In 2007, then Arizona Chief Justice and ABA Council Chair Ruth McGregor commissioned a task force to look at whether the ABA Council should move towards a model of accreditation that emphasizes educational or learning outcomes. Other graduate programs in medical and engineering schools had employed learning outcomes and standards-based assessment for decades, and the evidence clearly showed that outcome-based accreditation standards can improve student learning. The task force recommendations led to new accreditation standards in 2014, which the Council phased in over several years to allow law schools time and support to meet these new requirements.
Taken together, the standards opened the door for law schools to create measurable standards that assure accountability in graduating students who have the competencies they need to practice law. They represent a critical shift from focusing on what is being taught to what is being learned—that is, shifting the emphasis of legal education from inputs to outputs. The framework works as follows:
- Standard 301(a) establishes the requirement that schools offer a “rigorous program of legal education” that prepares students to be effective lawyers upon graduation.
- Standard 301(b) requires schools to establish learning outcomes to achieve this goal.
- Standard 302 specifies the four broad areas of learning outcomes that each law school’s program must cover: (1) knowledge of substantive and procedural law; (2) legal analysis and reasoning, problem solving, (3) research and communication; ethical responsibilities; (4) and other professional skills.
- Standard 314 requires that schools use formative and summative assessment to measure and provide feedback on these outcomes.
- Standard 315 brings these standards together by requiring schools to continuously improve – that is, schools “shall conduct ongoing evaluation” of the law school’s program of legal education, learning outcomes, and assessment methods, and use the results to improve the curriculum accordingly.
Understanding how well schools were meeting these new standards is key to addressing the related question of whether law graduates are emerging with the minimum competencies to be effective lawyers, and, if not, what schools are doing to address the gap. Any lack of confidence in legal education raises uncomfortable questions about why entry-level lawyers invested significantly in both money and time for entry to the legal profession, but may not have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to competently practice law.
Schools did, in fact, make changes after these new standards took effect. But it became clear that the intended mechanism was not fully taking hold. Most if not all schools did a process with faculty involvement that produced programatic learning outcomes (PLOs). Many schools now require instructors to indicate which PLOs are being taught in syllabi, and for some schools, in their online course catalog. But it was unclear how many schools monitored whether faculty assessed the learning outcomes in their syllabus. It was also unclear how much teaching and assessment of each outcome happened, both school-wide and for each student. In other words, it was likely that few schools connected the programatic learning outcomes to the course-level learning outcomes in the way envisioned by the standards. If that were true, most schools would likely be unable to produce sufficient evidence indicating that Standard 315 was being met. For example, few schools could make claims on a class-wide (i.e. 80% of the class of ’21 can competently…) or per-student basis (Jane Doe can competently do x, y or z).
In response the concerns above and in response to the call for schools to have more guidance on effectively implementing the standards, in 2021 the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar formed the Outcomes and Assessments Committee to focus on supplementing the ABA Standards to provide guidance, best practices, and real-life examples on outcomes and assessments.
In addition, in February 2025 the ABA Council proposed revisions that were ultimately concurred in by the House of Delegates. Those revisions include the following:
- Learning Outcomes at Course Level: In addition to establishing programmatic learning outcomes for its program of legal education, Standard 302 (b) specifies that a law school shall establish minimum learning outcomes for each course it offers.
- Aligning Learning Outcomes with Professional Abilities: Under Standard 302 (b), for required courses the learning outcomes must now “align with professional skills and knowledge necessary for competent and ethical participation as a member of the legal profession, any assessments or measures jurisdictions have adopted as a prerequisite for admission to practice, or the law school’s mission.”
- Consistent Minimum Learning Outcomes for Different Sections of Required Courses: Standard 302 (c) requires law schools to deliver a consistent curricular experience to its students by ensuring that every section/offering of a course required by the law school adopts the same minimum learning outcomes identified in subpart (b). A faculty member may add content and adopt additional course learning outcomes beyond the minimum required by the law school.
- Formative Assessment Throughout Curriculum: Standard 314 now requires that a law school use both formative and summative assessment methods throughout its curriculum to measure student achievement of course learning outcomes, improve student learning, and provide meaningful feedback to students.
- Formative Assessments Required in First One-Third of Credit Hours: Standard 314 also requires that all courses in the first one-third of the credit hours earned by students in the JD program include at least one formative assessment that allows students to evaluate their performance relative to the learning outcomes in the course.
- Academic Support: Under revised Standard 314, the law school is required to make available academic support for students who fail to attain a satisfactory level of achievement on the formative assessment.
- Individual Course Learning Outcomes as Part of Programmatic Evaluation: Standard 315 (a) now requires that a law school conduct ongoing evaluation of the law school’s efficacy of its program of legal education, including individual course learning outcomes, and assessment methods, in achieving its programmatic learning outcomes.
- Continual Improvement through Feedback Loop: Standard 315 (a) requires that faculty use the results of this evaluation to determine the degree of student attainment of competency in the learning outcomes and to make appropriate changes to improve the curriculum, instruction, and student learning. Standard 315 (b) requires a law school to review, and if appropriate, revise its programmatic learning outcomes at least every five years. In addition, Standard 204 now requires that a law school engage in a self-study process that assesses the quality and success of its program of legal education in meeting its mission and objectives and results in (1) a completed site evaluation questionnaire and (2) Standard 315 report explaining the law school’s evaluation of its programmatic and course learning outcomes, its programmatic assessment methods, and any changes the law school deems appropriate to improve the program.
- Improvements Anchored to Professional Ability: Standard 315 (b) specifies that programmatic learning outcomes be revised based on information about developments in practice, such as insights obtained from its graduates and their employers.
- Professional Development for Educators: In addition, it is important to note that Standard 403 (c) was revised so that a law school shall require its full-time faculty members to participate every three years in educational activities that promote effective teaching, such as workshops on pedagogy, learning, course design, classroom management, and assessment of student learning.
While these revisions are effective August 2025, implementation is required by start of the 2026-2027 academic year.
Ultimately, these standards are the mechanism by which the ABA Council can ensure compliance with Standard 301’s requirement of a “rigorous program of legal education” that “prepares its students…for effective, ethical, and responsible participation as members of the legal profession.”