Kibble, 'The New York Exchange: A Model of Reflective Work Experience?'

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Journals
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Journals >> Kibble, 'The New York Exchange: A Model of Reflective Work Experience?' URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/1998/issue3/kibble3.html Cite as: Kibble, 'The New York Exchange: A Model of Reflective Work Experience?'

The New York Exchange: A Model of Reflective Work Experience?

Neil Kibble

First Published in Web Journal of Current Legal Issues in association with Blackstone Press Ltd.

Summary

This article explores issues relating to the objectives and design of work placement programmes within undergraduate legal education. The consideration of these issues is based on the author's experience of directing an international work placement programme for several years. The New York Exchange operated each summer between 1986 and 1994. In it, students were placed with public interest lawyers and judges for four weeks. An intensive programme of meetings and seminars ran alongside the placements and encouraged reflection on the work experience.

Four issues receive particular attention. First, the consequences and value of adopting public interest objectives that emphasise political critique and self-reflection. Second, the integration of the experiential and reflective (academic) components of work placement programmes. Third, the importance of the mentoring relationship within work placements. Finally, the educational value or otherwise of there being a significant element of observation within work placements. In conclusion, the replicability of the programme and the wider significance of the issues are considered.

Introduction

Work experience and work placement programmes have been placed firmly on the higher education agenda by the Dearing Report. The report's endorsement of work experience could not have been stronger (Dearing Report 1997, para 39):

However, the role of work experience within higher education and within legal education in particular is not uncontroversial, and there is an extensive literature on the subject. Some commentators who attach great value to work experience in legal education have a perception of its value that does not altogether sit comfortably with the idea of work experience as vocational preparation. Goldfarb, for example, writing of the role of critique in clinical legal education, notes that "[a]lthough clinics offer fledgling lawyers the comfort that derives from a growing familiarity with the practice of law, they also seek to cultivate discomfort with the practice of law, a discomfort that derives from introspection and self-consciousness about the meaning and consequences of the professional behavior of oneself and others."(Goldfarb 1991, p 1657) Simon, criticising US law clinics for adopting a narrow skills focus that omits wider systemic issues, takes an even stronger position: "A seriously reflective and critical approach to the study of law practice would probably make people less prepared for practice, not more."(Simon 1980, p 550)

Careful consideration therefore needs to be given to the 'how', 'what' and 'why' questions of work experience, before rushing to implement, or for that matter to reject, the Dearing directive. Work experience within legal education may be said to fall generally into one of two types - the in-house clinic and the work placement. In the in-house clinic, academic staff are responsible for supervising the students' provision of legal services while in the work placement, responsibility for supervision of the students' work lies with the staff of the law offices in which the students are placed (Stickgold 1989, p 298).

In this paper I wish to explore a number of issues relating to the objectives and design of work placement programmes, that surfaced within a placement programme that I directed for several years. The New York Exchange (hereinafter the Exchange) was an international programme for undergraduate law students that operated each summer between 1986 and 1994, in which students were placed for four weeks with public interest lawyers and judges⁽¹⁾. While work placements with distinguished lawyers and judges were the core of the Exchange, an intensive programme of seminars and meetings running prior to and alongside the placements and which permitted reflection on them, was also central to the programme. Such accompanying programmes are usually referred to in the literature as the 'classroom', 'reflective' or 'academic' component of work placement programmes.

Elsewhere, I have examined one of the central issues about work placements, namely, whether they are able to provide systematic, thoughtful supervision (Kibble 1998), and have argued that they are. I have also argued that properly designed placement programmes offer excellent opportunities for the kind of critical reflection that is an essential feature of legal and higher education. My focus here will be on examining certain defining features of the Exchange with a view to exploring whether it offered a valuable learning experience, how it worked, how it might have been improved, and whether there are any wider lessons to be drawn from it. Finally, I will consider the extent to which the programme is a replicable model. Was the Exchange a unique 'one-off' programme, or does it offer a useful framework for those contemplating the introduction of work placements into undergraduate legal education?

The first of these defining feature was the strong public interest ethos of the Exchange. The Exchange objectives focused on public interest law, on reflection and self-development, rather than on professional skills development or the exploration of substantive legal issues. What consequences did this have for the design and execution of the programme? Was the Exchange a model of holistic learning, or a product of vague and unclear learning objectives? The second feature of the Exchange was the integration of its academic and clinical components, achieved by close collaboration between academics and practitioners. How was this accomplished, and does it offer any lessons for the wider relationship between the academic and practising professions? The third feature was the importance of the mentoring relationship. For many participants, the most valuable feature of the Exchange was the opportunity to work, meet and spend time with lawyers and judges whom they regarded as mentors and role models. Was this just a `feel-good' experience, or is the mentoring relationship important to the learning process? Finally, although not a defining feature of the Exchange, it was nevertheless the case that in addition to being given responsibility for professional tasks during their placements, the students spent a great deal of their time in shadowing and observation. Does this observational component diminish or enhance the educational experience?

In order to consider these issues, an account of the New York Exchange is necessary.

The New York Exchange

There were three distinct phases of the Exchange. In its first two years, the Exchange operated as a genuine 'two-way' exchange for students on the LL.B at South Bank and on the Urban Legal Studies (ULS) Programme at the City College of New York. Between 1989 and 1992, the Exchange continued as a 'one-way' exchange for South Bank students only, but was otherwise largely unchanged⁽²⁾. In its final two years, the Exchange was no longer restricted to South Bank students, becoming a national programme. At the same time, eligibility was limited to Black students, and a limited number of corporate law internships were introduced alongside the public interest internships.

1. Origins and Objectives

This objective reflected the fact that the two institutions which established the Exchange - the School of Law at South Bank Polytechnic and the Center for Legal Education at the City College of New York - were both actively engaged in strategies to extend access to legal education⁽³⁾ and the profession, particularly in terms of their racial and class composition (see Kibble 1989 and Mosston 1989). This commitment to wider access was well established at the Center of Legal Education. The Urban Legal Studies (ULS) Programme, offered by the Center in partnership with the City University of New York (CUNY) Law School, possessed a clearly articulated educational philosophy which commanded the full support of the ULS community (Mosston 1989, p 71):

From the very first discussions of the Exchange, it was envisaged that the Exchange should be both an integral part of the strategy for wider access, and a model of an educational programme with access as a defining principle⁽⁴⁾. This defining principle had direct consequences for the structure and design of the Exchange. It was essential that the Exchange be fully funded by sponsorship, and that it be of limited duration. A semester long programme would effectively exclude all students with family and child care responsibilities. Selection of students could then be determined by the application of appropriate criteria, rather than be at the mercy of financial or family circumstances.

Reflecting now on this objective, it is interesting that it makes no reference to the educational benefits or objectives of this `exposure'. We 'knew' that the international work experience would be valuable in terms of greater maturity, self-confidence and cultural awareness and understanding. The overriding objective was the making available of these benefits to students who had traditionally been denied them by virtue of their financial or family circumstances.

In addition to their commitment to wider access and diversity, both institutions were also active in public interest law. In particular, the Center for Legal Education adopted an explicit commitment to "the education of highly qualified, committed professionals who use their skills as advocates for the underserved" (emphasis added) (Mosston 1989, p 65). This commitment was reflected in the Center's distinctive approaches to the selection of staff and students. Student selection was based not only on academic performance but also on measured assessment of the student's leadership and community involvement. Revson Fellowships, funded by the Revson Foundation, permitted distinguished public interest lawyers to continue in practice while teaching courses in their field of special interest on a half-time basis.

We therefore also saw the Exchange as having an important role to play in encouraging students to enter public interest practice. Hence, the second objective of the Exchange was:

The ultimate objective of the Exchange was never understood in substantive terms, the better understanding of a particular field of law. While we knew that students would improve their lawyering skills, and we knew that students would acquire some understanding of the operation of law in another jurisdiction, we regarded these as useful by-products. The immersion of the students in public interest law practice, and reflection on that experience, was the central objective (Kibble 1987a).

Confronting students with the complex realities of Public Interest law - its challenges, ideals, its legal and political context - was the central theme of the Exchange. Yet from the very beginning it was clear that it was not only impossible to separate reflection about public interest law from personal reflection, it was also essential that we did not separate them. The conjunction of these two levels of reflection was articulated in the publicity material circulated to potential sponsors in 1987, which concluded(Kibble 1987b):

Thus, the personal development of the students was recognised as an important goal of the Exchange from the outset. During the lifetime of the Exchange, however, I came to feel that it was the essence of the Exchange. More than anything else we wanted the students to think deeply about who they were and what they wanted to do, and what responsibility they had, and how they saw themselves as lawyers, and how they saw lawyers and law and justice.

2. Programme Description

Work placements were the core of the Exchange, because we took the view that the Exchange objectives would not best be served by a classroom experience, in which a class (and teacher) in New York were exchanged for one in London and vice-versa. And we were fortunate in that both institutions had established substantial networks of public interest lawyers⁽⁵⁾. An intensive programme of seminars and meetings running alongside the placements was also essential to encourage reflection on the work experience.

i. Student Numbers

The Exchange was typical of placement programmes in having limited numbers of students - no more than ten in any one year. This ceiling reflected our intention to maintain the group at a size which encouraged closeness and mutual support within the group, more than it reflected funding limitations. However, funding difficulties in later years meant that we were not able to fund ten participants. The number of students each year was as follows: 1986: 10; 1987: 10; 1989: 10; 1990: 6;1991: 8; 1992: 8; 1993: 6; 1994: 5.

ii. Eligibility and Selection

Selection was especially important in the Exchange, not least because successful applicants were fully sponsored. Short-listed candidates were interviewed by a panel which included law school staff, public interest lawyers, and, in all except the first year of the Exchange, at least one former participant. The selection criteria were: the student's contribution to the life and work of the law school; their commitment to (or experience of) providing legal services within urban communities; and, their potential for benefiting from the Exchange.

In the first six years of the Exchange, eligibility was restricted to undergraduate LL.B students at South Bank, who were on the second or final years of their course, and who lived in an inner city area⁽⁶⁾. From 1993 onwards, three significant changes to eligibility were introduced.

First, eligibility was no longer restricted to South Bank undergraduates. The Exchange was opened up to allow national competition for the available places, though one place was reserved for competition by South Bank students only. The Exchange remained restricted to undergraduate law students, in the second or final years of their degree studies.

Second, eligibility for the Exchange was restricted to Black students. This change reflected the fact that by this time virtually all of the sponsorship was secured on the basis that it would enable Black students to take part and so assist their entry into the legal profession. In fact, since 1990, only one white student had participated in the Exchange. The change in eligibility was therefore prompted by the need to be open and accurate in the publicity which was circulated to law schools, rather than by any desire to change the composition of the participating group.

Third, students with a declared interest in corporate law became eligible to apply to take part in the Exchange. This change took the Exchange beyond the scope of public interest law in the sense in which that term is usually used. Although work placements in the public interest arena continued to be the core of the programme, for the first time one or two placements were offered in the corporate/commercial field. The decision to expand into the corporate field was not taken lightly, and followed discussions with former participants, facilitators and with senior members of the Society of Black Lawyers (SBL) and the African Caribbean and Asian Lawyers' Group (ACA).

On the one hand, we noted the virtual absence of Black lawyers within the leading corporate law firms, the extent to which the professional agenda is set within those firms, the concentration of training places within those firms, and the still all too common assumption that Black lawyers were particularly suited to ('belonged in') the welfare law area. On the other hand, there was genuine concern as to whether having Black lawyers working in the corporate sector was of any tangible benefit to the wider community, raising questions about the most effective targeting of scarce resources. In the end, it seemed unacceptable to offer a programme that had come to be used almost exclusively by Black students, and that was intended to encourage Black students to enter the profession, yet at the same time impose restrictions on eligibility so that only those students manifesting a commitment to a particular understanding of public interest law could take advantage of it.

iii. The Role of the Facilitator

From the outset, we regarded it as vitally important that the students should be accompanied by a facilitator, whose duties would include being guide and mentor to the students during the Exchange, ensuring co-ordination between the placements and the supporting meetings, and monitoring the placements. One of the facilitators of the 1993 Exchange described his role as follows (see Kibble 1993):

Having an individual carry out the role of facilitator was greatly assisted by the fact that the students were living and working in a limited geographical area. Where placements are spread over a wide area, it may be possible (though expensive) for a facilitator to visit the various placement sites, but group meetings of facilitator and students will be unlikely.

In the first years of the Exchange, only legal practitioners were eligible for selection as facilitator on the basis that legal experience was essential if the facilitator was to guide student reflection. In later years, the role of the facilitator emerged more clearly. Greater weight was attached to the supervisory skills of the facilitator, especially their ability to encourage the self-awareness and personal growth of the students, and facilitators were not restricted to practising lawyers. The value of the group sessions with the facilitator was connected to the purposes of the reflection. The greater the focus on self-awareness, on personal responsibilities, perceptions, fears and aspirations, and on the wider context of such feelings, the more valuable the group discussions were seen to be. In these later years, the facilitators came to be seen as having played a central part in the success of the programme. In the words of one of the 1994 Exchange participants (see Kibble 1994):

iv. Orientation

Ashworth and Saxton stress the importance of pre-placement preparation to help students "develop awareness of the wide range of learning experiences they might encounter."(Ashworth & Saxton 1992, p 122) Orientation within the Exchange had two components: orientation in London prior to departure; and orientation on arrival in New York.

In the first years of the Exchange, orientation in London prior to departure was principally doctrinal, consisting for the most part of students attending seminars on US Constitutional Law shortly before their departure, although some practical advice and guidance on travelling to, living and working in the USA was also provided. In later years of the Exchange, the orientation in London lost much of its doctrinal focus. A two day workshop was designed and led by a former Exchange participant and facilitator. The intensive workshop involved a combination of presentations providing background information, and active group exercises. Students were encouraged to reflect on the goals of the Exchange and on their expectations for it, on their responsibilities as members of the group, and on how they might benefit most from the experience. The workshop culminated in a debate between members of the group, observed by former participants, followed by a debriefing and finally a dinner attended by the facilitator, members of the group and former participants. As one facilitator later observed (Kibble 1993):

Orientation in New York was quite substantial, occupying the whole of the first week. The students were accommodated in International House, an International Student Residence on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Arriving in New York at the weekend, students settled in to New York with a walking tour of Harlem, a visit to the Schomburg Museum (dedicated to African-American artists), and a welcoming reception/barbecue with local law students, lawyers, judges & placement supervisors. The orientation programme included: a three day seminar on constitutional issues led by an attorney who was a former Revson Fellow, and which culminated in a moot; individual student visits to their placement sites; meetings (and lunch) with several of the judges who were acting, or had acted in the past, as placement supervisors; attendance at Night Court and meeting afterwards with the presiding Judge; visit to CUNY Law School and seminars with students & staff ⁽⁷⁾; a lunch meeting at the offices of a downtown corporate law firm with lawyers and law interns; and a meeting of facilitators and participants to discuss and review the first week.

v. Work Placements

There is no doubt that the Exchange was unusually fortunate in its access to placements. From the outset of the Exchange we had access to a substantial network of public interest lawyers and judges who saw themselves as part of the ULS community, and who were keen to take a hand in the development of the participants. Most of the mentors had had previous teaching experience as Revson Fellows in the Center for Legal Education, which made them particularly fitted to offer guidance and support to the participants. As the Exchange continued, mentors, their chambers, offices and organisations, developed a close, supportive relationship with the Exchange. Several mentors took participants each year of the Exchange.

Once selected, participants were invited to discuss their choice of placement with the Exchange director. Discussions with former participants and reports of earlier Exchanges assisted in this process. Many participants chose placements and mentors with a history of involvement in the Exchange. Others identified particular areas of work (criminal defence, immigration, housing) or particular types of placement site (judicial internship, community law centre, sole practitioner) or both. Whenever new supervisors were needed, friends of the Exchange in New York would make inquiries within the ULS community to find a suitable person⁽⁸⁾.

The work placements began in the second week and continued for four weeks full-time.⁽⁹⁾ The student reports refer to the wide range of tasks for which the students were given responsibility during their placements, most of which were research and writing tasks, although students placed with legal services agencies such as Harlem Legal Services also did some client interviewing and assisted in court representation. The reports also indicate that students spent some of their time in shadowing and observation. This was especially the case with students who were in judicial placements.

One of the dominant themes of the student reports was the strong personal connection the students formed with their mentor/supervisor and how inspirational this was. References to mentors were often expressed in personal terms, as the following extracts illustrate:

vi. Evening Meetings During the Placements

Evening meetings were held regularly alongside the placements in the evenings so as to minimise any interference with the placements. The purpose of these meetings was to prompt further reflection on the students' placement experiences as well as to engage the students in discussions of issues relating to legal education, lawyers and the role of law and lawyers in the community⁽¹⁰⁾. Most of the meetings were informal to encourage discussion, several were at people's homes. We sought to ensure that speakers represented a variety of perspectives and work experiences within the public interest community - judges, academic lawyers, community activists, public interest groups, minority lawyers' organisations, corporate lawyers. This diversity meant that students were confronted with conflicting perspectives and so were challenged and encouraged to reflect on their own ideas and assumptions. If the Exchange was to be a journey of discovery for the students, it could not have a pre-determined destination.

The student reports confirm that many of the people whom the students met and talked with at meetings were seen by them as role models and had a powerful impact upon them, as the following extracts illustrate:

In addition to arranging a diverse programe of meetings, we learned of the importance of leaving room in the programme so that students and facilitators could arrange further meetings during their time in New York, either individually or for the group as a whole. This underlined our conviction, expressed to the students, that they shared responsibility for the creation of their experience. For example, in the final years of the Exchange, the student placed at the Neighbourhood Defenders Service (NDS) of Harlem arranged for the group to meet the NDS Community Outreach Educator, Mr. Eddy Ellis, a former member of the Black Panthers who had been imprisoned for nearly twenty years on a trumped up murder charge. Like many of the others, the meeting had a powerful impact on the students:

Students were released from their placements for two days to enable them to visit Washington D.C.⁽¹¹⁾. This was intended in part to provide a brief respite from the intensity of the New York experience. Even so, some meetings were always arranged. Typically, these included a reception hosted by the local chapter of the National Conference of Black Lawyers and a meeting with senior staff at the Office of Minorities in Higher Education at the American Council on Education.

At the end of the Exchange, the students hosted a farewell reception to thank the many supervisors, speakers and friends of the Exchange who had contributed to its success. Approximately one month after the end of the Exchange students were required to submit their Exchange reports. Finally, back in London, and usually in November or December, the students made oral presentations to sponsors and friends of the programme. This event signalled the start of fundraising for the following year.

Public Interest Law, Political Critique and Self-Reflection

As the account of the origins of the Exchange showed, the Exchange was rooted in a strong political commitment to access, diversity and the public interest. Reflection on what it means to practise law in the public interest lay at the heart of the Exchange. How did these goals shape the Exchange, and did they make for a positive learning experience?

1. Public Interest Law and Political Critique

We should note that a strong political ethos was a feature of many early clinical programmes in the US in the 1960's and 1970's (see Tarr 1993, p 39). However, since that time there has been a shift away from such an ethos towards a focus on professional skills development. While the focus on skills development has had many positive consequences for legal education, not least of which is a more rigorous and enriched understanding of skills and knowledge, theory and practice, the less positive implications of the focus have also been noted by commentators. Barnhizer observed that the `fixation on technique' was `infiltrating' the whole clinical experience, affecting decisions on how to structure, focus and teach clinical courses, and that this was leading to a narrowness of vision, a blindness to the larger framework (Barnhizer 1990, p 122). In the context of Australian law schools, Parker and Goldsmith argued that without breadth of education and critique, professional training was "purely replicative."(Parker & Goldsmith 1998 pp 47-50) In his critique of the skills model in England and Wales, Boon criticises the `atomistic'approach of skills education (Boon 1998, pp 165-169:

It was certainly the experience of the Exchange that the decision to focus neither on exploration of substantive issues nor on professional skills development had a number of positive consequences for the Exchange. In particular, it reduced the 'content' and 'coverage' involved, creating valuable space for reflection and investigation. This point is worth elaborating, because the dragon of coverage seems to follow us everywhere, frustrating our attempts to promote reflection and depth of learning. Feeling the almost irresistible pressure to inject content and to specify more objectives, we acknowledged instead that the work placement provided all the content that was needed, and that what we really had to do was to create the best possible conditions for reflection. A similar position was taken by Caplow, when considering the creation of an academic component to enhance the skills and values learned in a judicial clinic (Caplow1996, p 890)

The Internship in Capital Punishment Studies, offered at the University of Westminster, London, adopts a similar position. The internship aims to have students involved in the process of representation in capital cases in order that they might develop their understanding of the context in which the death penalty is used. The focus of the assessment method used in the Internship is not the "students' capacity to perform specific clinical tasks but rather their capacity for analysis and critical reflection"(Boon & Hodgkinson 1996, pp 255-257).

However, it may be helpful here to draw a distinction between the Exchange and two other placement programmes, the Internship in Capital Punishment Studies and the Domestic Violence Clinic offered by the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University of America (see Barry 1994). Both latter programmes have a well-defined substantive focus - capital punishment in one case and domestic violence in the other. The tight substantive focus of the domestic violence clinic was adopted expressly in order to deal with the coverage issue. Barry notes that it started life as a general practice clinic (Barry 1994, pp154-159):

The experience of the Domestic Violence Clinic suggests that proper integration of skills development and critique is only possible within a sharply defined substantive field. The Internship in Capital Punishment Studies also maintains a sharp focus - on reflection and critical analysis on capital punishment issues - keeping the development of skills as a subsidiary aim only. In comparison with both programmes, the Exchange showed a much wider spread of substantive fields of law, including in any one year for example, criminal law, housing law, immigration law, and employment law. Given such a spread, the only way to deal satisfactorily with the coverage issue was to avoid framing the principal objectives of the Exchange in terms of substantive law, instead framing the objectives in terms which unified those substantively disparate experiences. The same course of action was taken in respect of the judicial clinic at Brooklyn Law School (Caplow 1996, p 888).

I would suggest that either approach - focus on a defined field of law or on ground common to disparate fields of law - offers an effective solution to the coverage problem. Each approach has its merits. Inquiry into a sharply defined field facilitates a deep and searching analysis of the subject, as exemplified both by the Internship in Capital Punishment Studies and the Domestic Violence Clinic. Identifying the issues common to diverse fields of law offers the possibility of the same kind of inquiry into whatever those underlying issues or common connections are. As Smith notes of a judicial clinic which improves students' writing and analytical skills (Smith 1993, p 472):

Within the Exchange, the common ground and central focus was reflection on public interest law and political critique. We felt a responsibility to adopt this focus over other possibilities. Barnhizer's statement concerning the mission of clinical legal education provides a good starting point (Barnhizer 1990, p 123): "The primary mission...is to create visible models of justice in action that demonstrate a deep commitment to achieving justice and challenging injustice."

Condlin argues that political critique (by which he means judging law practice against standards of justice and fairness) is the most important clinical objective and the defining characteristic of the University (Condlin 1986, p 50). For Condlin, as for Barnhizer, there is a close connection between political critique and independent learning: "In the end, critique of lawyer practices is pursued for its contribution to the development of the individual - not to be unknowingly captive to received wisdom is to be more fully autonomous..." (Condlin 1986, p 53)

One of the ways in which the Exchange developed critique was that it confronted students with alternatives to their taken-for-granted ways of doing and seeing things, thereby challenging their existing assumptions and perceptions. As Shor noted, in his dialogue with Freire (Freire & Shor 1987, p 185):

2. Self-Reflection

The notions of student autonomy and critical thinking relate directly to the second component of the ethos of the Exchange, namely the focus on self-reflection and self-directed learning. The Exchange created an experience in which students were able to take important decisions about their learning, to exercise a degree of control. They chose their placement. Teaching consisted of dialogue more than lecturing. Restrictive aims and objectives were not imposed. Their responsibility was to be open to change and to reflect and to be prepared to articulate and debate their reflection. The element of self-directed learning is a common feature of work placement programmes. Supporters of work placements have long argued that placements are particularly effective in encouraging self-directed learning (see Motley 1989). Moreover, the importance of developing self-directed or independent learning is receiving increased recognition within the current debates on legal education and on graduate standards in law (see Duncan 1997, Bell 1997).

Yet the idea of self-directed learning is not unproblematic. In dialogue with Shor, Freire expresses reservations about the notion of self-directed learners as empowered students and about the idea of educator as facilitator or resource-person. Freire is opposed to a laissez-faire idea of education ("a false and nonexistent nondirectivity") just as he is opposed to an authoritarian position. For Freire, education is always and necessarily directive (Freire & Shor 1987 pp 156/7):

Was the Exchange a happening, an experience through which the students navigated independently to the destinations of their choice? In certain respects it was. The focus on reflection was one that recognised that ultimately, individual students must decide what makes sense for them, and take responsibility for what they say and what they do. Yet, if the Exchange was a happening, it was a highly directed one. The aims of the Exchange were reflected in a series of strategic decisions regarding the design and orientation of the programme: the selection of students; the choice of placements; the choice of readings, speakers and topics for evening and orientation meetings; the setting of aims and objectives for the programme; and the choice of tasks that students were required to undertake.

Integration of the Academic and Experiential Components

The second feature of the Exchange was the integration of the work experience and academic components of the Exchange. Integration of the work experience and the academic component is essential to the success and integrity of work placement programmes. In the first place, integration is an powerful remedy for a problem common to placement programmes, namely student resistance to the academic component (see Morton 1993, p 36). In that respect, such resistance mirrors the wider separation between the academic and professional worlds. However, integration has an even greater significance. Without integration, work placements may not only replicate but further entrench existing divisions between theory and practice, experience and reflection.

Goldfarb identifies another important advantage of integration, the fact that student experiences in work settings provide firm ground from which to explore systemic questions (Goldfarb 1990, p 1661):

The Exchange achieved a large measure of success in respect of its integration, especially in later years. In earlier years, there was some resistance to the academic component, but this was restricted very substantially to students resenting being taken away from their placements to attend meetings. The value of the additional meetings was never challenged, and in later years in particular, a recurring feature of the student reports was the importance they attached to the meetings.

This successful integration was based on two factors in particular. First, the close collaboration between all those who contributed to the Exchange, whether academic or practitioner. Many meetings were led by lawyers or judges who were also placement supervisors. More importantly, the focus on reflection emerged from the practioners who served as supervisors.

Second, the individual and group reflection also served to bind together the student experiences, whether at work or in the meeting room. The importance of student journal writing (see Walker 1985, Paterson 1995, Boon 1996) in integrating the academic component and the clinical experience is detailed by Caplow, describing the student journal as the "centrepiece" of the academic component, the springboard for class discussion, and a means of losing the "tunnel vision" which arises out of their absorption in the immediate task.Clinic students are required to complete two types of journal entry: a weekly reflective journal which is unstructured (a "free-write"); and, structured journal assignments (called "Questions and Observations") in which students must address specific questions, and complete set readings on set topics.

Within the Exchange, the journalling component and group reflection (debriefing) were key elements in the integrative process. Not only did group reflection provide guidance and support to students in their personal journals, it also allowed the sharing of experiences and reflection, so widening the experience available to individuals. In particular, it encouraged self-reflection by providing a supportive setting within which reflection was valued. Group reflection was also a tangible confirmation of the co-operative nature of the exercise and of the value of the students' experiences and judgements. Students discovered that they could be a resource for each other - that the teacher was not the only source of wisdom and understanding. This contrasts strongly with much of their legal education.

The importance of group reflection has been acknowledged in the literature. In their paper on debriefing, Pearson and Smith identify three stages of the debriefing process in the form of three questions - What happened? How did the participants feel? What does it mean? (see Pearson & Smith 1985, pp 72-76) The second stage requires an atmosphere of trust, acceptance and safety if it is to be successful, while the third stage involves the students generalising from their experiences. In the process of discovering insights and drawing together the significance of the event, "individuals and the group achieve meaning that is personal and immediately relevant." Pearson and Smith distinguish different ways of knowing and their implications for the role of the facilitator and the debriefing process. `Critical' knowing is concerned with a critical understanding of the self, how and why we act in a certain way, and it involves interpretation and self-awareness. Pearson and Smith note that where the aim of the group reflection is critical knowing, the role of the facilitator is not that of expert authority but sharer of ideas and understandings (and critic)(Pearson & Smith 1985, p 77):

In the specific context of placement programmes, Best and Rose, discussing the supervision of distance placements, suggest that placing students in groups enhances their experience by providing mutual support, adding perspective on issues, and enabling the sharing of experiences. They note that many students report that they gain a sense of greater independence from such placements, compared to local placements (Best & Rose 1996, p 115).

Integration was one of the achievements of the Exchange, achieved not only through close collaboration and structured reflection, but also through the creative and critical contributions of the practitioners and academics who shared their thoughts and experience with the students. Integration could have been further improved by tightening the journalling requirement, perhaps along the lines of Caplow's 'Question and Observation' assignments.

The Mentoring Relationship and Reflective Learning

As was illustrated in the extracts from student reports, the closeness of the student/supervisor relationship was a central feature of the Exchange. Do these strong mentoring relationships have any real significance for the learning process? Or, was it just a feel-good experience with the students signing up to assorted slices of US rhetoric - 'following your dream'; 'keeping hope alive'; 'making a difference'?

In thinking about these questions, we should first note that this strong personal dimension to the mentoring relationship is not at all unique to the Exchange, and has been explored within the clinical literature. Kreiling, in particular, places clear emphasis on the personal qualities needed of an effective supervisor - genuineness, empathy, and positive regard - and concludes: "If Rogers is correct, substantial self-awareness and professional growth will occur only if the supervisor cares and projects the image that he cares." (Kreiling 1981, p 305) Self-awareness and its importance to the learning process are a key to appreciating the value of the mentoring relationship. As Boud and others have argued, self-awareness is an essential element of reflection and therefore of learning. But, self-reflection opens up the person to the possibility of change. This change is threatening and therefore self-reflection is resisted (Boud & Walker 1993, pp 73-86). Citing the distinction made by Carr and Kemmis between three levels of action research (each of which involves reflection) - technical, practical and emancipatory - Day suggests that much reflection remains at the private 'practical' level (Day 1993, pp 84 & 90).

The importance of the mentoring relationship is that it offers personal support and encouragement to the students, and therefore facilitates a deeper and more critical self- reflection that creates the possibility of lasting personal change. The mentoring role is a nurturing one which incorporates the roles of guide, role model, tutor and coach.

It is possible to identify several aspects of the Exchange which encouraged this mentoring relationship. First, mentors and students shared a commitment to public interest law and were therefore united in pursuit of common goals. Second, reflection on what it means to practise public interest law was a central focus of the Exchange. With mentors sharing their personal experiences and feelings of public interest practice, students were encouraged to be open and to share their feelings too. Third, mentors also took part in the reflective or academic component. This integration of the academic and experiential components, achieved by close collaboration between academics and practitioners, was one of the features of the Exchange (see the section on Integration below). Integration contributed to the mentoring relationship not simply by creating further opportunities for reflection between mentor and protégé, but by bringing mentors into the heart of the reflective process.

Finally, it was noted earlier that most mentors had previously served as Revson Fellows within the Center for Legal Education. The ethos of the Revson Fellowships, so vividly portrayed by Mosston, also helps to explain why so many students had a memorable experience with their mentors:

One of the recurrent themes of the student reports was the personal interest taken in them by the lawyers and judges they met, the fact that their views were listened to seriously, the fact that they were invited into their supervisors' and speakers' homes. It wasn't just that they were able to meet Judges, or Professor Derrick Bell, or other distinguished individuals, but that they were invited home for dinner and had a chance to talk together informally. What the students had to say was listened to with interest, they were made aware that they had an important contribution to make within the profession for the benefit not only of their communities but of the wider society, and challenged as to what they were going to do. In short, they were taken seriously and they were valued.

Student experience on work placement is sometimes seen as one of isolation and alienation, because of their isolation from the academic community. I think that this view overestimates the importance attached to dialogue and reflection within the academy, and underestimates the potential for dialogue and reflection within work placement programmes. The mentoring relationship is a key source of dialogue and reflection within the work placement itself.

Important though the mentoring relationship was, it should be seen within the context of other aspects of the Exchange experience which also encouraged critical reflection. The fact that students had been taken out of their familiar surroundings and away from family and friends, placed in another country and given new responsibilities, new challenges, gave the experience added intensity. The guidance and support of the facilitator, and of other members of the group meant that group reflection was a significant element of the Exchange. The focus on public interest law and on self-development helped to give the critical self-reflection an action orientation which brought the broader social context and systemic issues into the forefront of the reflective agenda.

Observation and Experience

We have seen from the above, that with few exceptions the students were highly involved in their work placements and developed strong relationships with their supervisors. However, it is also the case that in addition to having responsibility for a range of professional tasks (often involving research or writing assignments), many students spent a significant amount of their time in shadowing and observation. This was especially true for those students who had judicial placements. Does the significant observational component diminish the value of the experience?

Certainly, reservations have been expressed concerning the value of observation as an educational method, and whether it should be seen as clinical legal education. Some writers have argued that substantial actual client representation and assumption by the student of primary responsibility for the representation are indispensable elements of the clinical method (Barnhizer 1979, pp 72-3). Other definitions bring simulations within the scope of clinical legal education, but nevertheless stress active participation, interaction in role and student responsibility for the outcome (Macfarlane 1988). It would appear from the above that an experience consisting substantially of observation falls outside the definition of clinical legal education. In one of the explicit discussions of observation and clinical legal education, Boone, Jeeves and Macfarlane argue that observation amounts to information assimilation and therefore does not constitute a clinical experience. However, the references are to passive observers, and to observation without participation or involvement (Boon et al 1987, pp 175-9). The rejection of passive observation on the one hand and the emphasis on the need for participation and involvement are surely correct. But we have to be careful to avoid making the assumption that observation is necessarily passive.

Approximately 20% of work placements offered to law students in the US are judicial internships in which a significant amount of the student time is spent in observation of court processes (Seibel & Morton 196, p 423-4). Are such placements clinical? Are they valuable learning experiences? Can they be structured so as to maximise that value, and if so, how? Judicial placements have received separate attention within the clinical literature (see Caplow 1996, Smith 1993) and discussions of judicial internship programmes provide an informative framework within which to consider the value of observation generally.

Smith's description of a judicial clinic as one in which students are placed with judges to work in a clerkship capacity and to observe the operation of the courts firsthand, immediately confirms the importance of observation within such programmes. Nevertheless, Smith's examination of the theory and method of judicial clinics endorses the importance of role assumption and active involvement, and acknowledges that observation alone has limited value (Smith 1993, p 442).

Smith's four guidelines for best practice indicate the importance attached to active participation in combination with observation: work on pending cases; involvement in all aspects of a case and in all aspects of the court's work; note, ponder and discuss all observations; and, direct judicial supervision. Smith emphasises the need for a classroom or academic component to accompany the clinical experience, and the use of journals in which observations are recorded and reflected upon (Smith 1993, pp 452-68).

Discussing the creation of an academic component to enhance the skills and values learned in a judicial clinic, Caplow offers an analysis of judicial clinics that differs in interesting respects from that provided by Smith. Caplow explicitly acknowledges that while students engage "in some genuine legal work", they engage in "a great deal of critical participant-observation", and refers to the value of learning from modelling and demonstration (Caplow 1996, p 875). Moreover, Caplow states that the judicial clerkship is "nothing like the typical live-client clinic in which the student learns through role assumption."

Most significantly, Caplow recognises the extent to which the readings, journals and class discussions enhance the perceptions of the participant-observer. Perhaps here are some of the keys to valuing the role of observation within experiential learning. To acknowledge that observation is not unproblematic, and can either be skilled or unskilled, and to understand that just as a student might be given responsibility for professional tasks, so too they can be given responsibility for accurate and thoughtful observation, for recording and articulating that observation, for reflecting on the observation, and for being prepared to discuss the observation and reflections upon it. In either case, the student is involved, active and participating in the work of the placement.

My point is to reject the suggestion that either the student is undertaking a designated professional task (such as research or writing a brief) or they are merely passive observers. The personal relationship with the judge or lawyer may be of greater importance in generating involvement and stimulating reflection, than being given primary responsibility for a particular task. Where the circumstances of the experience provide the motivation for learning, where they generate involvement and stimulate reflection, shadowing and observation may have real value. In this respect, work experience programmes and clinical simulations might require different consideration.

The educational purposes of the programme also affect whether observation is an appropriate experience. If skills development is the principal objective, observation may have limited value. If, on the other hand, reflection on systemic issues such as justice and equality is the principal objective, periods of observation may be a definite advantage. To take an example from judicial internships, as discussion moves from the micro-goals of developing legal analysis skills to macro-goals such as developing an understanding of the operation and role of the courts, it seems inevitable that material generated by student observation and reflection upon it will assume greater importance. I would suggest that the importance attached to skills development as opposed to wider critique is therefore related to the importance attached to work on pending cases as opposed to active, purposeful and critical observation.

There is another reason for accepting that observation has an important role within experiential learning and clinical legal education. One of the consequences of attaching overriding priority to giving students responsibility for tasks such as negotiation or representation, is that it generates an immediate need for explicit attention to skills development in order to ensure an acceptable level of competence. So, even where skills development is not the principal objective of the programme, giving students responsibility for professional tasks brings skills development into the frame. A clinical experience that centres on litigation and client representation will necessitate considerable attention paid to skills, whatever the declared objectives of the programme.

Condlin makes this point when he writes of the trade off between experience and opportunity for critique. Acknowledging that students in work placements (as opposed to in-house clinics) may be presented with fewer opportunities than those in in-house clinics to perform a range of lawyer tasks, he suggests:

While the undertaking of professional work by the students is therefore an essential component of the educational experience offered by placement programmes, I would argue that it is not necessarily the central component. Rather, the placement programme should be seen as having three equally significant focal points: the work itself; observation and reflection on the role of the courts; and critical reflection on both of these within the academic component. Ideally, these three components should be fully integrated.

It would seem that we need to think about observation more carefully. How can we ensure that it is active, focused and purposeful? How can we maintain involvement, motivation and participation? How can we integrate observation and direct experience, and how can we ensure reflection upon observation?

An interesting discussion of the role of observation can be found in Lave's consideration of apprenticeship and learning processes, arising out of her work on tailors in Liberia (see Lave 1982). Lave notes that the tailors' apprenticeship seems to fit a stereotype of informal learning in which learners learn to replicate an activity or task through observation and imitation. However, Lave goes on to suggest that on closer inspection this stereotype does not hold up. The learning processes of the apprentices are not passively observational or imitative, and the learning process changes as the learner moves from novice to expert. Observation and imitation are used at what Lave refers to as the "way-in" phase when the learner is moving from complete ignorance about how to do something to the point at which they can first make an approximation of it. Lave notes that even at this stage, the observation is not unfocused, vague or general, and that through focused observation, the apprentice acquires a conceptual model of the process being learned (Lave 1982, pp 182-4).

Conclusion

Is the Exchange a model worth developing or replicating? If so, to what extent is it replicable? To a great extent, the issue of replicability depends on how one characterises the programme. Do we define the Exchange as an international, affirmative action, public interest, fully sponsored, work experience programme? If so, replicability is certainly problematic, and the question of funding is paramount. Alternatively, do we define the Exchange as a work experience programme with an integrated academic component offering substantial opportunities for critical reflection and collaboration between academic and practising lawyers? Taken at that level, replicability raises fewer problems.

Cost is a major determinant of replicability. Given the particular objectives of the Exchange, and its total dependence on external sponsorship, funding was a central concern. The failure to secure adequate levels of funding was ultimately responsible for the demise of the Exchange⁽¹²⁾. Economies of scale meant that the per capita cost of the Exchange was far greater in later years when there were fewer participants. In 1986 and 1987, the cost per student was approximately £1,500⁽¹³⁾. In 1989, the cost per student was £1,800⁽¹⁴⁾. By the final year of the Exchange the cost per student had risen to nearly £2,500.

It has been suggested that one of the features of the Exchange that could not be replicated in the UK is the use of judicial internships. While not underestimating the difficulties involved, it should be noted that the ULS students in London in 1986 and 1987 had split placements, the first week of which was spent with judges⁽¹⁵⁾. In 1986 the placements were with High Court Judges, while in 1987 they were in the Inner London Crown Court. In each case, students met with the Judges before Court sat each day to discuss forthcoming cases, sat through the day's proceedings, and reviewed the day with the judge in his chambers after Court rose. The student reports of their judicial placements were extremely favourable.

Can it be said that the Exchange demonstrated a holistic approach? Webb suggests that learning is holistic "when it encompasses the development of theoretical knowledge, values and skills in the context of individual experience" (Webb 1996, p 38). Citing Barnett, Boon suggests that, in the context of higher education, a holistic approach is concerned "to integrate the world of action with the traditional academic values of understanding, critique, interdisciplinarity and wisdom." (Boon 1996, p 110)

I think the Exchange presents a model of holistic learning, one that was not fully realised, and not without deficiencies, but nonetheless worthy of consideration. A failure to identify the precise learning objectives of the Exchange in the early years is undeniable, at least on my part, though the focus sharpened as my own understanding grew⁽¹⁶⁾ (my understanding of the Exchange is still changing and growing with continued reflection). The consequences of the failure to define the learning objectives were that insufficient guidance was given to students concerning the purposes of reflection, and insufficient attention was given to supporting and guiding the reflective process itself.

The fact that students were not formally assessed or graded within the Exchange may be connected to that failure. Circumstances at the time militated against having formal assessment on the Exchange. Nevertheless, it is clear that a properly structured assessment process would have offered additional guidance to student reflection, requiring students to move within their reflection from micro to macro level analysis and back again. In Menkel-Meadow's words, to "travel up and down the levels of generalisation -- moving from the concrete to the abstract and...back again."( Menkel-Meadow 1986, p 297)

Despite these shortcomings, the Exchange offered a rich, reflective educational experience, and demonstrated the potential benefits of genuine partnership between academics and practitioners. The experience of the Exchange suggests, as do other programmes such as the Internship in Capital Punishment Studies, that the integration of experiential and academic components is both valuable and achievable. These programmes also suggest that integration of theory and practice, skills and critique will only occur where the coverage is carefully managed to allow genuine exploration in depth. In particular, integration, critique and self-development are all dependent upon sufficient importance being attached to the reflective process and substantial space and guidance being provided for it. To adopt Freire's words, if the role of the teacher is not to be silent, we do at least have to learn when to talk more quietly and how to listen.

During the 1989 Exchange, the students were privileged to meet the Honourable A. Leon Higginbotham jr, Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (now retired)⁽¹⁷⁾. Two years earlier, he concluded an essay commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Harvard Law Review, with some thoughts on the role of lawyers (see Higginbotham 1987, also 1978, 1990 and 1996). His words reflect the challenge that was made to the Exchange participants:

Is there any reason to believe that these words have lost their relevance? Do they not offer a challenge to all of us, educators and students to which we must respond?

Bibliography

Ashworth, P and Saxton, J (1992) Managing Work Experience (London: Routledge).

Barnhizer, D (1979) "The Clinical Method of Legal Instruction: Its Theory and Implementation" 30 Journal of Legal Education 67.

Barnhizer, D (1990) "The University Ideal and Clinical Legal Education" 35 New York Law School Law Review 87.

Barry, M (1994) "A Question of Mission: Catholic Law School's Domestic Violence Clinic" 38 Howard Law Journal 135.

Bell, J and Johnstone, J (1998) "General Transferable Skills In the Law Curriculum" (DFEE).

Bell, D (1992) "Faces At The Bottom Of The Well: The Permanence Of Racism" (New York: BasicBooks).

Best, D and Rose, M (1996) Quality and Supervision: Theory and Practice for Clinical Supervisions (Australia: Saunders).

Boon, A (1998) "History is Past Politics: A Critique of the Legal Skills Movement in England and Wales" 25 (1) Journal of Law and Society 151.

Boon, A & Hodgkinson, P (1996) "Life and Death In the Lawyer's Office: The Internship in Capital Punishment Studies" 30(3) Law Teacher 253.

Boon, A (1996) 'Skills In the Initial Stage of Legal Education: Theory and Practice for Transformation' ch.4 of J. Webb & C. Maughan Teaching Lawyers' Skills (London: Butterworths).

Boone, A, Jeeves, M and Macfarlane, J (1987) "A Working Model for Clinical Legal Education: Testing the Definition Against a Range of Examples" 21(2) Law Teacher 172.

Boud, D and Walker, D (1993) "Barriers to Reflection on Experience" in Boud, D, Cohen, R and Walker, D (eds) Using Experience for Learning (SRHE).

Bradney, A (1998) Law as a Parasitic Discipline 25(1) Journal of Law and Society 71.

Caplow, S (1996) "From Courtroom to Classroom: Creating an Academic Component to Enhance the Skills and Values Learned in a Student Judicial Clerkship Clinic" 75 Nebraska Law Review 872.

Carr, W & Kemmis, S (1986) Becoming Critical: knowing through action research (Geelong: Deakin).

Condlin, R (1986) "Tastes Great, Less Filling': The Law School Clinic and Political Critique" 36 Journal of Legal Education 45.

Day, C (1993) "Reflection: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition For Professional Development" 19 (1) British Educational Research Journal 83.

Freire, P and Shor, I (1987) A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education (South Hadley, Mass: Bergin & Garvey).

Goldfarb, P (1991)"A Theory-Practice Spiral: The Ethics of Feminism and Clinical Education" 75 Minnesota Law Review 1599.

Grimes, R (1996) "The Theory and Practice of Clinical Legal Education" in Webb, J & Maughan, C (eds) Teaching Lawyers' Skills (London: Butterworths).

Higginbotham, A (1987) "The Life of the Law: Values, Commitment and Craftsmanship" 100 Harvard Law Review 795.

Higginbotham, A (1987) In the Matter of Color-Race and the American Legal Process: The Colonial Period (New York: Oxford Univeristy Press).

Higginbotham, A (1990) "Racism in American and South African Courts: Similarities and Differences" 65(3) New York University Law Review 479.

Higginbotham, A (1996) Shades of Freedom: Racial Politics and Presumptions of the American Legal Process (New York: Oxford University Press).

Kibble, N (1986) The 1986 Urban Law Student Exchange (unpublished on file with the author).

Kibble, N (1987) The 1987 Urban Law Student Exchange (unpublished on file with the author).

Kibble, N (1987) The Urban Law Student Exchange (unpublished on file with the author).

Kibble, N (1989) The Urban Law Student Exchange 1989 (unpublished on file with the author).

Kibble, N (1989) "Access to Legal Education and the Legal Profession in England", in Dhavan, R, Kibble, N and Twining, W (eds.) "Access to Legal Education and the Legal Profession" (London: Butterworths).

Kibble, N (1993) "Report of the 1993 Programme" (unpublished on file with the author).

Kibble, N (1994) "Report of the 1994 Programme" (unpublished on file with the author).

Kibble, N (1998) "Reflection and Supervision in Clinical Legal Education: Do Work Placements Have A Role in Undergraduate Legal Education?" International Journal of the Legal Profession 5(1) International Journal of the Legal Profession 83.

Kreiling, K (1981) "Clinical Education and Lawyer Competency: The Process of Learning to Learn from Experience Through Properly Structured Clinical Supervision" 40 Maryland Law Review 284.

Lave, J (1982) "A Comparative Approach to Educational Forms and Learning Processes" 13 Anthropology and Education Quarterly 181.

Lesnick, H (1990) 'Infinity In a Grain of Sand: The World of Law and Lawyering As Portrayed in the Clinical Teaching Implicit in the Law School Curriculum'. 37 University of California Law Review 1157.

Lundy, L (1995)"The Assessment of Clinical Legal Education: An Illustration" 29 Law Teacher 311.

Macfarlane, J (1992) 'Look Before You Leap: Knowledge and Learning in Legal Skills Education' 19 Journal of Law and Society (1992) 293.

Menkel-Meadow, C (1986) "Two Contradictory Criticisms of Clinical Education: Dilemmas and Directions in Lawyering Education" 4 Antioch Law Journal 287.

Morton, L (1993) "Creating a Classroom Component for Field Placement Programs: Enhancing Clinical Goals with Feminist Pedagogy" 45 Maine Law Review 19.

Mosston, L (1989) "Legal Education For a Changed World: an American Perspective" in Dhavan, R, Kibble, N and Twining, W (eds.) "Access to Legal Education and the Legal Profession" (London: Butterworths).

Motley, J (1989) "Self-Directed Learning and the Out-of-House Placement" 19 New Mexico Law Review 211.

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education "Higher Education in the Learning Society: Summary Report" (HMSO, 1997).

Parker, C & Goldsmith, A (1998) "Failed Sociologists' in the Market Place: Law Schools In Australia" 25 (1) Journal of Law & Society 33.

Paterson (1995) "Developing and Maintaining Reflection In Clinical Journals" 15 (3) Nurse Education Today 211.

Pearson, M and Smith, D (1985) "Debriefing in Experience-based Learning" in Boud, D Walker, D & Keogh (eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience Into Learning (London: Kogan Page)

Savage, N & Watt, G (1996) 'A House of Intellect' for the Profession' in Birks, P (ed.) Pressing Problems in the Law. Vol. 2. What Are Law Schools For? (London: Oxford University Press)

Simon, W (1980) "Homo Psychologicus: Notes On A New Legal Formalism" 32 Stanford Review 487.

Stickgold, M (1989) "Exploring the Invisible Curriculum: Clinical Field Work in American Law Schools" 19 New Mexico Law Review 287.

Smith, L (1993) "The Judicial Clinic: Theory and Method in a Live Laboratory of Law" Utah Law Review 429.

Tarr, N (1993) "Current Issues in Clinical Legal Education" 37 Howard Law Journal 31.

Toddington, S (1996) 'The Emperor's New Skills: The Academy, the Profession and the Idea of Legal Education' in Birks, P (ed.) Pressing Problems in the Law. Vol. 2. What Are Law Schools For? (London: Oxford University Press)

Walker, D "Writing and Reflection" in Boud, D Walker, D & Keogh (eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience Into Learning (London: Kogan Page)

Walker & Keogh (1985) "Reflection: Turning Experience Into Learning" (London: Kogan Page).

Webb, J (1995) 'Where the Action Is: Developing Artistry In Legal Education' 2 International Journal of the Legal Profession 187.

Webb, J (1996) 'Why Theory matters' in Webb, J & Maughan, C (eds) Teaching Lawyers' Skills (London: Butterworths).

Webb, J (1998) Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education 25(1) Journal of Law and Society 134.

(1) The Co-Creator of the Exchange, and Co-Director in its first two years (when it was known as the Urban Law Student Exchange) was Professor Leora Mosston, then Acting Director of the Center for Legal Education at the City College of New York. There is no doubt that the fact that the ethos and design of the Exchange were about right from the very beginning was due to Professor Mosston's considerable educational experience and insight.

(2) The 1989 programme was the subject of a Channel 4 documentary, filmed as part of their Cutting Edge series. 'NY Law' focused on four of the students as they observed and worked with their supervisors.

(3) In 1983, the first Access to Law course in the UK was established on South Bank's initiative at Vauxhall College, Kennington.

(4) In April 1984 the author had spent two weeks at the Center observing classes and speaking with staff and students in order to learn how best to develop the curriculum of the recently established Law Access Course. The idea for an exchange between the two institutions first emerged in discussions between the author and Leora Mosston, then Acting Director of the Center for Legal Education, during an earlier meeting in 1983..

(5) South Bank had been invited by the GLC to establish the Minority Access to the Legal Profession Project in 1984. The author served as Chair of the Executive Committeee of the Project, working closely with many respected public interest lawyers, including senior members of the Society of Black Lawyers. Through its alumni/ae and its Revson Fellowship Programme, the Center had created an extensive network of progressive lawyers and judges.

(6) Three of the ten places were to be restricted for competition between students who had entered the LL.B via the Law Access course at Vauxhall College. As it turned out, the former access students were so successful in the open selection process that had we insisted on maintaining the reserved places only access students would ever have taken part. Six of the 1986 participants and five of the 1987 students were former Access students.

(7) Topics included environmental justice, political prisoners in the U.S., and the history of the 'Buffalo Soldiers' - the Black soldiers of the 9th cavalry who fought on the western frontier in 1867, and who were the victims of a racial attack in which several of them were murdered.

(8) For several years the task of securing supervisors was undertaken through Dean Haywood Burns's office at CUNY Law School. In the final years of the Exchange, the co-facilitators resident in New York were able to undertake much of this work, though the Dean's office continued to assist.

(9) Placement sites included: Harlem Legal Services, Harlem Legal Aid, Bronx Legal Aid, Neighbourhood Defender Service of Harlem, Stevens, Hinds & White (Harlem community law firm), Center of Immigrants' Rights, Center for Constitutional Rights ( public interest litigation); judges in the Civil, Criminal and Housing Courts of New York, located in Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn; the Correctional Association of New York; Lambda Legal Defence & Education Fund (public interest litigation to advance the civil rights of gays and lesbians); East Harlem Community Law Office; Community Service Society. Although placement sites have been referred to by the name of the organisation, the students were specifically placed with a named individual attorney within each organisation, so that there was an identifiable individual responsible for supervising the student and to whom the student could turn for guidance. The Judges who offered placements included: Judge Bruce Wright, Civil Court, Manhattan ; Judge Fern Fisher-Brandveen, Housing Court, Brooklyn (also Civil Court, Manhattan); Judge Antonio Brandveen, Criminal Court, Bronx; Judge Frank Torres Criminal Court, Bronx; Judge Carol Arber, Civil Court, Manhattan; Judge Michelle Patterson, Criminal Court, Brooklyn.

(10) Meetings typically included (in addition to those during the orientation week and during the visit to Washington DC): a visit to Rutgers Law School, New Jersey, to meet with the Director and students of the Minority Student Program, a panel discussion on public interest law at the City College of New York, a meeting with the local chapter of the National Conference of Black Lawyers, a meeting at the home of Professor Derrick Bell, a meeting with judges who had served as supervisors.

(11) In 1986, students were also able to travel to Atlanta, Georgia where in addition to being welcomed by the local chapter of the National Conference of Black Lawyers, they also met with representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Prisoners Defence Committee and the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, and visited the Martin Luther King Center for Non-Violent Social Change.

(12) In the first two years of the Exchange, the Youth Exchange Programme of the United States Information Agency was the sole funding source for the New York students. Sources of funding for the UK students were more diverse. In the first two years of the Exchange, the Youth Exchange Centre was the largest individual sponsor, but substantial contributions were also made by ICI, the Inner London Education Authority, the Rayne Foundation, the Tudor Trust, Lord Mishcon, Lewis Silkin & Co. Solicitors, Bernard Sheridan & Co. Solicitors, the Caribbean Times, and by the London Borough Councils of Lambeth, Southwark, Newham and Haringey. In later years, funding constraints within the London Boroughs dried up this major source of funding, but new supporters were found in Linklaters & Paines, the General Council of the Bar, and the Law Society.

(13) It is difficult to be precise in the first two years of the Exchange because funding raised in the UK was used to cover those expenses which were incurred in the UK (including the accommodation and subsistence of ULS students for example)

(14) This figure excludes a further £5,250 which was specifically raised to cover the cost of a professionally designed and printed Exchange report and the cost of a dinner in London which was attended by the then Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay.

(15) The remaining two weeks of the placement were spent with barristers, solicitors and legal organisations which operated in the fields of law selected by the student. Many worked with criminal barristers, others chose barristers or solicitors who practised in discrimination law, child law, or who maintained a general community practice. Placement sites included Brixton Community Law Centre, Newham Monitoring Project, Birnberg & Co., Lewis Silkin Solicitors, Brent Young Peoples Law Centre, and the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. The barristers and solicitors who took students on placement included: Courtney Abel, Hilda Amoo-Gottfried, Paul Boateng, Unmesh Desai, Joanna Dodson, Michael Hall, Cyril Glasser, Courtenay Griffiths, Hubert James, Sherry Kelly, Helena Kennedy, Kuttan Menon, William Panton, Gareth Pierce, Barry Stoyle, Andrew Thomas, Ann Wallace, and Anesta Weekes

(16) I can only speak of my own understanding of the Exchange. I suspect that my New York partners had a very clear understanding from the beginning.

(17) The meeting was arranged thanks to the personal request of Haywood Burns, then Dean of CUNY Law School. Dean Burns was a central figure in the life of the New York Exchange, admired, loved and respected by all who participated. His death in a car accident in South Africa in April 1996 was a terrible shock and his loss will be felt far beyond those who knew and loved him. A tribute to the richness of his life and work may be found in Ratner & Stein "W. Haywood Burns: To Be Of Use" 106(3) Yale Law Journal 753 (1996)

United Kingdom Journals

The New York Exchange: A Model of Reflective Work Experience?

Neil Kibble