Bar Professional Training Course College of Law, Birmingham. Report of Monitoring Visit, 14 February 2012

Transcription

1 Bar Professional Training Course College of Law, Birmingham Report of Monitoring Visit, 14 February 2012 Name of Institution Date of Visit/Meeting College of Law Birmingham 14 February 2012 Title of Course/award Bar Professional Training Course Nature/status of the course Second Year of the Bar Professional Training Course Numbers/modes approved Approved for 132 FT (68 at time of visit) Dates of course Academic Year September 2011 June 2012 Approved for Part time provision given in 2010 to run from September PT (20 at time of visit) Panel Members Dr Valerie Shrimplin (Chair) Professor Andrew Sanders Ms Caroline Haughey Ms Claire Francis Ms Janet Pugh Role and area of primary responsibility Head of Education, BSB Dean of Law, University of Birmingham, Chair of Education and Training Committee. Practising barrister (Criminal) Practising barrister Education Manager, BSB HEI Team Ms Jayne Jeffcott Mr Dan Hill Prof. Bernadette Griffin Mr Paul Shoulders Ms Jacqueline Cheltenham Role and area of primary responsibility Head of Students, Birmingham Associate Professor Dispute Resolution, College of Law Centre Director, Birmingham BPTC Course Leader, Birmingham Head of BPTC (London and Birmingham) Context: The HEI/Provider The College of Law was established in the 1960s and has degree awarding powers. It has been running the Bar Vocational Course since 1997 in London. The Birmingham site opened in 2001 and the College commenced running the BVC there in 2007 (currently validated for 132 full-time places). It was approved to run 1

2 the new BPTC in Birmingham (May 2009). The part time route was approved to run from September This visit was held as part of the BSB s annual programme of visits to BPTC Providers to monitor the quality and standards of the course and to determine whether the course is being delivered in accordance with the Course Specification Requirements and Guidance ( the Blue Book ). The panel was provided in advance with key documentation including the law school s most recent Annual Monitoring Report, copies of the last two years External Examiner and BSB visit reports, and other relevant information. During the visit the panel had an opportunity to tour the premises and to meet with management, teaching staff, and with students. The panel also observed a number of classes. All of the above informed the panel s conclusions contained in this report. 1. Adherence to course aims, philosophy and standards The panel was satisfied that the course is being delivered in accordance with the course specification requirements and guidance (the Blue Book ) and that the academic and professional standards of the course are appropriate. Recommendations for areas to focus on for future improvement are contained in the report below. 2. Quality management systems The panel was satisfied that the course is being delivered in line with appropriate quality management systems. The Birmingham site was encouraged to keep close linked with the London site so that good practice could be shared between the staff for the benefit of the students. The team were keen to make sure they applied quality assurance processes appropriately. 3. Staffing and staff development The management team confirmed they have a regular working group which includes staff from both sites (London and Birmingham) in order to make sure that all teaching staff are responding from a unified perspective. In relation to the first year of the centrally set examinations the teaching staff confirmed that they were used to designing and using multiple choice questions however they were not as familiar with short answer questions in the assessment design. The management team were keen to support their staff in practice and staff were encouraged to organise practitioner experience for a maximum of 15 days per year. 4. Curriculum content and structure The panel noted that students had differing views about whether Opinion writing should be a written assessment or completed on a computer 5. Admissions and student profile The management team indicated that they had not managed to recruit to their approved numbers on both sites, however for the newly approved part time route at Birmingham they had not expected to recruit the 36 validated places because the course had not been widely advertised and they were satisfied with recruiting 20 students at this stage. The management team expressed their aim to recruit high calibre students and noted the full time student profile in which 60% had either a first or 2:1 degree class and for the part time course this had increased to 70%. The panel advised that although their statistics in the annual monitoring report were well presented the analysis 2

3 of the statistics lacked depth and the team were encouraged to review how they presented the data. 6. Teaching and Learning (knowledge and skills areas) The teaching team reported that the full time students remained in the same teaching groups for the first two terms and then they were rotated in the final term so that they could have different learning experiences with different students. For the part time group the average age of students was older than the full time students and they had often come from different career backgrounds. The staff commented that they enjoyed the different perspectives the part time students brought to the course as a whole. Teaching staff organise visits to the local courts for students to observe practitioners at work, for example in the Criminal Litigation area students are encouraged to return to class to practise bail applications. The staff make sure that there is an integration of knowledge and skills that are required to practise at the bar. The team confirmed that they have a video conferencing sessions with training for teaching and learning and latest developments. In addition regular face-to-face training sessions are held involving teaching staff from both the Birmingham and London Bloomsbury centres. The panel observed that some of the tutors notes, for example, civil tutor notes could have included indicative timings of the process which were depicted in the notes. Students noted that their concern for the centrally set assessments was linked to the fact they were unable to access past papers and so felt this made their revision more difficult. The students present commented that some of them had been used to multiple choice questions from their previous educational experience, however some of them had not previously used them in assessments. The advocacy sessions were mentioned as having good feedback from tutors and peers so that that they could continually improve. 7. Standards and assessment strategy and methods (including progression data) The staff team indicated that they were refining their approach to the new centrally set exams in terms of making sure the style of MCQs and SAQs are embedded for the knowledge areas. The management team were keen to continue to require the IELTS test for those students who were unable to demonstrate both written and oral fluency. They commented that there seemed to be far fewer students who were unable to demonstrate English Language fluency effectively. In the current year, one student from Birmingham was required to take the IELTS test. The team indicated that with the majority of the course relying on verbal fluency students who did not have a good command of English were noticed quickly. The panel noted that they would welcome a short review of the first year of the new part time course. The teaching team confirmed that cross moderation of the results took place between London and Birmingham and that this included careful review of examination scripts and DVDs. The panel raised the issue which had been included in the External Examiner s report (linked to rounding marks and MCQ selection) and the management team indicated that they were planning to use the cohort statistics for cross site comparison. The management team indicated that the rounding issue was one of miscommunication, however they were grateful for the External Examiner s point about MCQ selection and that this was the first time they had been alerted to this matter. Staff confirmed that all exams are set centrally at the same time to make sure no errors are made. 8. Student support and quality of student experience The students who met the panel were mainly on the full time mode. All students commented that they had good relationships with their tutors and that the teaching team were friendly and approachable. There was a good system of personal tutors. Students who met the monitoring panel had been part of a two day mock court session which they indicated had enhanced their understanding of the court process. Students were 3

4 enthusiastic about the benefits of this type of approach. Students indicated they would benefit from a revision period with revision workshops to assist with their assessments in particular the examinations. There was support from the students for the Careers Centre in Birmingham. The part time students commented that they felt isolated at the weekend in terms of various events and computer courses or support. All students praised the introductions provided by the Inns. The best aspects noted by the students were the small group sessions, the way tutor support enabled them to progress, the logical structure of the course and the way in which they were expected to come having prepared work for the sessions and students were not allowed to disengage. The areas for improvement in the view of students centred on feedback from the drafting course in that they needed clear explanations of what they needed to do to improve. Students also commented that more could be done in relation to enhancing the social networking between students on the course. 9. Learning resources (Library and IT) Student confirmed that most of the resources were online and that this meant they did not use the library quite as much. They were satisfied with the number of large hard copy texts and the course materials provided by the teaching teams. Students were very supportive of the Professional Development journals which they had access to and said this improved their learning experience. The panel were given a tour of the resources and were satisfied that the physical resources were appropriate at College of Law Birmingham. The IT resources were seen to be fit for purpose, with excellent remote access and specialist rooms for BPTC students. 10. Equality and diversity No equality and diversity issues were identified in meetings or during discussions with students. Good practice, distinguishing features 1. The panel were impressed with the students they met. 2. The staff student relationships and the way the students are supported throughout their course. 3. The logical structure of the course pre-reading requirements. 4. The SGS sessions which were put on before the assessments were of a high quality. 5. Remote IT access was very good and students were well supported. 6. Good use of court visits and inviting tribunal judges to input in teaching sessions. 7. High quality BPTC room for student use. Conclusions: recommendation on accreditation/approval/continuing approval Continuing approval for the Full Time and Part time provision at the College of Law, Birmingham (subject to recommendations). 4

5 Recommendations (relating to both full-time and part-time modes) The following recommendations must be addressed: Recommendation 1 College of Law, Birmingham needs to ensure that current practitioner input is used in teaching. Recommendation 2 Recommendation 3 Recommendation 4 Recommendation 5 Recommendation 6 The BSB have requested the September report of Year 1 part time students at Birmingham. The tutor notes for some of the student handbooks need to be improved. The BSB require more analysis of the statistical data which is in the Annual Monitoring Report in particular more clarity on student feedback. The BSB would like to see clarity in the way in which the teaching team identifies students who are under performing and uses remedial work to redress the balance. Clear protocols are needed when dealing with External Examiner recommendations, particularly in relation to assessment approval. Response by the Provider The University of Law welcomed the comments of the panel and students with regard to areas of good practice and distinguishing features in the critical areas of teaching and learning strategy, quality of teaching, high quality student facilities and I.T. provision and high level of tutor support. In response to student feedback we now do have revision sessions which particularly focus on the approach that should be adopted to answering SAQs and we have also incorporated some sample questions into teaching sessions to aid student understanding and improve assessment technique. In response to the recommendations: 1. The Birmingham Centre always tries to ensure this by, inter alia, updating the materials and tutor notes every year, involving current practitioners in a number of sessions and events (eg practitioner evenings, mock trials and extra-curricular events) as well as tutors professional requirements to keep up-to-date and return to practice. 2. The review report of the first year of the part-time course was provided to the BSB on 28 September As occurs every year the student and tutor notes are reviewed and updated by the Innovation, Design and Production department of the University. This occurred during the year ready for the September course (full-time and part-time) 4. This was actioned in the Annual Monitoring Report submitted and forwarded to the BSB in January The student support system was reviewed over the summer of 2012 and implemented at the start of September In particular, processes are in place to identify students who are under-performing. In addition, the reporting strategy has been clarified so that the appropriate person (e.g. personal tutor and/or subject tutor) follows up with the relevant student(s) and if unresolved, reports the matter to the relevant Course Leader who takes such action as necessary 6. Protocols devised by the University Academic Registry are in place and followed by the BPTC team. These protocols involve highlighting of any issue raised by External Examiners at Programme Centres Board (including any proposed action), reported on in the Annual Monitoring Report and form part of the University annual review of all its courses at Academic Board. 5