicitors with experience of supervising trainees, but they're not experts in all areas of law, obviously. So the seat supervisors would sign off on something, a letter for example, and confirm that it was a technically competent piece of work. The assessor then looked at the process it took to create that piece of work. For example, it may have successfully applied legal principles, but if it took the trainee six months and 200 iterations to get there, then he or she may not be have met the level of competency required."
Other competencies were not about technical law but about skills, such as an ability to manage time, deal with professional conduct issues, use effective communication skills, or deal with clients and other professionals. One of the challenges for the assessors was evidencing some of these more nebulous skills. Julie explains: "Two such competencies were to undertake some advocacy and to interview a client. This threw up some problems. First, not all trainees would do both these things, and second, how do you evidence oral communications? We got around it by saying that work done in the PSC could be used as evidence and we asked supervisors to complete observation forms when the trainee was talking to clients or conducting an interview. We also got the trainees to comment on how they thought an interview went - the sophistication or not of their comments was often very instructive."
Julie's view was that as the pilot went on, it became clear that at 37, there were in fact too many competencies: "We recommended that they should be reduced and streamlined."
What are the advantages of WBL?
For both firms and trainees/paralegals, the WBL process seems to improve training. Julie says: "First, the criteria drafted by the SRA were objective points against which to measure a trainee's performance, which made things much more straightforward and transparent. Trainees knew where they stood. Second, it gave trainees an incentive to ensure that the firm was doing what it needed to do, so they became more engaged with, and proactive in, their own training. For example, they would hassle their seat supervisors for monthly meetings and actively seek out information on the firm's business plans."
In addition, having to complete a portfolio encourages the candidates to be reflective practitioners, says Julie: "They had to look at what went well, what went badly and why. This allowed them to learn from their mistakes. As external assessors, the candidates were able to be frank with us - perhaps more so than if it had been done internally - and look at what went wrong and what they should have done differently. Making mistakes is inevitable and we tried to help them not feel downhearted by taking some positive lessons from it."
Jane thinks that the outcomes-based approach forces trainees and firms to step up their respective games: "The WBL outcomes depend on individuals having actually done certain tasks, rather than, for example, having observed them. This says something about the kind of work trainees need to be given to achieve them. What we have seen is our candidates really getting to grips with taking responsibility for their own learning and working really hard to demonstrate their achievements."
What are the challenges of WBL?
As with any trial process, there have been areas of difficulty that will need work. Jane describes some of those she observed during the pilot: "The outcomes are currently articulated for some kinds of legal work where, for example, there is a limited amount of client contact. The need to have done tasks and performed at a certain level requires a fair amount of work in collecting evidence and corroboration of the level of performance. Many firms may be able to absorb this into existing training contract support frameworks; others may have more work to do." Julie agrees that the extra work and time required may be a burden for some firms and trainees, especially as the new system is bedding in: "Spending time uploading the evidence, justifying why the evidence meets the criteria, and reflecting on one's work is all very time consuming, and that is the key disadvantage. In some firms, the trainees weren't given any time off to concentrate on their portfolio - they were told they just had to fit it in and manage their time effectively."
Julie also highlights the technical side of managing the portfolios as an area that might need some work: "We did it all online, but there were problems with the system and I think we'd suggest using another provider. However, it was infinitely preferable to having to do everything with hard copies and by post - instead, trainees could upload a piece of work and we could access and review it remotely, which was great."
How would the introduction of WBL change the training landscape?
Jane's view is that it would be a welcome development for all: "It changes it from training to education; from a system where a training contract experience can be comparatively passive to one where the experience is active, with trainees taking responsibility for their learning in a much more active way. Candidates coming through the pilot are very conscious of what they can do, having spent two years measuring themselves against the outcomes."
Similarly, Julie says that she was sure by the end of the pilot that the introduction of WBL would be a good thing for the profession: "I think WBL improves the training process by providing meaningful assessment - if a trainee really shouldn't be let loose on the public, then they will fail, simple as that."
What now?
The SRA has asked Middlesex University to conduct an evaluation of the pilot, and it is due to report back in January 2011. The SRA will then develop policy proposals for consultation during the first half of 2011, taking the views of consultees into account and incorporated into future policy proposals. If WBL is rolled out, it is likely to happen in 2012, but probably over a period of years so that firms could adopt the new format gradually.
So, at the moment, we will be patiently watching this space, but it seems obvious that WBL would fundamentally change the way trainees and paralegals are trained and assessed, hopefully ensuring they are better prepared for the demands of their newly qualified status.
Julie Brannan is director of the Oxford Institute of Legal Practice and Jane Ching is academic team leader at Nottingham Law School.
