The Government Accountability Office has released Issues Related to Law School Accreditation (GAO-07-314) (3/9/07), a report prepard at the request of George Miller (Chair) and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (Ranking Minority Member) of the House Committee on Education and Labor to address three issues:

1. What is the Department of Education’s process for recognizing accrediting agencies?
2. What is ABA’s process for accrediting law schools?
3. What concerns have been raised about the ABA’s accreditation process?

Here are GAO’s conclusions on the three issues:

1. Education has established criteria for recognizing an accrediting agency and has mechanisms in place to assess compliance with the criteria. Agencies found to be in compliance with Education’s criteria can be approved for up to 5 years. There are also mechanisms in place to defer or deny an agency’s recognition.
2. ABA has established standards for approval of law schools and has mechanisms in place to assess compliance with the criteria. Law schools are eligible for provisional approval when they demonstrate that they are in substantial compliance with each of the standards, and must demonstrate they are in full compliance to be fully approved.
3. Some Education staff, law school administrators, and other third-parties have raised concerns about ABA’s accreditation process, particularly with respect to the transparency and consistency of the process, as well as the legality of its diversity standard, which requires schools to demonstrate they are reaching out to underrepresented groups. Based on concerns that ABA is not fully in compliance with regulatory provisions that govern accreditation, Education and NACIQI have recommended that the Secretary of Education renew ABA’s recognition for a period of 18 months, rather than the maximum period of 5 years.

The GAO report is a series of PowerPoint slides from a February 9 briefing of the committee staff by the GAO, along with written comments from the Department of Education and the ABA. Below the fold are the GAO’s slides on the transparency and consistency of the accreditation process, as well as the legality of the ABA’s diversity standard:

Transparency and Consistency of Accreditation Process

• Education, some law school administrators, and others are concerned that ABA has unpublished standards, including minimum LSAT requirements.
  • ABA says it follows its published standards and has no requirement for a minimum LSAT score.
  • ABA acknowledges that indicators such as low bar passage rates and high attrition can prompt further review of other areas, including a school’s support services and the credentials of entering students.
    • First-time bar passage rate:< 70 percent overall or more than 10 percentage points below state average.
    • Academic attrition:about 15 to 20 percent.
• Education identified instances in which ABA was inconsistently enforcing its standards by allowing some schools to exceed the maximum time allowed to enter compliance without adverse action
  • According to ABA, each instance involved compliance in the areas of bar passage rates or facilities, which cannot be readily addressed in the two-year period schools are given to demonstrate compliance.
  • ABA has approved changes that make clear that if a school has not been able to address noncompliance within the allowable two-year period, ABA must take adverse action or find good cause to extend accreditation.

Legality of ABA’s Diversity Standard

• Education and other third-parties have expressed concern about ABA’s diversity standard, which requires schools to demonstrate a commitment to having both a diverse student body and faculty.
  • Education expressed concern that ABA will evaluate compliance with the standard based in part on the results achieved and that ABA does not have sufficient controls in place to prevent inconsistent application of the standard. Additionally, Education is concerned that the lack of specificity about the requirements would lead the ABA to use unpublished criteria in evaluating compliance.
  • The Chair and Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights along with other third parties expressed concern that the ABA’s diversity standard would put pressure on law schools to employ race conscious admissions and hiring practices, including racial or ethnic quotas.
• The ABA and others defend the current diversity standard:
  • According to ABA representatives, the standard only requires schools to demonstrate that they are reaching out to groups underrepresented in the legal profession. Quotas are not involved and it should not conflict with state laws that prohibit the consideration of race in hiring and admissions.
  • Law school administrators we spoke to and those administrators who provided third-party comments, along with other commenters, were generally supportive of ABA having a diversity standard.