T. KA D H I , P H DP R O G R A M C O O R D I N AT O R

T M S L A S S E SS M E N T

D. H O L L E Y, J DD E A NT M S L

Raising the Bar at the Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL): A Comprehensive Analysis and Report of

Educational Initiatives

Outline

Brief Introduction of a few components of Legal Education (ABA Standards)

TMSL Research StudiesTMSL Assessment PresentTMSL Assessment Future

PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION

Standard 301. OBJECTIVES  (a) A law school shall maintain an educational

program that prepares its students for admission to the bar and effective, ethical and responsible participation in the legal profession.

(b) A law school shall ensure that all students

have reasonably comparable opportunities to take advantage of the school’s educational program, co-curricular programs, and other educational benefits.

PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION

Standard 302. CURRICULUM (a) A law school shall require that each student receive substantial

instruction in: (1) the substantive law generally regarded as necessary to effective and

responsible participation in the legal profession; (2) legal analysis and reasoning, legal research, problem solving, and

oral communication; (3) writing in a legal context, including at least one rigorous writing

experience in the first year and at least one additional rigorous writing experience after

the first year; (4) other professional skills generally regarded as necessary for

effective and responsible participation in the legal profession; and (5) the history, goals, structure, values, rules and responsibilities of

the legal profession and its members.

PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION

A law school shall offer substantial opportunities for:(1) live-client or other real-life practice experiences,

appropriately supervised anddesigned to encourage reflection by students on their

experiences and on the valuesand responsibilities of the legal profession, and the

development of one’s ability toassess his or her performance and level of

competence;(2) student participation in pro bono activities; and(3) small group work through seminars, directed

research, small classes, orcollaborative work.

PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION

Standard 303. ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND ACHIEVEMENTS (a) A law school shall have and adhere to sound academic

standards, including clearly defined standards for good standing and graduation. (b) A law school shall monitor students’ academic progress

and achievement from the beginning of and periodically throughout their studies. (c) A law school shall not continue the enrollment of a

student whose inability to do satisfactory work is sufficiently manifest so that the student’s

continuation in school would inculcate false hopes, constitute economic exploitation, or

detrimentally affect the education of other students.

Talk to me…

What did you see?Challenges and Potential?Suggestions?

TMSL Assessment Present

Stage 1 Needs Assessment

Stage 2Baseline

Stage 3Procedures to

Achieve Objectives

Stage 4Program

Implementation Assessment

Stage 5Post

Assessment

Stage 1 - Needs Assessment

Stage of GEM Task Percent of Time on Task Completion Date

Director (Dean or Designee)

Evaluator (Program Coordinator)

Stage 1: Needs Assessment

1.Identify stakeholders 90 10

2. Identify program areas 90 10

3. Identify sources of information

20 80

4. Develop the needs assessment instrument

20 80

5. Conduct the needs assessment

50 50

6. Write the needs assessment report

20 80

7. Disseminate to stakeholders

80 20

8. Make sure stakeholders buy into program

90 10

Studies of Pre-Existing Data

The Thurgood Marshall School of Law Empirical Findings: A Report of the Correlational Analysis of Bar Passing Rates and Final GPA of Years 2005-2009

May 20, 2010The following analysis was done to

investigate the findings of the Correlational Relationship (R) between the Bar Passing Rates and GPAs of the Years 2005-2009.

Findings

Summary: The Pearson Correlation for the Overall GPA and Bar Pass/Fail/Unknown variables yield a statistically significant R for 2005-2009 TMSL Graduates. Furthermore, R=.323. It should be noted that this is not typically correlational coefficient that would be considered strong. But with N=939, the likelihood of finding statistical significance would be high.

In conclusion, it is the recommendation of the Evaluator that the data not be categorized or dichotomized. A much richer profile of raw scores could offer higher correlational coefficient and address other issues concerning degrees of Pass or Fail.

Studies of Pre-Existing Data

The Thurgood Marshall School of Law Empirical Findings: An Updated Report of the Bar Passing Percentages of Years 2005-2009

May 11, 2010The following report of descriptive statistics gives the

passing percentages of the Bar examination for the Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL) for the calendar years of 2005-2009. A Five Year Analysis is given for the entire period, followed by Annual Analysis of the same data. This report is meant to serve as a continual update of the progress of the Law School in its effort to satisfy American Bar Association (ABA) Accreditation standards.

Findings

Previous Summary: 917 students were reported for the 5-Year period 2005-2009. 842 were reported Pass/Fail (91.8%), with 75 Unknown. A cumulative passing rate of 74.6% for 2005-2009 is reported.

Updated Summary: 939 students were reported for the 5-Year period 2005-2009. 866 were reported Pass/Fail (92.2%), with 73 Unknown. A cumulative passing rate of 77.3% for 2005-2009 is reported.

Studies of Pre-Existing Data

The Thurgood Marshall School of Law Empirical Findings: A Report of the Bar Passing Percentages of Years 2005-2009

April 12, 2010The following report of descriptive statistics gives the

passing percentages of the Bar examination for the Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL) for the calendar years of 2005-2009. A Five Year Analysis is given for the entire period, followed by a Three Year Analysis of years 2005-2007, 2006-2008, and 2007-2009. In addition, an Annual Analysis of the same data is given.

Findings

Summary: 546 students were reported for the 3-Year period 2005-2007. 492 were reported Pass/Fail (90.1%), with 54 Unknown. A cumulative passing rate of 76.2% for 2005-2007 is reported.

Summary: 147 students were reported for the 2005 Calendar Year. 137 were reported Pass/Fail (93.2%), with 10 Unknown. A passing rate of 82.3% is reported for the 2005 Calendar Year.

Summary: 197 students were reported for the 2006 Calendar Year. 175 were reported Pass/Fail (88.8%), with 10 Unknown. A passing rate of 72.6% is reported for the 2006 Calendar Year.

Findings

Summary: 201 students were reported for the 2007 Calendar Year. 180 were reported Pass/Fail (89.6%), with 21 Unknown. A passing rate of 75.6% is reported for the 2007 Calendar Year.

Summary: 204 students were reported for the 2008 Calendar Year. 197 were reported Pass/Fail (96.6%), with 7 Unknown. A passing rate of 77.9% is reported for the 2008 Calendar Year.

Summary: 167 students were reported for the 2009 Calendar Year. 153 were reported Pass/Fail (91.6%), with 14 Unknown. A passing rate of 65.3% is reported for the 2009 Calendar Year.

**All 21 Students for the Fall of 2009 have been removed from report due to the inability to report Pass/Fail/Unknown status.

Studies of Pre-Existing Data

The Thurgood Marshall School of Law Empirical Findings: A Report of the Statistical Analysis of the February 2010 TMSL Texas Bar Results

June 18, 2010

1. What are the statistical descriptors of the February 2010 TMSL Bar students?

2. What is the relationship of the subcategories, Times Taken the Bar, and Final Bar Score in the February 2010 TMSL Bar test takers?

3. What subcategory served as the best Predictor of the February 2010 TMSL Bar test taking students to their Final Bar Score?

Findings

Question 1: What are the statistical descriptors of the February 2010 TMSL Bar students? (pgs. 2-26)

A descriptive analysis using SPSS 17 produced the results on pages 2-23. Descriptive data of the Bar and Sub-Categories are given on pages 2-4. The median measure is circled because the median appears to be the best representative of the “individual” in the sample. The mean and the mode are also given because these measures of central tendency are also useful when evaluating data. The median of the Feb 2010 Bar Examinees final score was 676 (p. 2) and the times taken was 2. The data was considered slightly skewed to the right (Kurtosis = .162) indicating that a few scores are strung out to the positive end of the distribution. Kurtosis is another measure of abnormalities in data. The Min was 537 and the Max was 801, and the quartiles were given as 644, 676, and 704 respectively. Frequency charts are given on pages 5-23.

Findings

Question 2: What is the relationship of the subcategories, Times Taken the Bar, and Final Bar Score of the Feb 2010 TMSL Bar test takers?

A correlational analysis was run using SPSS 17 producing the results on pages 16-23. The Final Score relationship Pearson Correlation was given in the first column on pages 16-23 and is highlighted in yellow. The correlation coefficient of the Times Taken Row 2 is highlighted in turquoise to emphasize the negative relationship of the variable with the others. The only positive relationship with that variable and the subcategories were Family, Family2, and RealProp2. Indicating the possibility of retention of those subject areas over time, but the others are dissipating.

Findings

Question 3: What subcategory served as the best Predictor of the Feb 2010 TMSL Bar test taking students to their Final Bar Score?

The subcategory that served as the best Predictor of the Feb 2010 TMSL Bar examinees was the Real Prop (Essays 1). This subcategory had an unstandardized B=.349. The next four completing the top five predictors were Evidence (B=.245 - MBE), Family (B=.244 – Essays 2), Real Property (B=.233 - MBE), and UCC (B=.226 – Essays 1).

These predictors are arguably the best five predictors that can be found when addressing Bar Exam initiatives. The overall effect size or R2 was given as .967, which indicates the subcategories of the bar cover approximately 97% of the Final Bar Score. This high effect size is common with standardized examinations and speaks mostly to the efficient measurability of the examination.

Findings

What can be taken from these statistics is where focus can be made when addressing educational initiatives. Although the highest correlational coefficient (.636) was found with the Torts subcategory, the unstandardized B was .157, which was not a very good predictor. The second highest correlational coefficient was Real Property (MBE) at .635, and that was listed as the 4th best predictor. This is another reason why looking at only the correlational coefficient in decision making is statistically discouraged. Correlation does not mean causality. Here is clear that the largest correlation does not yield a good predictor.

Findings

Summary Theoretically, the Bar Examination’s educational

components could be found by further evaluating the learning objectives that were tested upon in the subcategories. If the goal is to address curricula initiatives that affect the Bar Exam, then further study of those objectives should be done. This high stakes test is very well designed and could serve as a baseline for further TMSL educational studies. The high effect size yields statistically significant results with a very low N. Therefore, learning initiatives based on objectives can easily be measured (summative) by analyzing changes in subcategories of the Bar.

TMSL Assessment Present

Stage 1 Needs

Assessment

Stage 2Baseline

Stage 3Procedures to

Achieve Objectives

Stage 4Program

Implementation Assessment

Stage 5Post

Assessment

Stage 2 – Baseline

Stage 2: Baseline 9. Determine baseline instrument(s)

10 90

10. Determine comparison group(s)

10 90

11. Administer baseline 20 80

12. Analyze information 0 100

13. Write report 20 80

14. Disseminate the baseline report

30 70

15. Draft program objectives

70 30

16. Share program objectives with stakeholders

70 30

17. Finalize program objectives

50 50

Student Learning Outcome Assessments

Examples of measures (formative and summative) being employed by programs include:

Test resultsObserved Normed Clinical

Evaluations/SimulationsPortfoliosFaculty and practitioner individual

assessments in the clinical arena

Curricular Effectiveness Outcome Assessments

Examples of measures being employed by programs, in addition to aggregate student learning assessments, include:

First-time pass rate on national licensing examination (Bar)

First time pass rate on other state jurisprudence examinations

Graduation on time and progression rates

Survey results (faculty, students, alumni)

TMSL Assessment Future

Stage 1 Needs

Assessment

Stage 2Baseline

Stage 3Procedures to

Achieve Objectives

Stage 4Program

Implementation Assessment

Stage 5Post

Assessment

Questions and Contact

See taukadhi.weebly.com for information for presentation

Contact kadhit2@tsu.eduCall (713)313-1184 for further questions