LPC requirements clarified

The transcript must make clear that the student has been assessed against all of the learning outcomes and whether or not they demonstrated the required standard. The format suggested above would be satisfactory.

The transcript must show how many attempts at each assessment the student had. It is not necessary to show the mark for each of the failed assessments. This will allow an employer to see whether a student has completed the LPC after multiple attempts in a range of assessments or whether, for example, they had to re-sit in just one area. The aim is to strike a balance between the availability of information that will provide a picture of each student's performance on an LPC and the risk that transcripts will provide so much information that they will not be readily accessible and will not, therefore, be used.

Yes, the WAE outcomes must be met in order to obtain an award of competent. An example regulation for the assessment of WAE is as follows: Wills and Administration of Estates shall be assessed once during the course in the context of the X skills assessment. A separate result for Wills and Administration of Estates of competent/not yet competent will be recorded on the student‘s transcript. The prescribed pass mark of at least 50% is required in order to obtain an award of competent and a student will not be able to pass Stage 1 of the Legal Practice Course until this has been achieved.

The assessment requirements included in the information pack state that: Providers' assessment strategies and assessment criteria must address the implications for students where skills assessments are combined with other skills or core practice area assessments.

Where one assessment is designed to assess two different skills, or a skill and a core practice area, the assessment must be designed and marked in such a way that the aspects can be disaggregated for the purpose of the assessment outcome and for the information recorded on the transcript. This will allow for a student to be re-assessed in just one of the aspects. However, the re-assessment will need to be recorded on the transcript as the second or third attempt. It will not be necessary for students to re-take an integrated assessment if they failed just one aspect of the assessment.

In line with paragraph 4.14 of the Information Pack, where a student is reassessed in a subject they have previously passed, it is the later mark that will be recorded on the transcript.

A student who is given an exemption from the requirement to attend a full LPC will still need to pass all LPC assessments. The clock will start ticking from the time they attempt their first LPC assessment.

Yes. The five year time limit will run from the first attempt at a Stage 1 assessment.

It will be for the student to ensure they attempt an assessment within the five-year time limit. If variations to the five-year limit are allowed, unhelpful elements of discretion, inconsistency and uncertainty will be introduced. The five-year rule is more generous than the current approach.

Yes. The SRA will make that a requirement.

The date to be used is the date the assessment was attempted, not the publication of results. It should be clear whether or not a student has passed an assessment and further definition should not be necessary. It has already been confirmed that where the assessment is in two parts a student must attempt both parts of the assessments in one assessment period; one part cannot be carried over to a later assessment period.

No. Providers will need to draft their own assessment regulations in accordance with the SRA's assessment requirements.

A period of assessment, as defined in the current LPC guidance, is a block of time which is given over to assessment and during which there is no scheduled teaching. The duration of time may vary.... Assessing some of the BLP outcomes in November and others in March would not satisfy the requirement that core practice areas are assessed during one assessment period. Business accounts have been integrated into the BLP to ensure business accounts are understood in context.

In the light of feedback from providers it has been agreed that assessments that cover skills outcomes alone need not be supervised. However, assessments that combine skills and either a core practice area or Professional Conduct and Regulation must be supervised. Arrangements for assessments will need to be submitted as part of a course validation application. A provider needs to include as part of its application a range of information about its assessment methodologies, including:

• The rationale for the choice and range of assessment methods,
• Arrangements to safeguard the security and integrity of the assessment process,
• Safeguards in place to avoid instances of academic misconduct. Specific consideration will need to be given to these issues where assessments are not supervised. If skills assessments are supervised, safeguards against academic misconduct will more easily put in place.

All students must know that by attempting an assessment they are confirming that there are no reasons why they should not attempt the assessment or why they would subsequently request a concession. (Of course something might arise during the assessment that will change that position, and this is to be provided for). Providers might adopt different approaches to ensuring that students have this understanding. Publishing a statement in a handbook alone might not ensure that students know that this is the position. However, repeating the statement on each assessment paper would appear to be a reasonable approach. Providers might also wish to obtain from each student written confirmation that they understand the position. Providers need to be confident that they can defend their position against any complaint made by a student that they did not understand the implications of attempting an assessment. The SRA has not used the terminology 'fit-to-sit' in the information pack. Care needs to be taken to distinguish between requests for reasonable adjustments that are made as a result of disability or because of a temporary impairment, and requests for concessions. 'Fit-to-sit' terminology might cause confusion.

The SRA will not require providers to offer oral assessment in Welsh. Providers will need to determine whether they are under any statutory obligation to make such an option available to students. Where a provider offers assessment in Welsh, the SRA will expect the provider to have regard to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education's publication: Guidelines for higher education institutions in Wales for effective practice in examining and assessing in a language other than the language of tuition.

It is intended that meetings between the SRA panel and the provider will be held for all authorisation applications and for initial validation applications. However, for subsequent validation applications, e.g. to introduce one new elective based on a previously approved model, a meeting might be unnecessary.

It is anticipated that providers will seek validation for some electives when they first apply for authorisation and validation. However, they might wish to extend their range of electives over time. The Information Pack sets out the information a provider will need to submit if it seeks validation of additional electives after its initial authorisation/validation applications have been considered.

No. If successful, you would be authorised to provide LPCs with your initial application. Subsequent applications for validation to provide different LPCs, made during the authorisation period, would be for validation of further courses only.

It will not be necessary to obtain formal approval for a variation simply because the law has changed but the course design and assessments are unaltered. The fact that changes to a course have been made to accommodate a change in the law should be recorded in the provider's annual report to the SRA.

There is reference to 'grasp of' in the taxation learning outcomes. This term has been used to make clear that the topic can be dealt with at a general level. The learning outcomes in the taxation section set out in detail what students should understand and be able to do on completion of the LPC. To ensure consistency providers must adopt the LPC learning outcomes in full.

Element 2 of Interviewing and Advising requires students to be able accurately to record an interview and where appropriate to confirm instructions in accordance with the outcomes for Writing. It is therefore likely that there will a writing element to Interviewing and Advising.

External examiners will normally only see a sample of marked scripts. It can be unfair on students if external examiners are permitted to change marks of the sample that they see. A student's marks might be increased or reduced as a result - whereas a student whose script is not included in the sample will not be the subject of any advantageous or disadvantageous changes. If an external examiner has concerns about a mark awarded to an individual student or wider concerns about the examining arrangements and marking standards these should be raised with the institution and discussed at the examination board that the external examiner will attend. Marks might be changed as a result.

A provider should not expect to use an external examiner as a marker.

It is anticipated that an external examiner will visit each institution to which he or she is appointed on up to three occasions each year. Once to meet with staff and students, once to attend the examination board and, at least during their first year of appointment, once for familiarisation/induction to the particular provider and its programme(s).

The SRA does not stipulate whether marking or Assessment Board reports should be anonymous. The SRA does however expect providers to take account of the QAA's Code of Practice. If the provider includes in their validation application to the SRA that there will be anonymous marking and Assessment Board reporting then the SRA will expect them to continue with this practice, otherwise the provider will need to make an application to the SRA to vary the validated course.

In this case the SRA would consider that the provider rather than the firm is responsible for the course and the assessment. It is assumed, in giving this answer, that the provider's examination board would ultimately be responsible for any award. As such, the firm would not need to be separately authorised. The arrangements would, of course, need to be considered during the validation of the elective.

The elective groups are reasonably broad. Overlap is inevitable. The aim of the grouping is simply to ensure that students, particularly those who choose to take their electives with different providers, do not follow three electives that cover broadly the same practice area. When an elective is validated it will be put into one of the elective groups the provider will be asked to indicate into which of the groups it should be placed, or whether it is so innovative a new group should be formed to accommodate it. Personal litigation could include personal injury and medical negligence litigation.

Yes. The list is provisional only. There is no intention to close down opportunities for students to follow a wide range of practice areas through their elective choices. New elective groups will be added over time.

The assessment requirements included within the information pack do not require assessments to take the form of examinations. Other forms of supervised assessments are permitted. Providers will need to include their assessment strategies in their validation applications and to detail how each element of their course will be assessed.

The SRA has not published the shortest period over which an LPC can be provided. The validation criteria include the requirements that the learning outcomes and the specific SRA requirements are fully incorporated into the design of the course. The course should provide a coherent learning experience for students and should enable diligent students to achieve and demonstrate the learning outcomes.

Validation panels will look for evidence that the teaching and learning strategy and the design of the course have been informed by some or all of the following: experience, staff expertise, accepted good practice, student feedback, an understanding of professional requirements and external input. Such evidence will be looked for when the validation panel considers the length of time over which a course is to be delivered.

The Learning Outcomes require that by the end of an LPC students should be able to reflect on their learning and identify their learning needs.

This is the only outcome that need not be summatively assessed during the course. Validation panels will therefore need to give particular consideration to how a course is designed and structured to ensure that students achieve this outcome.

A provider that wishes to deliver a course that will involve a greater number of weekly notional learning hours than is typical for higher education would need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the validation panel that the validation criteria have been satisfied and that the quality of the student experience will be monitored and evaluated.

The student workload per week will depend on the number of weeks over which the course is structured. That is for providers to determine, but see the answer to the previous question.

There should be no double counting. Drafting would normally be taught in a practice context. If a provider decides to use one of the core practice areas as the context - a reasonable choice as it will give students an opportunity to enhance and reflect on their understanding of that core practice area - the time will be allocated to the drafting requirement. This is a logical position; if a provider decides to teach drafting in the context of a field of practice that is not covered on the LPC, the time allocation would have to be given to the skill and the skill alone. It is expected that providers will not seek to stick rigidly to the minimum allocation of notional learning hours when designing their courses.

The SRA has not set a maximum group size number. A provider will need to demonstrate to the validation panel how the validation criteria will be satisfied by its approach to interactive group learning. It will also need to publish information about the maximum number of students there will be in the different types of teaching and learning sessions included in the course. The information will also be published by the SRA and applicants will be encouraged to use this information when making their LPC applications.

The SRA has not set requirements regarding the pattern of required attendance. Again, the validation criteria that concern the incorporation of the learning outcomes, the coherence of the learning experience and the ability of students to achieve the learning outcomes are the key requirements to consider when addressing this question. Validation panels will look for evidence that the approach has been informed by good practice, experience, student feedback etc.

The provider will issue transcripts to students recording their progress. Transcripts will be issued for Stage 1 and for each of the three electives. As now, providers will notify the SRA of students who have attended, passed and failed their courses. This will enable the SRA to maintain a record of a student's progress.