XMethod Wiki - User contributions [en]

Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication

2026-09-15T16:38:13Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern workload and student communication. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article collects nine tracker records, all marked CONFIRMED, dated from 2026-05-04 to 2026-06-15. Six carry High severity ({{HU|HU-046}}, {{HU|HU-096}}, {{HU|HU-096a}}, {{HU|HU-096b}}, {{HU|HU-096c}}, {{HU|HU-116}}), two carry Medium severity ({{HU|HU-151}}, {{HU|HU-168d}}), and one carries Low severity ({{HU|HU-158}}). Recurring owners include the Program Chair, Academic Affairs, faculty in named courses, Admissions, the Dean of Nursing, and the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing.

One thread concerns enrollment misrepresentation and an unpredictable workload. {{HU|HU-046}} documents assurances given to prospective MSN-DE students that the program would not require synchronous activity during work hours, followed by mandatory Zoom sessions added mid-semester. {{HU|HU-096}} is the lead entry for a split cluster on extreme and unpredictable assignment workload, with sub-issues covering weekly volumes of roughly 90 to 100 assignments and up to 50 hours of classwork in a week ({{HU|HU-096a}}), 14 to 19 assignments posted and due the same evening with only hours of notice ({{HU|HU-096b}}), and students failed within the first three days of a class with no missing assignments ({{HU|HU-096c}}). {{HU|HU-116}} documents a current-semester instance of the same pattern, with 175 points of graded work added to Clinical IV Week 1 after the semester had begun and with no advance notice.

A second thread concerns communication process rather than workload volume. {{HU|HU-151}} documents a student left to infer his clinical schedule from an unresolved internal email exchange between staff, an arrangement the AVP acknowledged was a poor student experience. {{HU|HU-158}} documents the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing's ten-day unavailability immediately after she denied a retake request and the related case was closed. {{HU|HU-168d}} documents a faculty member's weeks-old notice about a deficient screenshot submission that was never resolved through a documented resubmission opportunity before a 0 was entered. Across both threads, the records show a pattern of students absorbing schedule and grading changes generated by internal institutional processes they were not equipped to interpret.

== Issues ==

=== HU-046: Multiple students confirmed receiving assurances from Herzing staff prior to enrollment that MSN-DE program would not require synchronous activities during work hours; mandatory Zooms added mid-semester ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Enrollment Misrepresentation / Mandatory Synchronous Requirement
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Admissions / Program Chair / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, multiple students confirmed receiving assurances from Herzing staff prior to enrollment that the MSN-DE program would not require synchronous (real-time) activities during work hours. Mandatory synchronous Zoom clinical sessions were nonetheless added mid-semester with little advance notice.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (March 3, 2025): Student CO reported three different calls with Herzing confirming Student CO would not be required to do things during work, yet five more mandatory Zooms during work hours had since been added. Student CS confirmed he was scheduled to work on four of the five mandatory Zoom days and had to find coverage. (Source Group: Multiple GroupMe Archives: Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.)

'''Reported statement.''' Student CO reported feeling frustrated that, despite three separate assurance calls from Herzing that work-hour activities would not be required, five more mandatory Zoom sessions had been added during work hours.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): institutions receiving federal Title IV funds may not make substantial misrepresentations about program requirements. Representing to prospective students that the program will not require work-time activities when mandatory synchronous sessions are subsequently required constitutes a potential misrepresentation of material program characteristics.

'''Impact.''' Students who enrolled based on representations that work schedules would not be disrupted were forced to use unpaid leave, reduce work hours, or risk clinical failures when mandatory synchronous sessions were scheduled during work hours with minimal notice.

'''Notes.''' The pattern of enrollment misrepresentation is documented across multiple cohorts and programs. This issue is distinct from {{HU|HU-022}} (WCAG compliance misrepresentation) but represents the same institutional pattern.


=== HU-096: Lead: extreme and unpredictable assignment workload (very high weekly volume incompatible with marketed flexibility, last-minute same-day postings, and early failures within three days of class start); see HU-096a, HU-096b, HU-096c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (workload volume, last-minute posting, early failure)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Faculty / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for an extreme and unpredictable assignment workload documented across cohorts. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-096a}} (weekly volumes of roughly 90 to 100 assignments, and up to 50 hours of classwork in a week, incompatible with the program's marketed flexibility and reported to prevent actual learning), {{HU|HU-096b}} (14 to 19 assignments posted and due the same evening with only hours of notice), and {{HU|HU-096c}} (students failed within the first three days of a class with no missing assignments, described as a weed-out structure). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Standards.''' See sub-issues.

'''Notes.''' One student reported the syllabus had not matched since the program started, meaning assignment volumes were not disclosed in advance. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-096}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-096a}}, {{HU|HU-096b}}, {{HU|HU-096c}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-077}} (80-20 self-teaching expectation), {{HU|HU-087}} (cohort attrition), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covers untaught content), {{HU|HU-095}} (two-fail dismissal).


=== HU-096a: Weekly assignment volumes of roughly 90 to 100 assignments, and up to 50 hours of classwork in a single week, incompatible with marketed flexibility and reported to prevent actual learning ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Unreasonable Workload Volume / Misrepresentation of Demands
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students across cohorts documented weekly assignment volumes of roughly 90 to 100 assignments and up to 50 hours of classwork in a single week, incompatible with the program's marketed flexibility for working adults. Students reported the volume prevented genuine learning, with one completing assessments by redoing them to a perfect score without reading the content and another reporting retaining nothing. One student reported leaving a corporate job for a CNA position because the workload was incompatible with full-time employment.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous member 985 (March 30, 2025); Anonymous member 395 (July 15, 2025); Anonymous member 732 (July 10, 2025) on 50 hours of classwork in a week; Student C (July 15, 2025); Student CD (July 15, 2025); Student CE (April 2, 2025) on roughly 40 assignments in a week and a syllabus that had not matched since the program started. (Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).)

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous member 985 reported completing over 90 assignments that week out of fear of missing something in a disorganized course structure, and stated there was no way to actually read through the material while still getting everything done on time.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 600.2 (credit-hour definition: credit hours must reflect a reasonable approximation of expected work); ACEN Standard 4 (curriculum must support meaningful learning); 34 C.F.R. 668.71-75 (misrepresentation, where a program is marketed as compatible with full-time employment while assigning far more work than disclosed). Lead: {{HU|HU-096}}.

'''Impact.''' Students completing assignments without reading content are not acquiring clinical competency, a downstream patient-safety concern; working students, the marketed demographic, are the most harmed.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-096}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-096b: 14 to 19 assignments posted and due the same evening, with students given only hours of notice ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Last-Minute Assignment Posting / Transparency
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students documented that 14 to 19 assignments were posted and due the same evening they were notified, having found out only just before class opened, leaving only hours to complete them.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous member 787 (July 10, 2025); Anonymous member (July 15, 2025) asking why an announcement gives students nearly 15 assignments the day before they are due. (Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).)

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous members reported that clinical started with 14 to 19 assignments due that same evening, and that they had found out about the assignments only just before class opened.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (assignment requirements must be clearly communicated and reasonably scheduled); 34 C.F.R. 600.2 (reasonable approximation of work). Lead: {{HU|HU-096}}.

'''Impact.''' Same-day posting with hours of notice prevents students, especially those with jobs, from planning their workload and sets them up to miss assignments through no fault of their own.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-096}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-096c: Students failed within the first three days of a class with no missing assignments, described by students as a weed-out structure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Early Course Failure / Weed-Out Concern
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students reported being failed within the first three days of a class with no missing assignments, and characterized the Clinical I structure as designed to weed out students.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous member 787 (July 10, 2025); Anonymous member 732 (July 10, 2025) confirming several people were failed in the first three days with no missing assignments; Anonymous member 137 (July 9, 2025) characterizing Clinical I as made to weed out students. (Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).)

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous members reported that several people were failed from a class within the first three days with no missing assignments at all, and one described the Clinical I semester as structured to weed out students.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (fair and transparent academic standards); 34 C.F.R. 668.71-75 (misrepresentation, if the structure is designed to reduce enrollment rather than promote learning). Lead: {{HU|HU-096}}. See {{HU|HU-087}} (attrition), {{HU|HU-095}} (two-fail dismissal).

'''Impact.''' Failing students within three days for reasons unrelated to missing assignments, if part of a weed-out structure, contributes to documented high attrition and significant financial losses.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-096}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-116: Two assignments added to Clinical IV (NSG621) Week 1 mid-week after semester start; Student J alerted cohort via GroupMe Saturday; adds 175 points of graded work (100 pt Clinical Application Activity + 75 pt Clinical Application Quiz) to an already-loaded Week 1; extends HU-096 with current-semester documented instance ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Week Assignment Addition / No Advance Notice
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | NSG621 Faculty / Program Chair / Dr. Tressler / Dr. Prashad
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student J posted in the Herzing MSN-DE cohort GroupMe on a Saturday alerting the cohort that two more assignments had been added to Clinical IV Week 1. The accompanying Canvas screenshot of NSG621 (Clinical IV: Role of the Acute Care Nurse) Week 1 shows the following assignments all due May 10: Unit 1: Student Professionalism Agreement (0 pts), Unit 1: Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement (0 pts), Unit 1 Medical-Surgical Clinical Application Activity (100 pts), and Unit 1 Clinical Application Quiz (75 pts). The two newly added assignments represent 175 points of graded work dropped into Week 1 after the semester had already begun, with no advance notice to students. This is a current-semester instance of the pattern documented in {{HU|HU-096}} (14 to 19 assignments posted same day due; students failed within three days of class start; assignments added without notice). The GroupMe post received two heart reactions, indicating multiple students were affected. Student E and Student J are also discussing October 9 graduation walk dates in the same thread, confirming both are in a final or near-final semester cohort.

'''Evidence.''' GroupMe message from Student J (Saturday, May 2026, 11:57 AM). Student J shared a Canvas screenshot showing the NSG621 Unit 1 assignment list: Unit 1: Discussion - Introduction (May 6, 5 pts); Unit 1: Student Professionalism Agreement (May 10, 0 pts); Unit 1: Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement (May 10, 0 pts); Unit 1 Medical-Surgical Clinical Application Activity (May 10, 100 pts); Unit 1 Clinical Application Quiz (May 10, 75 pts). The post received two heart reactions from cohort members. (Source Group: GroupMe, Herzing MSN-DE Cohort Chat, Saturday, May 2026; Canvas NSG621 Assignment List Screenshot provided by Student J.)

'''Reported statement.''' Student J alerted the cohort that two more assignments had been added to Clinical IV Week 1.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §600.2 (credit hour): course assignments must be disclosed in advance so students can plan their workload; mid-week addition of graded assignments violates reasonable notice expectations. ACEN Standard 4: curriculum must be organized and communicated clearly to students. Adding 175 points of graded assignments (100 pt plus 75 pt) to an already-running week without advance notice is inconsistent with any reasonable syllabus disclosure standard. The NSG525 (Clinical II / Med-Surg I) Week 1 quiz issues documented in {{HU|HU-112}} and the NSG621 (Clinical IV) mid-week assignment additions documented here both occur in Week 1 of the same semester (May 2026), establishing that the pattern of last-minute assignment additions spans multiple concurrent courses in the same week.

'''Impact.''' Students who planned their Week 1 workload based on the original assignment list must now absorb 175 additional points of graded work, including a 100-point Clinical Application Activity and a 75-point Clinical Application Quiz, with reduced preparation time. In a program where the three-day discussion board rule ({{HU|HU-099}}) already penalizes students for timing, and where students document 90 to 100 assignments per week ({{HU|HU-096}}), mid-week additions with May 10 deadlines give students only the remaining days of the week to complete substantial graded work. The May 10 deadline (Sunday) for all new assignments suggests an extremely compressed completion window from the Saturday alert.

'''Notes.''' Student J is also documented in {{HU|HU-086}} (open-book test-outs) and other Facebook archive entries as an active, credible cohort voice. The October 9 graduation walk date context (Student E and Student J both walking October 9) places this in the Spring 2026 semester for students in a late clinical cohort. This instance should be cross-referenced with {{HU|HU-096}} (extreme workload / last-minute posting), {{HU|HU-089}} (workload incompatibility with employment), and {{HU|HU-113}} (duplicate work same week in NSG525). All three document Week 1, same semester, same student population.


=== HU-151: Student CC'd on unresolved staff email back-and-forth and replanned his schedule off non-final messages; AVP acknowledged poor student experience ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Student Looped Into Internal Back-and-Forth / Mistook Non-Final Emails for Instructions
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Tiffany Poyner (Ascension clinical placement coordinator)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, in the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student explained that he had been copied on an email back-and-forth between the professor (Troy Frazier), the professor's supervisor, and the Ascension clinical placement coordinator (Tiffany), and that he kept adjusting his schedule to what he believed were instructions, when in fact the staff were still working out the schedule among themselves. He stated he only realized, after reading the chain the night before and using ChatGPT to interpret the context, that the messages were internal coordination rather than directives to him. Dr. Danielle Laban acknowledged this was not a good student experience and was so confusing, and said she would share feedback with Dr. Rachel Powell that, going forward, copying students on that back-and-forth should be avoided. This documents a communication-process failure in which the student was left to infer his obligations from internal staff emails.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student described being cc'd in email communication with the professor, his supervisor, and the clinical placement coordinator while they were still figuring out the schedule among themselves, and stated he kept adjusting to different times as he understood them from the exchange. He said he would have preferred to be told the time and days directly rather than seeing that worked out over email, and that after entering the chain into ChatGPT for context, he learned the clinical coordinator at Ascension and the professor were still figuring things out while he was being cc'd and making his own plans without realizing that context. Dr. Danielle Laban stated she would work to prevent that back-and-forth happening with students cc'd, said she did not think that was a good student experience and that overall it was confusing, and said the reporting student could share that feedback with Rachel. (Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I am being cc'd on all these emails, making my plans not realizing [the staff were still] figuring all that out.</blockquote><blockquote>[Laban]: I do not think that is a good student experience, overall it is so confusing.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must communicate clearly with students regarding their academic obligations. Copying a student on unresolved internal scheduling negotiations, such that the student mistakes draft coordination for instructions, is a communication-process failure. The AVP's acknowledgment that this is not a good student experience confirms the concern. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-148}}, {{HU|HU-149}}.

'''Impact.''' Because the reporting student could not distinguish internal coordination from directives, he repeatedly changed his plans based on non-final information, compounding the schedule instability and planning burden. The reliance on an outside tool (ChatGPT) to interpret institutional emails underscores that the communication was not clear on its face.

'''Notes.''' Tiffany identified as Tiffany Poyner, the Ascension (Via Christi St. Joseph) clinical placement coordinator referenced in {{HU|HU-135}}. Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP) committed to relay feedback to Dr. Rachel Powell to stop CC-ing students on the back-and-forth. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-148}}, {{HU|HU-149}}, {{HU|HU-135}}. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).


=== HU-158: Dean of Prelicensure Nursing Dr. Stephanie Black, the official who reviewed and denied the Fundamentals final retake, is out on PTO until Monday 6/15 per an automatic reply to the CARES follow-up ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Low
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Decision-Maker Unavailable for Follow-Up Immediately After Denial / Case Closure
! Date added
| 2026-06-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, an automatic reply from Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, sent in response to the CARES Case: Follow-up thread on June 5, 2026, stated that she is out of the office on PTO and will respond as soon as possible upon her return on Monday 6/15. Dr. Black is the official identified in the CARES follow-up as having reviewed and denied the reporting student's Fundamentals final retake request ({{HU|HU-155}}). Her unavailability until June 15 means that, at the same time the CARES case was closed ({{HU|HU-157}}) and the retake was denied, the decision-maker who made that determination is not available for follow-up for roughly ten days. This is logged as a low-severity availability and timing concern: the student cannot readily seek clarification or reconsideration from the deciding official during that window.

'''Evidence.''' Automatic reply, Stephanie Black (June 5, 2026), signed Stephanie Black RN, DNP, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, steblack@herzing.edu, subject line "Automatic reply: [EXTERNAL] Re: CARES Case: Follow-up." (Source: Automatic reply from Stephanie Black, June 5, 2026. Source Group: Automatic reply email from Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) in response to the CARES Case: Follow-up thread, June 5, 2026; provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I am out of the office on PTO. I will respond to your message as soon as possible upon my return on Monday 6/15.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' General responsiveness and complaint-handling expectations: where a decision-maker denies a student request and the related case is closed, the student should have a reasonably timely avenue for clarification or appeal. A roughly ten-day unavailability of the deciding official, coinciding with case closure, is logged as a minor timing concern rather than a violation. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-155}} (Black denied the retake), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES closure), {{HU|HU-135}} (a prior instance of an ADA/Title IX coordinator being out of office around a key deadline).

'''Impact.''' The reporting student cannot promptly seek clarification or reconsideration of the denied retake from Dr. Black until June 15, during the same period the CARES case was closed. The practical effect is a delay in any follow-up on the denial. Severity is low because the unavailability itself is routine PTO; the concern is the timing relative to the denial and closure.

'''Notes.''' Confirms Dr. Stephanie Black's full title and contact: Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, steblack@herzing.edu. Pattern note: this is the second documented instance of a key official being unavailable around a critical juncture (compare {{HU|HU-135}}, Emilie Thompson out of office before the clinical start). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-155}}, {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-135}}. Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-158}}).


=== HU-168d: Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated in her June 15 email that she had sent an email weeks earlier about the required screenshot not showing the exam date as instructed, but no documented resubmission opportunity or deadline extension was established before the exam was graded at 0 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Weeks-Old Screenshot-Requirement Notification Not Resolved Before Grade Entry
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, in her June 15 email, Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated that she had sent an email weeks earlier regarding the screenshot upload requirement: the screenshot submitted by the reporting student did not show the date of the exam as instructed on the assignment. Despite this weeks-old communication, no documented resubmission opportunity, corrective deadline, or grace period appears to have been established before Dr. Brown entered the 0 on June 15. The HESI report confirms the exam was taken on June 13, 2026, before the June 14 due date. The assignment required a screenshot showing the exam date as a separate deliverable from the Elsevier score. The student apparently submitted a screenshot but it did not satisfy the date-visibility requirement. The absence of a documented opportunity to correct and resubmit this administrative deliverable before the 0 was recorded is a fair-process concern.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Tanetshia Brown email (6/15/2026 1:13 PM). (Source Group: Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I also sent you am email weeks ago about uploading the date that you were planning to take the exam as the screenshot that you uploaded did not show the date of the exam as instructed on the assignment.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (fair and clearly communicated academic standards and processes); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability). Where an instructor is aware weeks in advance that a deliverable is deficient but a 0 is entered without an opportunity to cure, the process raises a fairness and notice concern, particularly where the underlying exam was completed and scored at the maximum Conversion Score. Lead: {{HU|HU-168}}.

'''Impact.''' The 0 on a 100-point assignment for a weeks-old unresolved screenshot issue, rather than for non-completion of the exam, is the proximate cause of the 69-percentage-point course grade drop documented in {{HU|HU-168c}}.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-168}} (lead). CONFIRMED that the weeks-old notification existed (per Dr. Brown's email) and that the 0 was entered without a documented resubmission opportunity. Whether the reporting student received and had the opportunity to act on the prior email is not established from the available evidence; the concern is documented at the institutional process level. Documented 2026-06-15.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing

2026-09-15T16:38:12Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern student withdrawal patterns, program retention, and the wellbeing of students working through the MSN-DE program. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers seven tracker entries, all rated High severity and all CONFIRMED: {{HU|HU-014}}, {{HU|HU-023}}, {{HU|HU-073}} (split into {{HU|HU-073a}} and {{HU|HU-073b}}), {{HU|HU-087}}, and {{HU|HU-095}}. The entries were added between 2026-04-30 and 2026-05-05, with {{HU|HU-073}} split into its two sub-issues on 2026-06-06. The underlying evidence spans a wider window, from student emails in late 2025 back through Facebook group posts dated as early as June 2023, and forward to member posts through early 2026.

Two entries, {{HU|HU-014}} and {{HU|HU-023}}, document a single reporting student's own wellbeing crisis: a documented inability to succeed under the program's structure, an investigated but impractical transfer, and a pattern of inter-departmental communication failures that left the student acting as the liaison between clinical faculty, the ADA coordinator, and appeals staff. The remaining five entries trace a broader retention pattern across the wider student body: a cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing while citing systemic failures rather than academic difficulty ({{HU|HU-073a}}), the ethics committee's non-response to a formal five-page complaint and a four-month re-entry delay ({{HU|HU-073b}}), cohort attrition documented at 63 to 71 percent with NCLEX pass rates calculated only on the students who remained ({{HU|HU-087}}), and a two-fail dismissal policy paired with a rigid 80 percent threshold that compounds financial harm ({{HU|HU-095}}).

The recurring owners across this topic are the Dean of Nursing, Academic Affairs, Student Retention, the Ethics Committee, the Provost, Student Services, Institutional Research, and the Registrar. The entries cross reference each other heavily, and several also point outward to appeals handling, complaint investigation, faculty instruction, grading, and financial aid, indicating that the withdrawal and retention pattern is treated in the tracker as downstream of failures documented elsewhere.

== Issues ==

=== HU-014: The reporting student documented systemic inability to succeed; investigated transferring; academic crisis in Fall 2025 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Ethical Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Services / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student documented a systemic inability to succeed in the program, investigated transferring to another institution, and experienced an academic crisis in Fall 2025.

'''Evidence.''' Student email (2025-10-10): "I do not believe that I can be successful with the way the setup is at the moment." The reporting student investigated transferring to another institution and found it would require moving states and adding three semesters. Source group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I'm trying to be as respectful as possible, but I have to tell you that this university is stressing me out and I have never experienced anything like this since I've been in college and I have gone to many different schools and completed eight different college programs.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Mission: "educate, support, and empower all students for success." ACEN Standard 5: student learning environment must be supportive. A student expressing systemic barriers to success warrants a documented institutional response and support plan.

'''Impact.''' A student with documented disabilities experiencing systemic program barriers, consistent communication failures, and compounded stress. The pattern poses risk of academic harm and potential attrition.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student also requested an IT loaner laptop for exam support in October 2025. Associate Dean Steele said he would check, but the outcome is unconfirmed in available evidence.


=== HU-023: Documented pattern of inter-departmental communication failures requiring student to act as liaison between university departments ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Systemic Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Program Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, a documented pattern of inter-departmental communication failures required the student to act as liaison between university departments.

'''Evidence.''' Student email to Dr. Laban (2026-04-10): "I'm constantly having to do the communication between staff members because things are not being properly communicated." Source group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>My point is that I'm constantly having to engage in communication because I feel like different departments at the university are not communicating with each other and that adds a significant amount of stress to me as a student. I should be able to login, do my coursework, have my appropriate assignments, and take my exams without fault.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5; ADA duty of care. Inter-departmental communication failures that place the burden on the student, particularly a student with multiple documented disabilities, constitute a systemic institutional failure. ADA requires proactive institutional coordination, not reactive student advocacy.

'''Impact.''' The student was required to explain his own accommodation status and disability services communications to faculty, appeals staff, and the clinical team repeatedly. This adds documented burden to a student with anxiety, panic disorder, and cognitive disabilities.

'''Notes.''' Specific documented failures: (1) a clinical professor unaware the student needed an incomplete; (2) the ADA coordinator unaware of the screen reader situation; (3) appeals staff unaware of the accommodation details. This is described as a systemic, not isolated, issue.


=== HU-073: Lead: two distinct retention and grievance problems (a cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing over systemic issues, and the ethics committee's non-response to a formal complaint); see HU-073a, HU-073b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Ethics Committee / Provost / Student Retention
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for two distinct problems documented in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group export: {{HU|HU-073a}}, a cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing while citing systemic program failures rather than academic difficulty, and {{HU|HU-073b}}, the ethics committee's non-response to a five-page formal complaint, and a re-entry process that told a returning student to wait four more months. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-073}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-073}} resolve to this lead. Verification recommended: institutional withdrawal data, GPA-at-withdrawal statistics, and ethics committee response rates. Involves multiple withdrawing students (Student M, Student BA, Student BB, and others), documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-073a}}, {{HU|HU-073b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-014}}, {{HU|HU-016}} (unmonitored appeals inbox), {{HU|HU-067}} (EthicsPoint investigation adequacy), {{HU|HU-077}} (no response to withdrawal complaints).


=== HU-073a: Cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing while citing systemic failures ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Retention Indicator: High-GPA Students Withdrawing Over Systemic Issues
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Student Retention / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, multiple students with strong records withdrew citing systemic program failures rather than academic difficulty: Student M (withdrew September 2024 with a 3.6 to 3.7 GPA), Student BA (withdrew with A's), Student BB (dropped the second cohort and transferred to a local program), an anonymous student lost because no clinical placement could be secured, and a report of at least three drops in a few weeks between 2023 and 2025.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook posts: Student M (September 26, 2024) describing withdrawing with A's and a 3.6 GPA after teaching himself the material amid platform and organization failures; Student BA (September 27, 2024) describing withdrawing with A's; an anonymous post (June 20, 2023) that a student was lost because no clinical placement could be secured; Student AJ (July 12, 2023) reporting at least three drops in recent weeks; Student BB (July 12, 2023) confirming she dropped the second cohort.

'''Reported statement.''' One withdrawing student states that despite earning A's, the constant errors, the read the directions comments, and the 80-20 comment made the program impossible to continue with, and that paying for the program should not mean having to independently find 80 percent of the information.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: students must have retention support; a pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing rather than failing is itself a retention indicator that should trigger institutional review. Lead: {{HU|HU-073}}. Compare {{HU|HU-014}}, {{HU|HU-045}}.

'''Impact.''' Students were left with significant loan debt and no degree; cross-cohort consistency from 2023 to 2025 indicates persistent rather than resolved issues.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-073}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Involves Student M, Student BA, Student BB, and others, documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-073b: Ethics committee non-response to a five-page complaint, and a four-month re-entry delay ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Grievance Process Failure: Non-Response to Formal Complaint
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Ethics Committee / Dean of Nursing / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student M wrote a five-page complaint to the ethics committee and received no response after three weeks; the institution did not respond to a single concern at withdrawal and had no retention process; when later invited back, he was told he would have to appeal and wait four more months, and he declined after spending about 27,000 dollars with nothing to show.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook posts by Student M: October 20, 2024, stating he wrote a five-page complaint to the ethics committee with no response after three weeks and that Herzing did not respond to a single concern at withdrawal; February 14, 2025, stating he went back through re-entry only to be told he would need to appeal and wait four more months, and that he was about 27,000 dollars in with nothing to show.

'''Reported statement.''' Student M states that he wrote a five-page complaint to the ethics committee and received no response after three weeks, and that Herzing did not respond to a single concern when he withdrew and put no retention effort into place.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 602.16: accreditation requires institutional response to student grievances. Non-response to a formal five-page complaint reflects a grievance-procedure failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-073}}. Parallel to {{HU|HU-016}}, {{HU|HU-067}}, {{HU|HU-077}}.

'''Impact.''' Failure to respond to formal complaints prevents systemic learning and leaves documented financial harm uncorrected.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-073}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Concerns Student M, documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-087: Cohort attrition documented at 63-71% for Cohorts 1 and 2; NCLEX pass rates calculated on survivors only, artificially inflating reported outcomes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Cohort Attrition / Outcome Reporting
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Institutional Research / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student AJ (January 24, 2025) reported that many cohorts went from 70-plus students down to the 20s. Student AY (January 26, 2025) reported that the program's high success rates reflect only the 26 of more than 70 students who made it. Anonymous member 638 (December 31, 2025) reported that the HESI pass rate reflects only the few students who actually take it, and that applying the actual pass-fail rate across the full cohort would deter enrollment. Student V (September 14, 2024) documented more than 90 students entering Cohort 3, down to 50 by semester five or six, approximately 44 percent attrition. The highest documented attrition, for Cohorts 1 and 2, is 63 to 71 percent. This significantly extends {{HU|HU-073}}.

'''Evidence.''' Student AJ (January 24, 2025): cohorts went from 70-plus students down to the 20s, so a high NCLEX pass rate does not mean high student success, and the programs are getting bigger without more help for held-back students. Student AY (January 26, 2025): the high success rate is based on the 26 of more than 70 who made it. Anonymous member 638 (December 31, 2025): the HESI pass rate reflects only the few students who actually take it, and applying the actual pass-fail rate across the cohort would deter enrollment. Student V (September 14, 2024): roughly 90 students entering first semester, down to around 50. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AJ states that many cohorts dropped from more than 70 students to the 20s, so a high NCLEX pass rate does not reflect a high student success rate. Student AY states that the reported high success rate reflects only the 26 of more than 70 students who made it through.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR Section 668.41 (institutional disclosures): institutions must report graduation and completion rates accurately. IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey: completion rates must be calculated on a cohort basis, not a survivor basis. 34 CFR Sections 668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): reporting NCLEX pass rates calculated only on students who reached NCLEX, without disclosing that 63 to 71 percent of enrolled students never reached it, constitutes a potential misrepresentation of program outcomes. HLC Criteria for Accreditation 4A: institutions must demonstrate student achievement data including completion and graduation rates. ACEN Standard 6: program outcomes must include completion rates; if 63 to 71 percent of students do not complete the program, this is a required outcome reporting element.

'''Impact.''' Prospective students and their families make enrollment decisions based on advertised NCLEX pass rates. If those rates are calculated on the 26 to 37 percent of students who survive to NCLEX rather than the full enrolled cohort, they significantly misrepresent the program's actual educational effectiveness. The gap between advertised outcomes and actual completion rates affects financial planning (Grad Plus loans, {{HU|HU-048}}) and career expectations. Anonymous member 638's observation that the pass rate reflects only the few students who actually take the exam identifies the core methodological issue.

'''Notes.''' This issue extends {{HU|HU-073}} (withdrawal pattern) with quantitative attrition data. Verification recommended: IPEDS graduation rate data for Herzing's MSN-DE program, and specific cohort enrollment and completion numbers from institutional records. The expansion of cohort sizes, which Student AJ describes as the programs getting bigger and bigger, while maintaining the same resource structure increases systemic pressure on remaining students and compounds all other documented issues.


=== HU-095: Two-fail dismissal policy with 4-month delay per failure; re-entry appeal process documented as opaque; Student M lost $27,000 with no degree; 79.8% fails as completely as 60% ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Academic Standing Policy / Financial Harm
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs / Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the MSN-DE program enforces a two-fail dismissal policy: any student who fails two courses is dismissed from the program and must file an appeal for reinstatement. Each individual course failure results in a four-month delay because students must wait for the next cohort cycle to retake the failed course. Student BI (August 24, 2025) reported that only two fails are allowed before dismissal. The 80 percent passing threshold means a 79.8 percent grade, which would pass at nearly every other institution, fails completely at Herzing, triggering the four-month delay. An anonymous student (August 24, 2025) documented ending a course at exactly 79.8 percent and being told by both the professor and Dr. Prashad that nothing could be done. Student M documented investing approximately 27,000 dollars in the program with nothing to show for it: credits that do not transfer, no degree, and dismissal. Anonymous member 812 confirmed it is basically impossible for nursing credits to transfer elsewhere.

'''Evidence.''' Student BI (August 24, 2025): a fail sets a student back a semester (four months) and requires retaking the class, and only two fails are allowed before dismissal. Anonymous member (August 24, 2025): ending a class with a 79.8 percent and asking whether anything could be done, calling failing by 0.2 percent crushing. Anonymous member (August 27, 2025): emailed Dr. Prashad, who also said nothing could be done. Student AV (August 24, 2025): the grade is the grade, no extra credit given. Anonymous member 469 (August 24, 2025): was not offered extra credit with a similar score and failed. Anonymous member 989 (August 24, 2025): during their first semester, instructors were giving a few extra points on assignments so students could get over 80. Student M (September 2024): documented 27,000 dollar investment, no degree, credits not transferable. Anonymous member 331 (April 4, 2026), on failing NSG 635 twice: believes the student would be withdrawn from the program and would have to submit an appeal to be reinstated. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BI states that failing a course sets a student back a semester and that only two fails are allowed before dismissal from the program. An anonymous member states that during their first semester, some instructors added a few extra points to assignments so students could reach the 80 percent threshold.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR Sections 668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): if prospective students are not clearly informed of the two-fail dismissal policy and the non-transferability of credits, they cannot make an informed enrollment decision. Contract law principles in higher education (Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410, 7th Cir. 1992): students invest substantial funds in reliance on the program's representation that completion leads to a credential; dismissal without a degree and non-transferable credits may constitute a breach of the implicit enrollment contract. Consumer protection principles: a student who invests 27,000 dollars and is dismissed with no credential and no transferable credits has suffered material financial harm. The inconsistency in grade-bump availability, with some students receiving instructor-added points to clear the 80 percent threshold and others being denied, constitutes unequal treatment under the same academic policy.

'''Impact.''' Student M lost 27,000 dollars, has no degree, and holds non-transferable credits. Each fail carries a four-month delay plus a full semester's tuition cost (approximately 12,465 dollars per term based on documented rates). A student who fails two courses faces potential total financial loss of their entire investment with no credential. The 79.8 percent scenario, where a fraction of a point determines a 12,465 dollar retake fee and a four-month delay, is particularly severe. The inconsistent enforcement of grade-bump availability (some instructors grant it, others do not, Dr. Prashad denied it) means the outcome of a borderline grade depends on which instructor a student happens to have, arbitrary rather than policy-driven. This compounds {{HU|HU-060}} (500 dollar course retake fee, which may be in addition to tuition).

'''Notes.''' The two-fail policy interacts with every other documented issue: platform-caused grade errors ({{HU|HU-082}}, {{HU|HU-075}}) can trigger fails; NI contracts issued in error ({{HU|HU-091}}) can trigger fails; HESI content covering untaught material ({{HU|HU-088}}) can trigger fails; milestones elimination with no retake ({{HU|HU-083}}) can trigger fails. Each of these institutionally caused failure modes can contribute to a student's fail count, potentially triggering dismissal for failures not attributable to academic performance. The inconsistent grade-bump practice also warrants scrutiny. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-048}} (financial aid cap), {{HU|HU-060}} ($500 retake fee), {{HU|HU-073}} (high-GPA withdrawals and financial harm), {{HU|HU-087}} (cohort attrition).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms

2026-09-15T16:38:11Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern the learning management system, the Sherpath and Realizeit academic platforms, third-party assessment tools (EAQ, HESI, ProctorU), compliance and clinical-scheduling integrations, and the Canvas/Instructure security incident. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article gathers 32 tracker entries dated from April 30, 2026 through June 15, 2026. All 32 are CONFIRMED except one lettered sub-issue, {{HU|HU-120c}}, which is marked POSSIBLE pending verification, and the {{HU|HU-169}} cluster of four entries, which is recorded evidence-first as a reported and unverified corroborating account. By severity, the set includes 4 Critical entries, 22 High entries, and 6 Medium entries. The Critical entries are the Spring 2025 mass grade transfer crisis ({{HU|HU-082}}) and the three-part Canvas/Instructure ShinyHunters breach cluster ({{HU|HU-120}}, {{HU|HU-120a}}, {{HU|HU-120b}}).

Three recurring threads run through the set. The first is chronic unreliability in the Elsevier-owned academic platforms that carry most of the MSN-DE coursework: Sherpath's repeated failures to load lessons, preserve completed work, and transfer grades to Canvas ({{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-075}}, {{HU|HU-082}}, {{HU|HU-129}}); its predecessor Realizeit's grade-recording and exam-format problems ({{HU|HU-076}}, {{HU|HU-076a}}, {{HU|HU-076b}}); and the Elsevier Adaptive Quizzing (EAQ) content and grade-conversion errors ({{HU|HU-100}}). The second is a cluster of NSG525 Week 1 content and remediation failures in May 2026, including duplicate quiz answer choices, incorrect clinical units, empty required assignments, and a burden-shifting remediation ({{HU|HU-112}}, {{HU|HU-112a}}, {{HU|HU-112b}}, {{HU|HU-112c}}, {{HU|HU-122}}). The third, and most extensively documented, is the June 2026 NSG523 HESI Exam 1 score-transmission failure: a completed exam invisible to the instructor in Elsevier's Evolve system for over 51 hours, a 0/100 grade and a 69-percentage-point course grade swing, a resolution that depended on the student producing his own proof, and two successive IT closures that declined to identify a root cause ({{HU|HU-168}} through {{HU|HU-173}}), corroborated by a second student's account of the same failure pattern across two other courses ({{HU|HU-169}} cluster).

Ownership recurs across the IT Department, Academic Affairs, and vendor management for Elsevier and Sherpath, with individual entries also naming Instructure, the CISO, named adjunct faculty (Dr. Tanetshia Brown, Dr. Ashley Jennings, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Stacey Gombar), and the IT Service Desk (Andrew Cox). Two entries fall outside the platform-reliability and grading pattern: {{HU|HU-001}}, an enrollment-side Canvas provisioning gap at the start of the program, and {{HU|HU-043}}, the loss of a clinical instructor and course announcements on the first day of Clinical IV.

== Issues ==

=== HU-001: Canvas LMS account not auto-provisioned at enrollment; required manual creation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Enrollment
|}
'''Finding.''' Canvas LMS account not auto-provisioned at enrollment; required manual creation.

'''Evidence.''' INC0479039 (2025-07-14); IT staff notation; enrollment emails to [email redacted] dated July 14, 2025.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I'm not sure why your account wasn't created automatically. I added it manually... I'm going to get this ticket escalated to get the rest of your initial enrollments processed. Sorry for the inconvenience!</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.5 states students are expected to access LMS from program start. Enrollment systems failure contradicts published student access expectations.

'''Impact.''' Delayed access to orientation, initial courses, and required onboarding materials. Risk of missed deadlines at program start.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student filed INC0479039. Account created manually by Myrddin Emrys. Course enrollments required secondary ticket to fully resolve.


=== HU-041: Sherpath academic platform (Elsevier) experienced chronic and recurring failures throughout 2025-2026 academic year ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Systemic Platform Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management (Elsevier/Sherpath)
|}
'''Finding.''' The Sherpath academic platform (Elsevier) experienced chronic and recurring failures throughout the 2025-2026 academic year, including failure to load lessons, displaying completed assignments as incomplete, losing student work, and kicking students out mid-assignment.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (multiple dates, September 2025 to April 2026): Students reported Sherpath failures on at least 10 separate occasions. Student C (February 25, 2026) reported being kicked out of the platform mid-quiz immediately after clicking next. Student C (January 14, 2026) reported that a full week of completed Sherpath work had reverted to showing as past due, as if never done.

'''Reported statement.''' Student C stated that reaching out to Sherpath support was a lost cause, reported that a full week of completed Sherpath work had reverted to showing as past due as though never submitted, and later noted that Sherpath support did manage to locate a missing lab pass.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology resources must support student learning. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794d): digital learning platforms must be accessible and functional. Handbook p.5: students cannot be penalized for institutional technology failure.

'''Impact.''' Recurring Sherpath failures caused anxiety, required students to redo work, resulted in assignments incorrectly marked as incomplete, and placed students at risk of grade penalties for institutionally caused platform failures.

'''Notes.''' Sherpath is the primary academic platform for nursing coursework, EAQs, and simulation activities. Its repeated failure represents a foundational infrastructure concern. See also {{HU|HU-001}} and {{HU|HU-044}}.


=== HU-043: At start of Clinical IV (May 4, 2026), multiple students' course appeared with instructor (Professor Celia) who then disappeared along with all course announcements ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap / Student Communication Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' At the start of Clinical IV (May 4, 2026), multiple students' course appeared with an instructor (Professor Celia) who then disappeared along with all course announcements; students had no assigned instructor at the start of a clinical course.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (May 4, 2026): Student AG, Student BD, Student BC, and Student C all confirmed their Clinical IV instructor had disappeared and announcements were deleted. Student CU asked whether anyone else had Beasley, noting her announcement from the previous day had disappeared overnight. Student J noted that the professor seen that morning was no longer listed on the course, and the announcement was gone with her.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CU and Student J described the clinical instructor's announcement disappearing overnight and expressed frustration that the professor who had posted that morning was no longer listed on the course, taking the announcement away along with the instructor.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: faculty must be sufficient in number and qualified; students must have consistent, accessible faculty for program courses. Handbook p.18 Chain of Communication. Losing a clinical course instructor on the first day of the semester, with no advance notice and deleted announcements, deprives students of the orientation, syllabus, and clinical expectations they need to begin clinical safely.

'''Impact.''' Students beginning Clinical IV had no instructor on day one, no access to course announcements, and no ability to email the prior instructor through Canvas. The loss of a clinical instructor at the start of a clinical course creates both academic and patient safety risks.

'''Notes.''' This occurred on May 4, 2026, the first day of the next semester. Multiple students in the GroupMe noted confusion about assignments and whether they had Sherpath requirements. The faculty transition was handled with no advance communication.


=== HU-075: Sherpath grade transfer failures caused actual course failures in Spring 2025 cohort; multiple students appealing failures attributable to platform errors rather than academic performance ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Platform-Caused Course Failures
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management (Elsevier/Sherpath) / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The Sherpath platform's failure to correctly transfer grades to Canvas, combined with grades being changed in Canvas without explanation, caused multiple students in the Spring 2025 MSN-DE cohort to fail courses and be required to file appeals. This represents a substantial escalation of {{HU|HU-041}}: where {{HU|HU-041}} documented platform reliability failures and student anxiety, this issue documents actual academic harm (course failures) traceable to the same platform issues.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student D (Apr 26, 2025), Spring 2025 cohort student: constant issues with grades not transferring to Canvas, grades transferring incorrectly, and course grades frequently changed with no explanation, with several cohort members reporting a course failure attributable to the issue and pursuing appeals. Student D (Feb 20, 2025): described course grades changing daily due to technology problems, completed assignments recorded as zeros, and students spending an ungodly amount of time managing the failures to protect data integrity. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D described constant problems with grades not transferring to Canvas or transferring incorrectly, course grades changing with no explanation, and said several cohort members reported failing a class because of the issue and were pursuing appeals; Student D also described grades changing daily and completed assignments being recorded as zeros, requiring students to spend excessive time managing the technology failures to protect their academic standing.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology resources must support student learning; institutionally caused platform failures cannot fairly be the basis for course failure. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794d): digital learning platforms must be accessible and functional. Handbook p.20 (grade appeal procedures). Due process principles in higher education (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961)): students must have meaningful access to academic integrity in the grading system. 34 CFR §668.14: institutional administrative capability requires functional grading infrastructure.

'''Impact.''' Students who failed courses due to Sherpath grade transfer errors face academic probation, required course retakes (with $500 fees per {{HU|HU-060}}), delayed graduation, extended tuition costs, and potential financial aid eligibility impact ({{HU|HU-048}} GradPLUS rule, {{HU|HU-059}} aid cap). The institution's burden-shifting posture, requiring students to file appeals to correct institutionally caused failures, places the cost of platform errors on the students rather than the institution or vendor. The compound effect of Sherpath failures plus the {{HU|HU-074}} escalated HESI weighting (where 82% of course grade depends on HESI exams that themselves depend on Sherpath integration) means platform failures can cascade into course failures with no recoverable remedy.

'''Notes.''' This issue is a direct extension of {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath chronic platform failures) with new evidence of actual academic harm. The Spring 2025 cohort represents a particularly severe case because it coincided with the rollout of Sherpath as the primary platform replacing Realizeit ({{HU|HU-076}}). Verification: institutional records of Spring 2025 grade appeals, the categorization of those appeals (academic vs. platform-error), and resolution outcomes. The combination of {{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-057}} (duplicate Sherpath assignments), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content), and this issue constitutes a comprehensive vendor management failure with documented student harm.


=== HU-076: Lead: the predecessor Realizeit LMS produced two distinct failures (grades not recorded despite completion, and a question format that did not match HESI/NCLEX); see HU-076a, HU-076b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for two distinct failures of the predecessor Realizeit LMS (used before Sherpath), documented in the Facebook group export: {{HU|HU-076a}} (Realizeit failed to record grades despite student screenshots of completion, requiring repeated IT escalation) and {{HU|HU-076b}} (Realizeit question format did not match the HESI/NCLEX style of the high-stakes exams). These are a separate predecessor platform, not a subset of the Sherpath issues. See each sub-issue.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-076}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-076}} resolve to this lead. The transition from Realizeit to Sherpath did not resolve LMS failures. Reported by Student AZ, Student AY, and others (2022 to 2024 cohorts); documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-076a}}, {{HU|HU-076b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath LMS failures), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath incorrect content), {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weighting).


=== HU-076a: Realizeit failed to record grades despite screenshots of completion, requiring repeated IT escalation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| LMS Failure: Grades Not Recorded Despite Completion
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management
|}
'''Finding.''' On Realizeit, a student's grade would not record, showing the quiz as not done (0/0) even though the student had screenshots proving completion, requiring back and forth with IT to fix; the student reported that numerous students had the same issue (September 27, 2023).

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student AZ (September 27, 2023): when she first started, Realizeit would not record her grade and kept saying she did not do the quiz (0/0) although she had screenshots that she did, and she had to go back and forth with IT to fix it; numerous students had the same issues.

'''Reported statement.''' Student AZ reported that when she first started using Realizeit, the platform would not record her grade and repeatedly showed a quiz as not completed (0/0) even though she had screenshots proving she had finished it, and that she had to go back and forth with IT to get it corrected, adding that numerous other students had the same problem.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology resources must support learning; records integrity requires accurate grade recording; Section 508 (functional platforms). Lead: {{HU|HU-076}}. Burden-shift pattern parallels {{HU|HU-023}}.

'''Impact.''' Students had to advocate individually with IT to have completed work recorded, a burden-shift onto students.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-076}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student AZ; documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-076b: Realizeit question format did not match the HESI/NCLEX style of the high-stakes exams ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum-Assessment Misalignment: LMS Format Unlike HESI/NCLEX
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Vendor Management
|}
'''Finding.''' Students reported that Realizeit questions were not in HESI or NCLEX style, so the high-stakes HESI exams felt like a whole new format relative to what students practiced on the LMS (September 27, 2023).

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student AY (September 27, 2023): Realizeit questions are not HESI or NCLEX style, so when it comes to those exams it is a whole new level.

'''Reported statement.''' Student AY reported that Realizeit's question format did not match HESI or NCLEX style, so encountering the high-stakes exams felt like an entirely different and unfamiliar level of difficulty.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: course content and assessment must be aligned. A format mismatch between the LMS and the exams that carry the majority of the grade is a curriculum-assessment alignment failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-076}}. The mismatch persisted into Sherpath ({{HU|HU-044}}).

'''Impact.''' Students could score well on LMS content while remaining unprepared for the differently formatted high-stakes exams.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-076}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student AY; documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-082: Spring 2025 system-wide grade transfer crisis: affecting 'hundreds of students'; recurring problem across multiple semesters with ZERO institutional communication ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mass System-Caused Course Failures
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT / Registrar / Academic Affairs / Dr. Prashad / Shannon Bishop / David Steele
|}
'''Finding.''' A system-wide grade transfer failure in Spring 2025 caused passing students to receive failing grades in Canvas and the official records system. Anonymous member 569 confirmed the crisis affected "hundreds of students." Documented individual cases include: Student B (Clinical II 86% became an F; summer classes auto-canceled); Student BM (2 A's and a B uploaded as 2 F's; withdrawn from program); Anonymous 510 (an A transferred as a B); Student AE (F from incomplete, financial aid affected); Student BN; Student BO; Student BP (still not enrolled in correct classes at next semester start). Zero official institutional communication was sent; students discovered the error only by monitoring their own grades. Student V confirmed this is a RECURRING problem: she experienced the same issue a few semesters earlier in the same class, and it was not fixed until several weeks into the new semester. Student B stated she was prepared to email the local press in Wisconsin. Escalation chain: Dr. Prashad to Shannon Bishop to Tricia Wagner to Sam (student services) to David Steele (dsteele@herzing.edu), who ultimately resolved some cases.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student B (Apr 26, 2025) asking whether others were affected by the Spring grading issue. Student BM (Apr 26, 2025) reported two A's and a B being uploaded as two F's, resulting in withdrawal. Anonymous member 569 (Apr 27, 2025) confirmed the issue affected hundreds of students and was a system error, not a syllabus issue. Student B (Apr 30, 2025) reported her grades had still not been corrected with summer classes starting the following Monday. Student V (Apr 30, 2025) confirmed the same problem had occurred to her a few semesters earlier in the same class. Student B (Apr 26, 2025) reported zero communication from administration despite the institution's promptness in emailing about late payments. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous member 569 confirmed the grading error affected hundreds of students and was a system error rather than a syllabus issue. Student B reported that, as of April 30, her grades still had not been corrected even though summer classes were starting the following Monday, and separately noted that the institution had sent zero communication about the issue despite promptly emailing students about late payments. Student V confirmed the same problem had occurred to her in an earlier semester in the same class and was not fixed until several weeks into the following term.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional grade recording infrastructure. ACEN Standard 5: technology must support student learning without causing academic harm. Due process (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150, 5th Cir. 1961): students may not be dismissed or academically penalized without meaningful process. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): students have the right to accurate educational records. Institutional failure to communicate a known system error that is causing erroneous course failures constitutes an administrative capability failure under 34 CFR §668.14. The recurring nature across multiple semesters establishes a pattern rather than an isolated incident.

'''Impact.''' Affected students experienced wrongful course failures on official transcripts, auto-cancellation of the next semester's enrollment, disruption to financial aid eligibility, delayed graduation, scholarship application harm (unofficial transcripts showing F grades), and extreme emotional distress. The zero-communication approach placed the burden of discovery and remediation on students: students had to individually email faculty, program chairs, and registrar staff to trigger corrections. Student AE reported the error caused canceled classes and financial aid issues. Student BP (May 4, 2025) reported still not being enrolled in the correct classes for the semester.

'''Notes.''' Recurring problem: Student V's statement that this happened a few semesters ago, in the same class, establishes this as an unresolved systemic issue rather than a first-time event. The institution has been aware of this failure mode for multiple semesters and has not implemented a structural fix. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath platform failures), {{HU|HU-076}} (Realizeit failures). This issue extends {{HU|HU-075}} significantly: where {{HU|HU-075}} documented a general pattern, this issue establishes the Spring 2025 mass event with named individuals, documented cascading harms, and recurring history.


=== HU-092: Compliance system failures May 2026: Complio-to-MyClinicalExchange integration not transferring documents with clinical deadline imminent and no institutional response ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Platform Integration Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Handle 2 (May 4, 2026, one day before clinical deadline) reported that none of the completed compliance documentation was transferring from Complio to MyClinicalExchange, that the deadline was the next day, and that requests for help had gone unanswered, with documents also unable to be attached directly in MyClinicalExchange. A second student in the same thread confirmed the same issue. This documents that as of May 2026, the Complio-to-MyClinicalExchange integration is failing, preventing students from demonstrating clinical compliance, and institutional support is unresponsive to urgent requests.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 2 (May 4, 2026, [post link redacted]): reported the same integration failure, an imminent deadline, no response to help requests, and no location to upload Fit Testing or orientation modules referenced in the compliance email. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Handle 2 reported that none of the completed compliance documentation was transferring from Complio to MyClinicalExchange, that the clinical deadline was the next day, and that requests for help had gone unanswered, with the system also not allowing direct attachment of documents or providing a place to upload required orientation modules.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology systems supporting clinical compliance must function reliably. Students cannot be denied clinical access for compliance failures caused by institutional platform integration failures. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional administrative infrastructure. Unresponsive support during an urgent compliance deadline with the following day's deadline approaching constitutes an administrative capability failure.

'''Impact.''' Students unable to demonstrate clinical compliance due to platform integration failures risk clinical dismissal, an outcome with cascading academic consequences (course failure, graduation delay). The unresponsiveness to help requests compounds the harm.

'''Notes.''' This is consistent with the long-standing pattern of compliance platform failures (CastleBranch/Complio issues documented since Cohort 1 in 2023). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath failures), {{HU|HU-075}} (grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-082}} (Spring 2025 grade crisis).


=== HU-100: EAQ (Elsevier Adaptive Quizzing) questions documented incorrect; grade conversion ratio mismatch: 95% EAQ score appears as 18/20 in Canvas gradebook; Student D confirmed 'SEVERAL' incorrect questions ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Third-Party Platform Content Errors / Grade Calculation Discrepancy
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management (Elsevier) / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Student D (Aug 25, 2025) documented two distinct EAQ problems. First, question content errors: she reported experiencing several EAQ questions being incorrect and stated there was definitely a content issue. Second, a grade conversion ratio discrepancy: students may score 95% on an EAQ but have it appear as 18/20 in the Canvas gradebook, meaning the gradebook score does not reflect the actual percentage earned. Student D advised students approaching course failure to review their EAQs for challengeable questions and to calculate the conversion ratio applied to the gradebook, as a potential recovery strategy. This indicates the mismatch is known, recurring, and exploitable as a grade-recovery mechanism, but only by students sophisticated enough to identify it. An anonymous student (Aug 24, 2025) documented all Sherpath assignments at 100% and all EAQs below 100%, with no ability to redo custom EAQs, ending the course at 79.8%.

'''Evidence.''' Student D (Aug 25, 2025) advised reviewing EAQs to challenge missed questions, reported experiencing several incorrect EAQ questions, and described calculating the conversion ratio applied to the gradebook: for example, a 95% EAQ score appearing as 18/20. Anonymous member (Aug 24, 2025) noted that custom EAQs below 100% could not be redone; Anonymous member 672 (Aug 25, 2025) confirmed those EAQs cannot be redone. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D reported experiencing several EAQ questions being incorrect and stated there was definitely a content issue; she added that calculating the conversion ratio applied to the gradebook could reveal cases where a 95% EAQ score appears as 18/20 in the gradebook.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: third-party platforms used for graded assessment must provide accurate content and accurate grade reporting. Elsevier EAQ incorrect questions constitute a vendor content failure that Herzing, as the contracting institution, bears responsibility for auditing and correcting. The grade conversion ratio mismatch, where a student's actual percentage is silently compressed when transferred to Canvas, is a data integrity failure: the gradebook does not accurately reflect student performance. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain accurate academic records. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): students have a right to accurate educational records; a gradebook that silently understates performance violates that right. The non-redoable nature of custom EAQs means students have no mechanism to recover from incorrect questions they answered wrong, compounding the harm.

'''Impact.''' Students who lose points due to incorrect EAQ questions cannot challenge or redo them, making the error permanent in their grade. Students who don't know to calculate the conversion ratio cannot identify the discrepancy. The 79.8% student ({{HU|HU-095}}), who ended 0.2% below the passing threshold with all Sherpath assignments at 100%, may have been pushed below the threshold by EAQ conversion ratio errors or incorrect questions. Given that even a fraction of a point triggers a 4-month delay and a course retake fee ({{HU|HU-095}}, {{HU|HU-060}}), undetected EAQ errors can have severe academic and financial consequences.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content), {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covering untaught content). The EAQ platform (Elsevier) is separate from Sherpath, but both are Elsevier products, suggesting a vendor-wide quality control issue. The fact that Student D publicly advised students to audit their EAQ conversion ratios as a grade-recovery strategy indicates this is a known workaround, not a rare anomaly. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-012}} (seven grades changed simultaneously), {{HU|HU-082}} (Spring 2025 mass grade transfer crisis).


=== HU-112: Lead: NSG525 and Pathophysiology Review Week 1 quiz content errors (duplicate identical answer choices across at least two courses, wrong clinical units with a typo, and a remediation that shifted the burden onto students); see HU-112a, HU-112b, HU-112c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (assessment content errors and remediation)
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management / Faculty / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for Week 1 quiz content errors in the May 2026 semester. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-112a}} (duplicate identical answer choices that make the keyed answer undefined, documented in NSG525 and confirmed by faculty escalation in the Week 1 Pathophysiology Review, a different course, establishing a systemic platform-level problem), {{HU|HU-112b}} (reference values labeled with incorrect clinical units, with pH and PaCO2 both labeled mEq/L, plus a typographical error, teaching clinically incorrect content), and {{HU|HU-112c}} (the institutional remediation, manual grading with no extension and no restoration of lost quiz attempts, shifted the burden onto students, with two faculty giving conflicting timelines). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' NSG525 (Clinical II / Med-Surg I) Week 1 Quiz Screenshots, the reporting student, May 7, 2026; Email thread, Sandra Russell J.D. BSMT to Dr. Ashley Jennings, May 5, 2026.

'''Notes.''' Documented May 7, 2026 by the reporting student. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-112}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-112a}}, {{HU|HU-112b}}, {{HU|HU-112c}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covers untaught content), {{HU|HU-100}} (EAQ errors), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath incorrect content), {{HU|HU-095}} (two-fail dismissal), {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).


=== HU-112a: Quiz questions contain duplicate identical answer choices that make the keyed answer undefined, across at least two Week 1 courses (NSG525 and the Pathophysiology Review) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Assessment Validity: Duplicate Answer Choices
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / IT / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Two NSG525 Week 1 quiz questions contained duplicate identical answer choices: Question 9 (a select-all-that-apply item) listed Increased body temperature as both the first and fifth choice, and Question 7 (a single-select item) listed Respiratory acidosis as both the third and fourth choice, so the student cannot know which identical option the system treats as correct. The same problem appeared in the Week 1 Pathophysiology Review, a different course, where a student raised it with adjunct faculty member Dr. Ashley Jennings, who replied that she had sent the inaccuracy to leadership and could not unilaterally throw out questions or curve the quiz, establishing the problem as systemic across at least two courses in the same week.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshots from the reporting student, May 7, 2026 (NSG525 Week 1 Canvas quiz, Questions 7 and 9). Email thread on the Week 1 Pathophysiology Review: Sandra Russell J.D., BSMT (ASCP) to Dr. Ashley Jennings DNP MSNEd APRN FNP (Adjunct Faculty), May 5, 2026, 11:02 PM, and Dr. Jennings's reply at 11:17 PM. Source group: NSG525 Week 1 quiz screenshots (May 7, 2026); Pathophysiology Review email thread (May 5, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I understand this can be frustrating and I have sent this inaccuracy to leadership. Unfortunately, I cannot make the decision to throw out questions or curve the quiz.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (assessment instruments must be accurate, valid, and clearly worded); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including quality control over graded assessment content). A question with two identical options cannot reliably measure knowledge. Lead: {{HU|HU-112}}. Extends {{HU|HU-100}} (EAQ errors) to a third assessment type, Canvas quizzes.

'''Impact.''' A student who selects the clinically correct answer may or may not receive credit depending on which identical option the system has keyed, an outcome determined by system error rather than knowledge; in a program where a fraction of a point can trigger a delay and retake, this is direct academic and financial harm.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-112}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. The clinically correct answer to Question 7 (respiratory acidosis) is identifiable from the values, but the duplicate option makes the keyed answer indeterminate.


=== HU-112b: Quiz reference values are labeled with incorrect clinical units (pH and PaCO2 both labeled mEq/L) and contain a typographical error, teaching clinically incorrect content ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Assessment Content Accuracy: Incorrect Clinical Units
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Vendor Management / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' NSG525 Question 7 labeled the pH reference range with mEq/L, although pH is a dimensionless logarithmic scale with no unit, and labeled carbon dioxide (PaCO2) with mEq/L, although the standard clinical unit for PaCO2 is mmHg; the question also contained a typographical error (rang instead of range). Teaching that pH or PaCO2 is measured in mEq/L is clinically incorrect.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot from the reporting student, May 7, 2026: NSG525 Question 7 reference values labeled pH 7.35-7.45 mEq/L and CO2 35-45 mEq/L, with Bicarbonate rang 22-26 mEq/L. Source group: NSG525 Week 1 quiz screenshots (May 7, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>pH range 7.35-7.45 mEq/L [pH has no units]. Bicarbonate rang 22-26 mEq/L.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (assessment content must be accurate); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (quality control over assessment content). Incorrect unit labels on clinical reference values teach incorrect clinical science, a patient-safety concern for nurses interpreting lab values. Lead: {{HU|HU-112}}.

'''Impact.''' Students learning that pH or PaCO2 is measured in mEq/L are being taught clinically incorrect information that could affect patient care.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-112}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-112c: The institutional remediation (manual grading, no extension, and no restoration of lost quiz attempts) shifted the burden of the quiz errors onto students, and two faculty gave conflicting timelines ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Remediation / Recourse Failure; Contradictory Faculty Communications
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' After acknowledging the duplicate-answer errors, the institution chose to manually grade the affected items but granted no extension and did not restore the quiz attempts students used while guessing among the erroneous options; the quiz allowed ten attempts, and manual grading does not return attempts spent on system errors. Two faculty gave conflicting timelines for the fix on the same day.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Heather Gregg (hgregg@herzing.edu) stated the college was aware of two duplicate-answer questions and would manually grade those items, that no extensions would be granted, and that she was applying the correct credit. Dr. Stacey Gombar stated the team was working to resolve the issue and would post an announcement. Dr. Gombar indicated grading this week while Dr. Gregg indicated grading the prior day. The reporting student documented that students do not get to retake the maximum attempts after the fix. Source group: Faculty communications to the reporting student, May 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I have verified, and no extensions will be granted. I am, however, in the process of manually grading and applying the correct credit.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 and 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (institutions must remediate assessment errors fairly). Manual grading without restoring lost attempts or granting a fair retake shifts the burden of the institution's error onto students; conflicting faculty timelines reflect inadequate coordination. Lead: {{HU|HU-112}}. See {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance), {{HU|HU-095}} (two-fail dismissal).

'''Impact.''' Students who used quiz attempts guessing among erroneous options lose those attempts permanently, and the remediation does not restore a fair opportunity to reach the maximum allowed attempts.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-112}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Institutional acknowledgments on record from Dr. Gregg and Dr. Gombar.


=== HU-120: Lead: the Canvas/Instructure ShinyHunters breach (May 2026) exposed student PII and private messages, Herzing had not notified students as of May 7, and clinical message content raises a HIPAA risk; see HU-120a, HU-120b, HU-120c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED for the breach and the exposure of PII and messages; the HIPAA exposure in HU-120c is POSSIBLE pending verification
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (data breach, notification failure, HIPAA risk)
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Instructure / Herzing IT / Herzing Administration / CISO
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for the Canvas/Instructure cybersecurity breach by the ShinyHunters extortion group on or around May 5 to 6, 2026, and Herzing's response. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-120a}} (the breach exposed user PII, names, email addresses, and student ID numbers, and billions of private messages, and the May 7 herzing.instructure.com outage labeled scheduled maintenance was active breach remediation), {{HU|HU-120b}} (Herzing had not notified its students of the breach as of May 7, 2026, raising FERPA notification obligations), and {{HU|HU-120c}} (a HIPAA risk if MSN-DE clinical discussion messages containing patient information were among the exposed messages). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot herzing.instructure.com (May 7, 2026), the reporting student; WFTV Channel 9 (May 7, 2026); KUTV 2News (May 6, 2026); SecurityAffairs (May 5, 2026).

'''Notes.''' ShinyHunters is a documented extortion group with prior breaches including AT&T, Ticketmaster, and Santander; its ransom deadline was May 6, 2026. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-120}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-120a}}, {{HU|HU-120b}}, {{HU|HU-120c}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath failures), {{HU|HU-092}} (Complio failures), {{HU|HU-102}} (modules-only, Canvas single point of failure), {{HU|HU-112}} (quiz errors), {{HU|HU-116}} (mid-week assignments), {{HU|HU-117}} (professor resignation).


=== HU-120a: The Canvas/Instructure breach exposed user PII (names, emails, student IDs) and billions of private messages; the May 7 herzing.instructure.com outage was active breach remediation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Active Cybersecurity Breach / Student Data Exposure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Instructure / Herzing IT / CISO
|}
'''Finding.''' Canvas/Instructure experienced an active breach by the ShinyHunters group on or around May 5 to 6, 2026. ShinyHunters claimed nearly 9,000 schools and 275 million individuals were affected, with several billion private messages and a breached Salesforce instance. Instructure confirmed exposed data included names, email addresses, student ID numbers, and messages among users, and responded by revoking privileged credentials, deploying patches, rotating keys, and increasing monitoring. The scheduled maintenance message at herzing.instructure.com at 4:18 PM on May 7, 2026 coincided with this remediation.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot of herzing.instructure.com (4:18 PM, May 7, 2026); WFTV Channel 9 (May 7, 2026); KUTV 2News (May 6 to 7, 2026); SecurityAffairs (May 5, 2026) reporting Instructure's confirmation and the ShinyHunters leak-site warning. Source group: herzing.instructure.com screenshot (May 7, 2026); WFTV (May 7, 2026); KUTV (May 6 to 7, 2026); SecurityAffairs (May 5, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Nearly 9,000 schools worldwide affected. 275 million individuals data. Several billions of private messages among students and teachers. Your Salesforce instance was also breached.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g): student IDs, names, and Canvas messages are protected education records; a breach implicates safeguarding and notification duties. 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including functional and secure technology). Lead: {{HU|HU-120}}.

'''Impact.''' Every Herzing MSN-DE student's Canvas data (name, email, student ID, and private messages with faculty) was potentially exposed; the billions of exposed messages may include clinical details, personal circumstances, and academic appeals.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-120}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-120b: Herzing had not notified its students of the Canvas breach as of May 7, 2026, raising FERPA breach-notification concerns ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Breach Notification Failure / FERPA
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Administration / Herzing IT / CISO
|}
'''Finding.''' As of May 7, 2026, Herzing had not notified its students that their Canvas data may have been exposed in the Instructure breach, leaving students unaware their information was compromised. The absence of timely notification is itself a compliance concern.

'''Evidence.''' No student breach notification from Herzing as of May 7, 2026, against contemporaneous public reporting (WFTV, KUTV, SecurityAffairs) confirming the breach; herzing.instructure.com showed only a scheduled maintenance message. Source group: herzing.instructure.com screenshot (May 7, 2026); contemporaneous news reporting.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Canvas is currently undergoing scheduled maintenance. Check back soon. [herzing.instructure.com, 4:18 PM, May 7, 2026]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and associated guidance on safeguarding education records and notifying affected individuals of unauthorized disclosures; institutional duty to inform students of a breach affecting their records. Lead: {{HU|HU-120}}.

'''Impact.''' Students who are not notified cannot take protective steps (monitoring, password changes, or caution about exposed communications); a labeled maintenance message in place of a breach notice leaves students misinformed about the cause of the outage.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-120}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Monitor Herzing communications for any subsequent breach notification.


=== HU-120c: HIPAA risk if MSN-DE clinical discussion messages containing patient information were among the exposed Canvas messages ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE, conditional on clinical messages containing patient information being among the exposed data
|-
! Issue type
| Potential HIPAA Breach Exposure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Administration / Compliance / Clinical Coordination
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, if MSN-DE clinical discussion posts or messages contained patient information and were among the exposed Canvas messages, the breach could trigger obligations under the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule. Whether such content was exposed is not yet established and requires verification.

'''Evidence.''' Instructure's confirmation that messages among users were exposed; the program's clinical components, in which students discuss patient scenarios, raise the possibility that some messages contained patient information. Whether any such message was in the exposed set is unverified. Source group: Instructure incident reporting; program clinical structure.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>indications are that the information involved consists of certain identifying information of users at affected institutions, such as names, email addresses, and student ID numbers, as well as messages among users.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HIPAA Breach Notification Rule (45 C.F.R. 164.400-414): notification obligations may arise if protected health information was breached. Lead: {{HU|HU-120}}.

'''Impact.''' If patient information was exposed, affected individuals and authorities may need to be notified, and the institution and its clinical partners could face additional obligations and liability.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-120}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Marked POSSIBLE pending verification of whether clinical messages containing patient information were among the exposed data.


=== HU-122: Multiple assignments visible in NSG525 gradebook and calendar marked as required but contain absolutely no content; assignments also do not appear in Sherpath; students cannot complete assignments that have no content; due dates active ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Empty Assignments with Active Due Dates / Platform Synchronization Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Heather Gregg / IT Department
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student reported to Dr. Stacey Gombar and Dr. Heather Gregg that multiple assignments in NSG525 are visible in the gradebook and on the calendar as required assignments with active due dates, but contain absolutely no content when opened. These assignments also do not appear in Sherpath. Dr. Gombar's response requested a specific example, indicating she was not aware of the extent of the issue and had not proactively identified it. Students are in a position where required graded assignments are due, are counted in the gradebook, but have no content to complete, creating a potential grade impact from an institutional platform/content loading failure. This is distinct from {{HU|HU-113}} (duplicate assignments); this issue documents assignments that exist as shells with no instructional content at all.

'''Evidence.''' Email: the reporting student to Dr. Gombar / Dr. Gregg (May 2026), stating there were several assignments in the gradebook and calendar that were required but had absolutely no content and also did not show up in Sherpath. Dr. Gombar replied asking the reporting student to provide a specific example so she could look into it. This indicates the issue was not known to faculty before the reporting student raised it. Source group: Email: the reporting student to Dr. Gombar / Dr. Gregg, May 2026; Dr. Gombar reply requesting example.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>There are also several assignments in the gradebook and on the calendar that are required but have absolutely no content. They also do not show up in Sherpath.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must ensure that graded assignments have accessible content before imposing due dates. ACEN Standard 4: curriculum must be delivered through functional, content-complete learning systems. An assignment that exists in the gradebook with a due date but contains no content is an administrative failure that places students at risk of grade penalties for work that cannot be completed. The Sherpath synchronization failure (assignments not appearing in Sherpath) adds a platform integration layer to the issue, consistent with the pattern in {{HU|HU-092}} (Complio-to-MyClinicalExchange integration failure) and {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures).

'''Impact.''' Students with empty required assignments due this week face a choice between waiting for faculty to fix the content and potentially missing the deadline, or submitting incomplete or placeholder work. Either path risks a grade penalty. In a program where 0.2% can trigger a 4-month retake ({{HU|HU-095}}), grade points lost due to empty assignments with active due dates represent a concrete institutional-caused academic harm. Dr. Gombar's request for a specific example suggests the issue was not on faculty radar, meaning other students who did not report it may be silently affected.

'''Notes.''' Dr. Gombar offered a 1:1 meeting and noted a sync session recording had been posted covering housekeeping details. This is consistent with the institutional pattern of deflecting to individual meetings rather than addressing systemic issues. The empty assignment issue in NSG525 Week 1 occurs simultaneously with duplicate quiz answers ({{HU|HU-112}}), duplicate cross-course assignments ({{HU|HU-113}}), mid-week assignment additions in NSG621 ({{HU|HU-116}}), professor resignation ({{HU|HU-117}}), and the Canvas cybersecurity breach ({{HU|HU-120}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath platform failures), {{HU|HU-075}} (grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-092}} (platform integration failures).


=== HU-129: Sherpath LMS platform outage May 15, 2026 while the reporting student was leading a Knack Tutoring Session; platform failure during active peer tutoring disrupted session ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Sherpath Platform Outage During Active Academic Session
! Date added
| 2026-05-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Sherpath (Elsevier) / Knack Tutoring Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Sherpath went down on May 15, 2026 while the reporting student was leading a Knack Tutoring Session. Knack is a peer tutoring platform used to connect students who need academic support with qualified peer tutors. The reporting student was serving as a peer tutor leading an active tutoring session when Sherpath became unavailable, disrupting the session. This documents a Sherpath outage during Week 2 of the May 2026 semester, consistent with the documented pattern of recurring Sherpath outages across multiple semesters ({{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-059}}, {{HU|HU-075}}, {{HU|HU-092}}). The outage affected not just the student's own academic work but also his ability to fulfill a peer support role for other students who were seeking tutoring assistance.

'''Evidence.''' Weekly Report week ending May 17, 2026. Source group: Weekly Report week ending May 17, 2026; the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Sherpath went down on 15 May 2026 while the reporting student was leading a Knack Tutoring Session.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology systems supporting student learning must be reliable and consistently available. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional academic technology infrastructure. A Sherpath outage during an active tutoring session disrupts both the tutor and the students being tutored. This is the fifth documented Sherpath outage event across the program ({{HU|HU-041}} documents recurring outages; {{HU|HU-059}} documents specific outage; {{HU|HU-075}} documents grade transfer failures; {{HU|HU-092}} documents Complio-MyClinicalExchange integration failures; {{HU|HU-129}} documents May 15, 2026 outage during active tutoring). The pattern establishes systemic Sherpath reliability failure rather than isolated incidents.

'''Impact.''' The Knack Tutoring Session was disrupted mid-session. Students who had scheduled time with the reporting student as their peer tutor lost that session due to the platform failure. The reporting student, who was providing a student support service, was unable to continue. In a program where students document difficulty finding adequate academic support and rely heavily on peer resources ({{HU|HU-102}}, no textbooks, modules only), a tutoring session disruption compounds existing academic support deficits.

'''Notes.''' Knack is a third-party peer tutoring platform. The reporting student's participation as a Knack tutor confirms his role as a peer academic resource within the program community, consistent with his earlier role setting up the September 2025 GroupMe and creating the student wiki. The Sherpath outage on May 15 occurred the same week as Canvas cybersecurity breach remediation ({{HU|HU-120}}, May 7), no clinical placement ({{HU|HU-128}}), accommodation blocked ({{HU|HU-125}}), and quiz deadline discrepancy ({{HU|HU-126}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-041}} (recurring Sherpath failures), {{HU|HU-059}} (Sherpath specific outage), {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-102}} (modules-only curriculum makes platform reliability critical).


=== HU-168: Lead: the NSG523 HESI Exam 1 completed by the reporting student on June 13, 2026 (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) produced a grading and submission disconnect: the instructor reported no score in Elsevier; Canvas shows 0/100 and No Submission; the NSG523 course grade dropped approximately 69 percentage points in 15 seconds as documented in sequential dashboard screenshots; and a weeks-old screenshot-requirement notification was not resolved before the 0 was entered; see HU-168a through HU-168d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect; Canvas 0/100 and No Submission; 69-point course grade drop in 15 seconds; unresolved screenshot requirement before grading)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523, Herzing University Orlando / Online MSN Direct Entry) / Herzing LMS / Elsevier-HESI
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for a cluster of grading and records issues arising from the NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I HESI Exam 1, completed by the reporting student on June 13, 2026. The HESI Assessment Results report (Elsevier Testing and Remediation, Delivery ID 905079) confirms the exam was completed on 06/13/2026 with a HESI score of 1,224 and a Conversion Score of 99.99. On June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty) emailed the reporting student (marked High Importance) stating she did not have a score in Elsevier and that a screenshot submitted weeks earlier did not show the exam date as required. Canvas shows the Unit 6: HESI Exam 1 assignment at Grade 0/100 with a No Submission status, and Dr. Brown posted a Canvas comment at 1:14 PM stating no score for exam. Sequential Canvas dashboard screenshots taken 15 seconds apart at 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM document the NSG523 course grade changing from 95.01% to 25.91%, a drop of approximately 69 percentage points. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-168a}} (HESI score present in Elsevier system but instructor reports no score, a score-transmission or access disconnect), {{HU|HU-168b}} (Canvas 0/100 and No Submission status inconsistent with exam completion), {{HU|HU-168c}} (69-percentage-point course grade drop observed in 15 seconds), and {{HU|HU-168d}} (weeks-old screenshot-requirement notification not resolved before the 0 was entered).

'''Evidence.''' Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' Exam: ONL: HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 2026 Summer C (Accommodations 250%), HESI Score 1,224, Conversion Score 99.99, Duration 98 minutes 15 seconds, Student ID p3641418, Delivery ID 905079. The HESI report was printed 6/15/2026 8:25:03 PM, after the grading issue was discovered, establishing that the score was available in the Elsevier system. The Canvas assignment due date was 06/14 at 11:59 PM; the exam was taken on 06/13/2026 (before the due date). Added 2026-06-15. Parts: {{HU|HU-168a}}, {{HU|HU-168b}}, {{HU|HU-168c}}, {{HU|HU-168d}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-167}} (NSG523 ProProctor Saturday failure, same exam context, June 13, 2026), {{HU|HU-167b}} (over 75-minute exam start delay before NSG523 exam).


=== HU-168a: The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 score (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) is present in the Elsevier Testing and Remediation system as of June 13, 2026, but Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated on June 15 that she did not have a score entered in Elsevier: a score-transmission or instructor-access disconnect ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Score-Transmission or Score-Access Disconnect Between HESI System and Instructor View
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' The HESI Assessment Results report (Elsevier Testing and Remediation, Delivery ID 905079, printed 6/15/2026) confirms the reporting student completed the NSG523 HESI Exam 1 on 06/13/2026, achieving a HESI Score of 1,224 and a Conversion Score of 99.99. In her June 15 email (1:13 PM, marked High Importance), Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated she did not have a score entered in Elsevier for that exam. These two facts are directly inconsistent: the exam was completed in the Elsevier-hosted HESI system and the results are retrievable (student printed the 16-page report on 6/15/2026), yet the instructor reports no score on her end. This points to a score-transmission failure between the HESI delivery and the instructor-facing Elsevier view, or an instructor-side access or lookup issue for this student or section.

'''Evidence.''' HESI Assessment Results report: the reporting student, Institution HERZING UNIVERSITY-ONLINE-RN, Date 06/13/2026, HESI Score 1,224, Conversion Score 99.99, Delivery ID 905079, Duration 98 minutes 15 seconds, printed 6/15/2026 8:25:03 PM. Dr. Tanetshia Brown email (6/15/2026 1:13 PM) stating she did not have a score entered in Elsevier for that exam. Source group: Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I do not have a score for you entered in Elsevier for that exam.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate academic records and functional technology systems); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement, including reliable transmission of results). A score-transmission disconnect between a HESI delivery and the instructor's gradebook view means a completed, passing exam does not count toward the student's grade. Lead: {{HU|HU-168}}.

'''Impact.''' A Conversion Score of 99.99 (the effective maximum) not reaching the instructor's view results in a 0 being recorded for a 100-point exam, with a severe downstream effect on course standing.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-168}} (lead). CONFIRMED: exam completion documented by HESI report; instructor non-receipt documented by email. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-168b: Canvas shows Grade 0/100 and No Submission for NSG523 Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, with an instructor Canvas comment stating no score for exam, despite the exam being completed on June 13, 2026 with a Conversion Score of 99.99 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Canvas 0/100 and No Submission Status Inconsistent With Exam Completion
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' The Canvas submission page for NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1 shows Grade: 0/100 and a No Submission status on the left panel, and a Canvas comment from Dr. Tanetshia Brown timestamped Jun 15 at 1:14pm reading No score for exam. The HESI report confirms the exam was completed on 06/13/2026, before the assignment due date of 06/14 at 11:59 PM. The No Submission status in Canvas is inconsistent with the exam having been completed. This may reflect a submission-type mismatch (the assignment requires a screenshot upload and a score transmission from Elsevier, and one or both may not have processed correctly), but the effect on the student's grade is the same as if the exam had not been taken at all. Dr. Brown also stated in her email that a screenshot previously uploaded did not show the exam date as required, which may have contributed to the No Submission assessment.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas submission screenshot (Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM): NSG523-7E, Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Grade 0/100, No Submission, Canvas comment by Dr. Tanetshia Brown DNP MSN RN (Jun 15 at 1:14pm) reading No score for exam. HESI report confirming exam completion 06/13/2026 with Conversion 99.99. Source group: Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>No score for exam. [Canvas comment, Dr. Tanetshia Brown, Jun 15 at 1:14pm]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate academic records); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair academic standards and processes); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement). Grading a completed exam as 0/100 with No Submission because a score did not transmit or a deliverable had a formatting issue, without providing an opportunity to correct, raises a fair-process and records-accuracy concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-168}}.

'''Impact.''' A 0 on a 100-point exam assignment has an immediate and severe effect on the course grade, as documented in {{HU|HU-168c}}.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-168}} (lead). The assignment appears to have two components: a Canvas screenshot upload and an Elsevier score transmission. Whether the No Submission reflects the screenshot upload status, the score sync status, or both is not fully resolved from the available evidence. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-169: Lead: reporter Student CK describes the same accommodation exam score-transmission failure the reporting student experienced (HU-168) across at least two of her own courses: a pathophysiology instructor gave her a zero despite a score existing in Elsevier, and the same failure recurred on a Fundamentals exam with no instructor response; the reporter's instructor confirmed her name did not appear on the Elsevier report list despite ProctorU confirming successful transmission, suggesting a systemic instructor-access or score-routing failure affecting accommodated students; reported and unverified; see HU-169a through HU-169c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (same accommodation exam score-transmission failure as {{HU|HU-168}}; reported for at least two courses; instructor confirmed name absent from Elsevier report list; ProctorU confirmed transmission; unverified third-party account)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Affairs / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing Testing and Accommodations (specific instructors not named by reporter)
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, this is a lead entry for a reported account by Student CK, a Herzing student who describes experiencing the same accommodation exam score-transmission failure documented in {{HU|HU-168}} (the reporting student, NSG523). The reporter states the problem occurred in at least two of her courses. In the first instance, her pathophysiology instructor gave her a zero; the reporter challenged this because she had her score, and she had to send the instructor a screenshot of Elsevier and a copy of her report to demonstrate completion. In the second instance, the same failure occurred on a Fundamentals exam taken on a Friday; the reporter emailed her instructor and had not received a response at the time of the message exchange. The reporter states her instructor told her the reporter's name did not appear on the instructor's Elsevier report list, which the reporter interpreted as evidence of something wrong. ProctorU confirmed to the reporter that her test was sent, her video was transmitted, and the test shows as completed successfully in ProctorU's system. The reporter speculates the problem is with instructor-level access to Elsevier and notes that her Fundamentals instructor said she was going to seek additional help but there was no known follow-up. The account is attributed to the reporter and is unverified; it is recorded here evidence-first as corroboration of a possible systemic pattern. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-169a}} (path instructor zero resolved only after reporter provided screenshot and report), {{HU|HU-169b}} (Fundamentals exam same failure, instructor non-response), and {{HU|HU-169c}} (instructor confirmed name absent from Elsevier list; ProctorU confirmed transmission; systemic pattern implication).

'''Evidence.''' Private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation.

'''Notes.''' Reporter's name as displayed in iMessage: Student CK. All statements attributed to reporter and marked POSSIBLE. The pattern, where ProctorU confirms successful transmission but the instructor does not see the student's name on the Elsevier report list, is the same mechanism described in {{HU|HU-168a}} (instructor reported no score in Elsevier despite HESI report confirming completion). If corroborated, the pattern suggests a systemic Elsevier configuration or access issue affecting accommodated students rather than an isolated per-student error. Added 2026-06-15. Reporter Student CK (Herzing student, name as displayed; specific student ID not provided). Parts: {{HU|HU-169a}}, {{HU|HU-169b}}, {{HU|HU-169c}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-168}} (the reporting student, same score-transmission disconnect for NSG523 HESI Exam 1), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect specifically).


=== HU-169a: Reporter Student CK describes her pathophysiology instructor giving her a zero for an accommodated exam despite her having a score in Elsevier; the reporter had to provide a screenshot of Elsevier and a copy of her report to demonstrate completion before the grade was corrected ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Exam Score Not Visible to Instructor; Zero Entered; Corrected Only After Student Provided Proof (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing pathophysiology instructor (name not provided by reporter) / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that her pathophysiology instructor gave her a zero for an accommodated exam. The reporter challenged this because she had her score in Elsevier. She states she had to send the instructor a screenshot of Elsevier and a copy of her report to demonstrate that she had completed the exam. This is the same pattern documented in {{HU|HU-168}}: an accommodated exam completed in the Elsevier system but not visible to the instructor, resulting in a zero that the student must correct by providing her own proof.

'''Evidence.''' According to the tracker, private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation. Source group: same private text message conversation described above.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CK reported that her pathophysiology instructor initially gave her a zero on an accommodated exam despite the score existing in Elsevier, and that she had to send the instructor a screenshot of Elsevier along with a copy of her report before the instructor would correct the grade.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate records and functional technology systems); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement); ADA Title III, examinations (42 U.S.C. 12189; 28 C.F.R. 36.309). A pattern in which accommodated students receive zeros because instructor-facing Elsevier access does not reflect completed exams, and must correct this themselves by providing proof, places an undue burden on students with disabilities and indicates a systemic accommodation-delivery failure. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Impact.''' According to the tracker, if accurate, the reporter had to spend additional time and effort demonstrating exam completion to reverse a zero, a burden not experienced by students whose scores transmit correctly. The risk is that students who do not challenge the zero may lose the grade permanently.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-169}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Autocorrect artifacts in source noted in lead. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-169b: Reporter Student CK describes the same score-transmission failure recurring on a Fundamentals exam taken on a Friday; she emailed her instructor but had not received a response at the time of the text message exchange ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Recurrence of Score-Transmission Failure on Fundamentals Exam; Instructor Non-Response (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Fundamentals instructor (name not provided by reporter) / Elsevier-HESI
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that after experiencing the pathophysiology score-transmission failure, the same thing happened on a Fundamentals exam she took on a Friday. She states she emailed her instructor about the situation but had not heard back at the time of the message exchange with the reporting student. The recurrence across two different courses and two different instructors, with no instructor response on the second instance, suggests the problem is not limited to a single course or instructor configuration.

'''Evidence.''' Private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation. Source group: same private text message conversation described above.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CK reported that the same score-transmission failure recurred on a Fundamentals exam taken the following Friday, and that she had emailed her instructor about it but had not received a response by the time she described the situation.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable technology systems and timely institutional response); HLC Criterion 2.A (clear and fair academic processes); 42 U.S.C. 12189; 28 C.F.R. 36.309. Recurrence of the same score-transmission failure across multiple courses for the same accommodated student, without a timely instructor response on the second instance, points to a systemic rather than incidental failure. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the reporter faces the same unresolved zero on a second exam, with no instructor response, placing two separate course grades at risk from the same systemic failure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-169}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-169c: Reporter Student CK reports that her instructor confirmed her name did not appear on the instructor's Elsevier report list, and ProctorU confirmed the test was transmitted and marked as completed successfully in their system: pointing to an instructor-side Elsevier access or score-routing failure affecting accommodated students ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Instructor Confirmed Name Absent From Elsevier Report List; ProctorU Confirmed Transmission; Systemic Pattern Concern (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Affairs / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing Testing and Accommodations
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that her instructor told her she did not even see the reporter's name on the list of reports in Elsevier, and that this is how the instructor and reporter determined something was wrong. The reporter states that she then contacted ProctorU, who confirmed the test was sent, her video was transmitted, and the test shows as completed successfully in ProctorU's system. The reporter speculates the issue is with instructor-level access to Elsevier, but notes uncertainty about how to fix it. Her Fundamentals instructor said she was going to seek additional help, but the reporter does not know what happened with that. This two-sided picture, ProctorU confirming successful delivery while the instructor does not see the student's name in Elsevier, is the same mechanism described in {{HU|HU-168a}} (instructor for the reporting student reporting no score in Elsevier despite a completed HESI report). If the pattern holds across multiple students, it indicates a systemic Elsevier configuration, access, or score-routing failure specific to accommodated exams rather than individual student or proctor error.

'''Evidence.''' Private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation. The reporter also noted that her instructor had sent her the special link for accommodations, which added to her confusion about the cause. Source group: same private text message conversation described above.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CK reported that her instructor told her she did not see the reporter's name on the list of reports in Elsevier, which is how she determined something was wrong, and that when she reached out to ProctorU, ProctorU confirmed her test and video had been sent and showed as completed successfully in its system.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including functional technology and vendor oversight); HLC Criterion 2.A (reliable and consistent processes for all students); 42 U.S.C. 12189; 28 C.F.R. 36.309 (accommodations for examinations must be functional and consistently available). A systemic Elsevier report-list failure that causes accommodated students' names not to appear for their instructors, while non-accommodated students' names do appear, is an equity and accommodation-delivery concern. Combined with the identical pattern in {{HU|HU-168}}, this represents a recurring institutional deficiency. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate across multiple students, the failure is not an isolated error but a systemic accommodation-delivery deficiency. Students who do not proactively challenge zeros or contact ProctorU themselves may permanently lose grades for completed exams.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-169}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. The reporter notes the instructor sent a special link for accommodations, suggesting the accommodated exam routing itself may be the point of failure in Elsevier. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-171: The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 score (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99), absent from the instructor-facing Elsevier (Evolve) view as documented in HU-168a, became visible to Dr. Tanetshia Brown only at approximately 4:14 PM on June 15, 2026, over 51 hours after exam completion on June 13, and only after the reporting student sent her a screenshot of his HESI results as proof; Canvas was then updated from 0/100; resolution required direct student intervention rather than automatic system processes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Elsevier (Evolve) Score-Transmission Delay Over 51 Hours; Resolution Requiring Manual Student Intervention
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' At 1:13 PM on June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown emailed the reporting student (marked High Importance) stating she did not have a score for him in Elsevier (Evolve) and that Canvas showed no submission. A 0/100 had been entered. The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 was completed on June 13, 2026 (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99), over 51 hours earlier. The reporting student sent Dr. Brown a screenshot of his HESI results report. At 4:14 PM on June 15, Brown replied confirming she was now able to see the grade in Evolve and that Canvas had been updated. This sequence confirms three findings. First, the Elsevier score-transmission delay extended from the June 13 exam date to at least 1:13 PM on June 15, a gap of over 51 hours during which the score was not visible to the instructor. Second, the score became visible only after the reporting student provided proof by sending the screenshot, resolution was student-initiated rather than automatic. Third, the 0/100 entered in Canvas remained for the duration of this period and was corrected only after the reporting student's direct intervention. The immediate grade harm is now resolved; the systemic process failure is documented.

'''Evidence.''' Prior email from Dr. Brown at 1:13 PM same day stating she did not have a score entered in Elsevier for that exam. HESI Assessment Results report (Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026). Source group: email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:14 PM); provided by the reporting student; update to {{HU|HU-168}} cluster.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Thank you for the screenshot of your exam results. I also am now able to see your grade in Evolve. Your grade in Canvas has been updated.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate and timely academic records and functional technology systems); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair and reliable academic processes); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate and reliable assessment of student achievement). A score-transmission system that requires a student to manually provide proof of exam completion to an instructor, over 51 hours after the exam, in order to have a 0 reversed, does not meet administrative-capability or fair-process standards. The pattern is corroborated by a second student ({{HU|HU-169}}). See also {{HU|HU-168a}} (score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-168b}} (Canvas 0/100 and No Submission), {{HU|HU-168c}} (69-percentage-point course grade drop).

'''Impact.''' The immediate harm (0/100 on a 100-point exam; NSG523 grade at 25.91%) was resolved after student intervention. Without the screenshot the reporting student provided, the 0 would likely have remained. Students who do not proactively challenge the zero, or who lack the ability to produce and send a HESI report, face permanent grade loss for completed exams.

'''Notes.''' The grade in Canvas is confirmed updated per Dr. Brown's 4:14 PM email. The term Evolve in Dr. Brown's email refers to the Elsevier Evolve platform (the same system referenced as Elsevier in {{HU|HU-168}}). Dr. Brown's phrasing explicitly links her newfound ability to see the score to receiving the screenshot, confirming the resolution was prompted by student-initiated documentation rather than automatic system correction. Documented 2026-06-15. Update to {{HU|HU-168}} cluster. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-168}} (NSG523 HESI Exam 1 grading and submission disconnect; lead cluster), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-168b}} (Canvas 0/100 and No Submission), {{HU|HU-168c}} (69-percentage-point course grade drop), {{HU|HU-169}} (reporter Student CK; same Elsevier score-transmission failure pattern).


=== HU-172: Lead: Dr. Tanetshia Brown's 4:26 PM email confirms she cannot determine why the Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure occurred and defers all investigation to IT; IT then closed INC0562442 by observing only that the professor had updated Canvas after seeing the grade; the stated resolution does not address the root cause of the accommodation exam score-transmission failure documented in HU-168 and HU-169; the systemic failure affecting accommodated students remains uninvestigated; see HU-172a and HU-172b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (institutional inability to explain Elsevier transmission failure; IT incident closed without root-cause investigation)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Andrew Cox (IT Service Desk) / Herzing IT / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry documenting the institutional response to the Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure documented in {{HU|HU-168}} and {{HU|HU-171}}. At 4:26 PM on June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown emailed the reporting student acknowledging the situation was frustrating, stating she was unable to determine why the system behavior occurred, and referring all further investigation to IT since a ticket had already been submitted. The Herzing IT Service Desk subsequently closed incident INC0562442 with a resolution note stating only that the professor had responded and noted seeing the grade and updating it in Canvas. The resolution is based entirely on the observation that the immediate symptom (the 0 grade) was corrected by the professor; it is not a technical investigation of why the accommodation exam score failed to appear in the instructor-facing Evolve view for over 51 hours. The underlying transmission failure affecting accommodated students therefore remains uninvestigated at both the faculty and IT levels. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-172a}} (Dr. Brown's admission that the system behavior cannot be explained, and deferral of investigation to IT) and {{HU|HU-172b}} (IT closure of INC0562442 without root-cause investigation).

'''Evidence.''' Email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM); Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' Dr. Brown's email at 4:26 PM follows her 4:14 PM email in which she confirmed the Canvas grade was updated. The 4:26 PM email is apparently a response to a follow-up inquiry from the reporting student about why the system failure occurred. The IT ticket short description is listed as Re: Test, suggesting the ticket was generated from or named after the email thread rather than as a formally titled incident report. Added 2026-06-15. Parts: {{HU|HU-172a}}, {{HU|HU-172b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-168}} (NSG523 HESI Exam 1 grading disconnect lead), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-169}} (reporter Student CK, same accommodation exam score-transmission pattern), {{HU|HU-171}} (51-hour delay resolved only by student-provided screenshot).


=== HU-172a: Dr. Tanetshia Brown's 4:26 PM email explicitly states she is unable to determine why the Elsevier (Evolve) system behavior occurred and refers all technical investigation to IT: an institutional admission that the accommodation exam score-transmission failure cannot be explained at the faculty or program level ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Admission of Inability to Explain Elsevier Score-Transmission Failure; Investigation Deferred to IT
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' At 4:26 PM on June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown emailed the reporting student stating she was unable to determine why the system behavior occurred. She noted that once the reporting student provided the screenshot, she was able to verify his results in Evolve and update Canvas. She directed all further investigation to IT, describing IT as the appropriate team to investigate the cause and provide clarification. This constitutes an institutional admission, at the faculty and course level, that the accommodation exam score-transmission failure documented in {{HU|HU-168a}} and {{HU|HU-171}} cannot be explained by the instructor and that no faculty-level or program-level investigation is being undertaken. The failure therefore propagates to the IT level without any concurrent academic investigation into whether accommodation exam workflows in Elsevier are correctly configured.

'''Evidence.''' Email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM). Source group: email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM); Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I am unable to determine why the system behavior occurred. Since a ticket has already been submitted to IT, they are the appropriate team to investigate the cause of the issue and provide further clarification.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including institutional ability to identify and resolve systemic technology failures); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including reliable processes for all students); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate and reliable assessment processes). An instructor's inability to explain why an accommodation exam score was absent from the instructor-facing system for over 51 hours, and the absence of any faculty or program level investigation, leaves the root cause unidentified and the systemic risk to other accommodated students unaddressed. Lead: {{HU|HU-172}}.

'''Impact.''' Without a faculty or program level inquiry into why accommodation exams may not appear in Evolve, the same failure is likely to recur for the reporting student and for other accommodated students in future terms, consistent with the pattern documented by reporter Student CK in {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-172}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party email. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-172b: The Herzing IT Service Desk closed INC0562442 without root-cause investigation: the resolution note by Andrew Cox states only that the professor saw the grade and updated Canvas, which documents the symptom resolution but not the technical cause of why the accommodation exam score failed to appear in the instructor-facing Elsevier (Evolve) view for over 51 hours ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| IT Incident Closed Without Root-Cause Investigation; Resolution Note Documents Symptom Resolution Only
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Andrew Cox (IT Service Desk, Herzing) / Herzing IT
|}
'''Finding.''' Herzing IT Service Desk incident INC0562442 (Urgency 2, Partly Blocked; Short description: Re: Test) was closed by Andrew Cox with a resolution note stating that the professor had responded and noted seeing the grade and updating Canvas. This resolution note documents that the professor updated the Canvas grade, which is the symptom fix, but contains no technical investigation into why the Elsevier (Evolve) accommodation exam score was not visible to the instructor for over 51 hours after exam completion. No root cause is identified, no system-level finding is documented, no fix or configuration change is described, and no mention is made of whether other accommodated students may be affected. The incident was resolved on the basis that the immediate grade harm was corrected, not on the basis that the underlying failure was understood or remediated.

'''Evidence.''' IT Service Desk incident closure notification: INC0562442, Urgency 2, Partly Blocked, Resolved by Andrew Cox. Dr. Tanetshia Brown email (4:26 PM) referring investigation to IT as the appropriate team to investigate the cause. Source group: email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM); Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I see your professor responded and noted seeing the grade and updating in Canvas. [IT resolution note, Andrew Cox, INC0562442]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including functional and reliable technology infrastructure and meaningful incident response); HLC Criterion 2.A (reliable processes for all students). Closing a technology incident because the immediate harm was resolved, without identifying the root cause of a 51-hour score-transmission delay affecting an accommodated student, does not constitute an adequate incident response and leaves the underlying failure available to recur. The pattern of the same failure across at least two students ({{HU|HU-168}}, {{HU|HU-169}}) further indicates a systemic issue that a symptom-only resolution does not address. Lead: {{HU|HU-172}}.

'''Impact.''' With no root-cause investigation, the Elsevier accommodation exam score-transmission failure is likely to recur for the reporting student and for other accommodated students. Future affected students will face the same 51-hour delay, a 0 grade, and the requirement to provide their own proof of completion before the instructor manually corrects the grade.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-172}} (lead). The ticket short description Re: Test suggests it was created from an email thread titled Test or Re: Test, possibly the same email subject line visible in earlier materials. CONFIRMED from IT incident closure screenshot. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-173: The Herzing IT Service Desk issued updated resolution notes for INC0562442 stating it could not determine whether a system issue occurred because troubleshooting began after the problem had already resolved; IT characterized the reporting student's documented 51-hour Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure as a possible grade matter to be handled with the instructor rather than a confirmed technology failure, and the non-finding leaves the accommodation exam transmission failure officially uninvestigated and unacknowledged at the technical level ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| IT Non-Finding on 51-Hour Elsevier Score-Transmission Failure; Troubleshooting Too Late to Observe Failure; System Failure Reframed as Grade Matter
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Andrew Cox (IT Service Desk, Herzing) / Herzing IT
|}
'''Finding.''' The updated resolution notes for INC0562442 (Andrew Cox, Urgency 2, Partly Blocked, Short description: Re: Test) provide a more detailed but still non-investigative closure. The IT Service Desk stated that the reported issue was no longer occurring by the time troubleshooting began, so it could not determine whether an issue had existed. This is an explicit institutional admission of two things. First, IT's response was too slow to observe the Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure while it was active. Second, the result is a formal non-finding: IT will not confirm a system failure occurred. The resolution notes further state that working with the instructor on the grade was an appropriate step, characterizing the 51-hour accommodation exam score-transmission failure as a grade-related matter for faculty resolution rather than a technology failure requiring technical investigation. This framing stands in direct contradiction to the documented evidence in {{HU|HU-168}} through {{HU|HU-172}}: an exam completed June 13 (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) whose score was absent from the instructor-facing Evolve view for over 51 hours, requiring student-initiated proof of completion before the grade was corrected. This appears to be a second or revised closure of the same INC0562442, following an earlier closure noted in {{HU|HU-172b}} that stated only that the professor had seen the grade and updated Canvas.

'''Evidence.''' Updated IT Service Desk incident closure notification, INC0562442, Andrew Cox, Jun 15, 2026. Source group: updated Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student. Update to {{HU|HU-172b}}; appears to be a second or revised closure following the reporting student's challenge of the first closure.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>the reported issue was no longer occurring by the time we were able to begin troubleshooting, so we cannot determine if there was an issue or not. Working with your instructor regarding your grade related matters in this case was an appropriate step.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including adequate and timely technology incident response and reliable academic records systems); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including reliable processes for all students, including accommodated students); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate and reliable assessment processes). A non-finding based on delayed troubleshooting does not constitute an adequate investigation. The documented evidence (51-hour delay, student-produced HESI report, instructor admission of inability to see the score, corroboration from a second student in {{HU|HU-169}}) establishes that a system failure occurred regardless of IT's ability to observe it in real time. Characterizing a technology failure as a grade matter deflects technical accountability and provides no protection against recurrence.

'''Impact.''' IT's non-finding means no corrective action will be taken to prevent the same accommodation exam score-transmission failure from recurring. Any future accommodated student who takes an exam through the same Elsevier delivery path faces the same risk of a 51-plus-hour score absence and a 0 grade, with the documented institutional response being to work with the instructor.

'''Notes.''' This appears to be a second or revised closure of INC0562442, with more detailed resolution notes than the first closure documented in {{HU|HU-172b}}. Both closures are by Andrew Cox. The hedge word "potentially" in the resolution notes further weakens the acknowledgment of any failure. The statement that IT could not determine whether an issue existed is directly contradicted by Dr. Brown's own admission that she could not see the score in Evolve until after receiving the screenshot ({{HU|HU-172a}}), the 51-hour timeline documented in {{HU|HU-171}}, the HESI results report (Delivery ID 905079) confirming exam completion June 13, and the corroborating pattern in {{HU|HU-169}}. Documented 2026-06-15. Update to {{HU|HU-172b}}; appears to be a second or revised closure following the reporting student's challenge of the first closure. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-172}} (IT closure without root-cause investigation; lead), {{HU|HU-172b}} (first IT closure note, professor-updated-Canvas-only), {{HU|HU-168}} (NSG523 HESI Exam 1 grading disconnect lead), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-169}} (reporter Student CK; same pattern across two courses), {{HU|HU-171}} (51-hour delay; student-intervention resolution).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance

2026-09-15T16:38:10Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern the independence and internal governance of the Herzing Online Student Nurses Association (HOSNA/SNA) and the university's dealings with it. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This topic gathers six tracker entries spanning 2026-05-04 to 2026-08-10, four rated High severity, one Medium, and one Low. Five entries are CONFIRMED (one of those, {{HU|HU-194}}, is marked as resolved within the same thread), and one, {{HU|HU-056}}, is marked POSSIBLE.

The largest cluster is the lead entry {{HU|HU-053}} and its two lettered sub-issues, {{HU|HU-053a}} and {{HU|HU-053b}}, which document Program Chair Dr. Prashad and Academic Affairs asserting control over SNA member communications and citing bylaw requirements that board members could not verify in the governing document. A second thread, {{HU|HU-055}} and {{HU|HU-056}}, concerns faculty advisor Dr. Stacie Johnson's 11-day non-response to the board's initial outreach, an unresolved honor cord for outgoing president Student B, and the resulting question of whether the board's first meeting, held without the faculty advisor present, met the bylaws' quorum requirement. The final entry, {{HU|HU-194}}, is a low-severity, self-resolving scheduling lapse involving the same program chair and faculty advisor.

The recurring owners across this topic are Dr. Prashad (Program Chair and SNA faculty advisor), Academic Affairs, and Dr. Stacie Johnson (Faculty Advisor), with the Registrar named as an owner on the honor cord delay. The evidence base is consistent throughout: the SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams chat, the SNA email chain, the HOSNA Chapter Bylaws, the NSNA Shared Governance Document, the SNA Membership Roster, and the SNA Transition Letter.

== Issues ==

=== HU-053: Lead: Herzing administration (Dr. Prashad) asserted operational control over the independent Herzing Online SNA, prohibiting a member distribution list and citing bylaw requirements that board members could not validate in the governing document; see HU-053a, HU-053b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (communications prohibition, unverifiable bylaw citations)
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Prashad (Program Chair) / Academic Affairs / University Administration
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for administrative overreach into the independent Herzing Online Student Nurses Association (HOSNA), documented in the SNA Board Leadership Teams chat (May 1 to 4, 2026) and the SNA email chain. The tracked problems are {{HU|HU-053a}} (administration prohibited the organization from maintaining a member distribution list and directed it to route communications through program chairs) and {{HU|HU-053b}} (administration directed membership processes and cited bylaw requirements that board members could not locate in the actual governing document). The board's position is that HOSNA is a completely independent organization. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat; SNA Email Chain (Apr to May 2026); HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026); SNA Membership Roster (June 2025); NSNA Shared Governance Document (2024); SNA Transition Letter (Student B).

'''Notes.''' Membership roster submitted June 2025 documents 42+ active members; the outgoing president's transition letter confirms the SNA is independent. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-053}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-053a}}, {{HU|HU-053b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-054}} (screen-reader email barrier affecting SNA communications), {{HU|HU-055}} (faculty-advisor responsiveness).


=== HU-053a: Administration prohibited the SNA from maintaining a member distribution list and directed it to route communications through program chairs, impairing the organization's core communication function ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Restriction of Independent Organization Communications
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Prashad (Program Chair) / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the faculty advisor relayed that the program chair notified the board the SNA is not allowed to maintain a student distribution list and that it should instead create a flier for the program chairs to send out. The prohibition removes the organization's direct channel to its members.

'''Evidence.''' SNA Board Leadership Teams chat (May 1 to 4, 2026), Dr. Stacie Johnson relaying the program chair's instruction. Source group: SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat; HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026); NSNA Shared Governance Document (2024).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I was notified by our program chair that we are not allowed to have a student distribution list so it's requested that we create a flier for the program chairs to send out.</blockquote> (Dr. Stacie Johnson, relaying the program chair's instruction.)

'''Standards.''' HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026), Article III, Section 1 (the organization is a separate entity from NSNA in its administration of activities); NSNA Shared Governance Bylaws, Policies and Procedures (2024) (constituent associations operate under shared governance, not university administrative authority); the university's authority is limited to appointing a faculty advisor and does not extend to controlling communications infrastructure. Lead: {{HU|HU-053}}.

'''Impact.''' Prohibiting a member distribution list and forcing communications through program chairs impairs the SNA's core function of communicating with and advocating for its members, and routes member outreach through the administration the organization is independent of.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-053}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. See {{HU|HU-054}} (screen-reader email barrier affecting SNA communications).


=== HU-053b: Administration directed membership processes and cited bylaw requirements that board members could not locate in the governing document, an apparent misrepresentation used to direct organizational behavior ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Unverifiable Bylaw Citations / Misrepresentation
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Prashad (Program Chair) / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the program chair directed specific NSNA membership processes not required by the bylaws and, on several occasions, cited or referenced bylaw requirements that the vice president could not validate when reviewing the actual document. A board director recorded that the impression of university oversight is not supported by the bylaws.

'''Evidence.''' SNA Board Leadership Teams chat (May 1 to 4, 2026): Student K (Vice President) and the reporting student (Director); SNA email chain (April to May 2026). Source group: SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat; SNA Email Chain (Apr to May 2026); HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student K, the Vice President, stated in the board chat that there had been a few instances where Dr. Prashad cited or referenced the bylaws, but that when reviewing the document, Student K was not always able to validate the specific requirement being referenced. The reporting student, a board director, added a related view based on a personal reading of the bylaws: that the organization is completely independent and controls its own finances, board, and policies.

'''Standards.''' HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026), Article III, Section 1; NSNA Shared Governance Bylaws (2024); Robert's Rules of Order (12th ed.) (organizations govern themselves through their own bylaws). Directing organizational behavior by citing requirements that do not appear in the governing document is a form of institutional misrepresentation. Lead: {{HU|HU-053}}.

'''Impact.''' Using unverifiable bylaw citations to direct membership processes and organizational decisions undermines the organization's self-governance and may mislead student leaders about their obligations.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-053}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-055: SNA board emails to faculty advisor Dr. Stacie Johnson went unanswered for 11 days (April 13-24, 2026); honor cord for outgoing president Student B unresolved days before graduation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Advisor Non-Responsiveness / Honor Cord Delay
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacie Johnson (Faculty Advisor) / Dr. Prashad / Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, SNA board emails to faculty advisor Dr. Stacie Johnson went unanswered for at least 11 days (April 13-24, 2026); Dr. Johnson's out-of-office reply was not received by the student; upon returning, Dr. Johnson imposed new communication requirements without acknowledging the disability-related email access barrier; separately, the honor cord for outgoing president Student B remained unresolved as of May 1, 2026, three days before Student B's probable graduation date.

'''Evidence.''' SNA Teams email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Johnson (late April 2026); Dr. Johnson's reply; Dr. Johnson Teams chat (May 4, 2026). Source group: SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat; SNA Email Chain (Apr to May 2026); HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026); SNA Membership Roster (June 2025); NSNA Shared Governance Document (2024); SNA Transition Letter (Student B).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I want to say respectfully, we did send an email to establish contact on 13 April 2026. This was about 11 days before our first meeting, and we did not get a response.</blockquote> (the reporting student, to Dr. Johnson, late April 2026.)

<blockquote>Your email sent on 4/13 was from an external email and was sent to my junk box therefore I never received it.</blockquote> (Dr. Stacie Johnson, reply.)

<blockquote>I have asked three different people about Student B's cords and am still waiting on an answer.</blockquote> (Dr. Stacie Johnson, Teams chat, May 4, 2026.)

'''Standards.''' HOSNA Chapter Bylaws Article V, Section 2 (Quorum): faculty advisor's 11-day non-response left the SNA without guidance at a critical organizational launch period. Honor cord recognition for student organization leadership is a legitimate student recognition matter. ADA/Section 504: the faculty advisor's requirement that the reporting student use only Herzing email (see {{HU|HU-054}}) imposes an inaccessible communication barrier on a student with a documented disability.

'''Impact.''' The 11-day gap in faculty advisor communication left the new SNA board without institutional guidance during their critical first month of operation. Decisions made during this period may be contested as potentially non-compliant with bylaw quorum requirements. Student B may not receive her honor cord in time for her graduation ceremony.

'''Notes.''' Student B's outgoing president letter formally requested ProctorU discontinuation on behalf of the student body. This advocacy work was conducted in her official SNA capacity and represents meaningful student governance activity deserving institutional recognition. See also {{HU|HU-053}} (institutional overreach into SNA operations).


=== HU-056: SNA inaugural board meeting conducted without faculty advisor; quorum deficiency may require ratification of all initial votes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Governance Validity Question, Quorum Deficiency
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | SNA Board / Faculty Advisor / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, the SNA inaugural board meeting (April 2026) was conducted without the faculty advisor present. Per Chapter Bylaws Article V Section 2, quorum for board meetings requires the president or vice president, two other board members, and one faculty advisor. Dr. Prashad raised concern about meetings held without faculty advisor. As a result, all votes taken at that meeting, including appointment of Student A, approval of Student B's honor cord, and appointment of the reporting student as delegate, may require re-validation.

'''Evidence.''' SNA Teams email chain (late April / early May 2026): the reporting student raised governance questions. HOSNA Chapter Bylaws Article V Section 2 states that a quorum for the board meetings shall be the president or vice president, two other board members, and one faculty advisor. Dr. Prashad raised concern about meetings held without the faculty advisor present. Source group: SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat; SNA Email Chain (Apr to May 2026); HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026); SNA Membership Roster (June 2025); NSNA Shared Governance Document (2024); SNA Transition Letter (Student B).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Are we invalidating all actions taken at our last meeting? We would need to revote on Student A, revote on Student B and Leadership U appointment, revote on my delegate appointment. Do we need to revote everything? My understanding is that you need to be present for a quorum, but the votes would not change.</blockquote> (the reporting student.)

'''Standards.''' HOSNA Chapter Bylaws Article V, Section 2 (Quorum); Robert's Rules of Order (12th ed.) Chapter 40 (Quorum): actions taken without quorum are null and void and require ratification at a meeting where quorum is achieved.

'''Impact.''' If all initial SNA board votes are invalidated, Student B's honor cord recommendation, Student A's appointment, and the reporting student's delegate appointment are all in question. This delays SNA operations and potentially prevents Student B from receiving her graduation honor cord.

'''Notes.''' The quorum deficiency was caused by the faculty advisor's non-responsiveness ({{HU|HU-055}}) rather than by any failure of the student board. The logical resolution, a prompt ratification meeting, would preserve all organizational decisions while restoring procedural regularity. Ratification should be treated as ministerial rather than as an opportunity to revisit organizational decisions.


=== HU-194: A scheduled Student Nursing Association meeting with Dr. Raywattie Prashad did not occur and was not communicated in advance, and the reporting student had to follow up to arrange a replacement time, which Dr. Prashad promptly provided ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Low
! Status
| CONFIRMED and resolved within the same thread
|-
! Issue type
| Missed and Uncommunicated Meeting; Self Initiated Rescheduling
! Date added
| 2026-08-10
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair, SNA faculty advisor)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student emailed Dr. Prashad and Dr. Stacie Johnson noting that a previously scheduled Student Nursing Association meeting earlier in the month had not occurred and had not been communicated, and that he understood a fellow officer was separately working on scheduling a follow up meeting with Dr. Prashad, but that a meeting scheduled for that Thursday evening had no confirmed update. Dr. Prashad responded the same night that she would be happy to meet with the group Thursday, asking whether it needed to be after hours given a prior commitment, and asking for a confirmed time. The reporting student provided his availability, other officers weighed in on their own availability over the following hours, one officer indicated she would not be able to attend and deferred to the group's chosen time, and the thread concluded with the group coordinating a mutually workable time with Dr. Prashad. The matter was resolved within the same day through the officers' own follow up rather than through any proactive notice from the institution that the original meeting had been missed.

'''Evidence.''' Email, the reporting student to Dr. Prashad and Dr. Johnson, July 28, 2026: statement that an earlier scheduled meeting did not occur and was not communicated, and a request for status. Email, Dr. Prashad, same date: confirmation of availability to meet Thursday and a request for a confirmed time. Subsequent emails from the reporting student, Dr. Stacie Johnson, and other officers coordinating a specific time. Source group: email thread, subject SNA, between the reporting student, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Stacie Johnson, and cc Student AB and Student A, July 28, 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>We had a meeting scheduled for earlier this month that not only did not happen but was not communicated.</blockquote> (the reporting student.)

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including reliable communication with recognized student organizations) is nominally relevant, but this entry documents a minor, single instance scheduling lapse that was resolved the same day once raised, rather than a pattern rising to the level of a compliance concern on its own.

'''Impact.''' Minimal. The missed meeting caused a short delay in Student Nursing Association planning and required officer initiative to reschedule, but Dr. Prashad responded promptly and constructively once contacted, and a new time was set within the same thread.

'''Notes.''' Logged primarily for completeness of the governance and communication record rather than as a significant standalone concern. No further action recommended absent recurrence. This entry also concerns SNA faculty advisor Stacie Johnson, DNP, RN, CNE, as well as fellow Student Nursing Association officers Student AB and Student A, who were copied throughout. Cross-reference: this entry fits a general pattern in this tracker of meetings and commitments not being proactively communicated or confirmed by Herzing staff, though this specific instance is minor and self resolving compared to other entries reflecting that pattern.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation

2026-09-15T16:38:09Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern student conduct complaints and reported retaliation against a student who raised academic-integrity concerns. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers five tracker entries: a lead entry, {{HU|HU-066}}, and four sub-issues, {{HU|HU-066a}} through {{HU|HU-066d}}, all added on 2026-05-05 and split into their current form on 2026-06-06. The severity mix is heavily weighted toward High (four of the five entries), with {{HU|HU-066c}} marked Medium. All five entries share the same status posture: the tracker treats it as confirmed that the underlying EthicsPoint reports were made and documented, while the characterizations within those reports (harassment, exclusion, false accusation, stalking) remain the reporting student's own account rather than adjudicated findings.

The cluster follows a single narrative. After the reporting student raised academic-integrity concerns, he submitted EthicsPoint reports on September 18, 2025, a follow-up on September 22, 2025, and further materials on December 3, 2025, describing four distinct experiences involving Student T and Student G: reported harassment ({{HU|HU-066a}}), reported removal from the Discord and GroupMe cohort communication groups ({{HU|HU-066b}}), a reported false accusation about a cohort group photo ({{HU|HU-066c}}), and conduct he characterized as stalking, including an inquiry into his enrollment status ({{HU|HU-066d}}). The recurring owners across the cluster are Student Affairs, the Title IX Coordinator, and the Dean of Students, with Campus Security also named on the stalking sub-issue.

The tracker notes that the EthicsPoint investigation into these reports was closed on September 25, 2025, and that the reporter's request for protections for reporting students was not addressed in the closure response. The cluster cross-references the reporter's documented anxiety and panic disorder ({{HU|HU-004}}), the absence of disciplinary action against the reported student ({{HU|HU-026}}), and questions about the adequacy of the investigation itself ({{HU|HU-067}}).

== Issues ==

=== HU-066: Lead: following the student's EthicsPoint report, he reported four distinct experiences ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED that the reports were made and documented; the underlying characterizations are the reporter's and were submitted to EthicsPoint
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (four reported experiences following a protected report)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Affairs / Title IX Coordinator / Dean of Students
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for four distinct experiences the student reported in EthicsPoint reports dated September 18, 2025 and December 3, 2025 after raising academic-integrity concerns: {{HU|HU-066a}} (reported harassment by Student T), {{HU|HU-066b}} (reported removal from the Discord and GroupMe cohort groups by Student G), {{HU|HU-066c}} (a reported false accusation about a cohort group photo), and {{HU|HU-066d}} (conduct the reporter characterized as stalking, including an inquiry into his enrollment status). These are presented as the reporter's documented account; the legal characterizations are attributed to the reporter and the cited standards, not asserted as adjudicated findings. See each sub-issue.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-066}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-066}} resolve to this lead. The EthicsPoint investigation was closed September 25, 2025; the reporter's request for protections for reporting students is not addressed in the closure response. Parts: {{HU|HU-066a}}, {{HU|HU-066b}}, {{HU|HU-066c}}, {{HU|HU-066d}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-004}} (documented anxiety and panic disorder), {{HU|HU-026}} (no disciplinary action against reported student), {{HU|HU-067}} (investigation adequacy).


=== HU-066a: The student reported harassment by Student T after raising integrity concerns ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED that the report was made (EthicsPoint, September 18, 2025); the characterization is the reporter's
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Harassment Following a Protected Report
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Title IX Coordinator / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The student reported in his September 18, 2025 EthicsPoint submission that, after raising integrity concerns, he was subjected to harassment by Student T, including derogatory remarks about his education.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (September 18, 2025): the reporter states that after he raised concerns regarding integrity violations he was subjected to harassment by Student T, including derogatory remarks about his education.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>After I raised concerns regarding integrity violations, I was subjected to harassment by Student T, including derogatory remarks about my education.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Title IX policy and Annual Security Report prohibit retaliation against individuals who pursue or cooperate in a complaint; 34 C.F.R. 106.71 (Title IX anti-retaliation); Herzing Student Code of Conduct (harassment, unprofessional conduct). Lead: {{HU|HU-066}}. These standards are cited by the reporter; the facts as alleged are the reporter's account.

'''Impact.''' If a student who reports integrity concerns experiences harassment without institutional protection, the reporting system is chilled.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-066}} (lead). Allegation by the reporting party, documented in EthicsPoint; not an adjudicated finding. Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-066b: The student reported being removed from the Discord and GroupMe cohort groups by Student G ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED that the report was made (EthicsPoint, September 18, 2025); the characterization is the reporter's
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Exclusion From Cohort Communication Channels
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Affairs / Dean of Students
|}
'''Finding.''' The student reported that Student G removed him from the Discord and GroupMe groups titled Herzing University April 2027 Cohort, citing accusations the reporter characterizes as retaliatory in nature.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (September 18, 2025): the reporter states Student G removed him from the Discord and GroupMe groups titled Herzing University April 2027 Cohort, citing accusations that were retaliatory in nature.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Student G subsequently removed me from the Discord and GroupMe groups that are titled Herzing University April 2027 Cohort, citing accusations that were retaliatory in nature.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Title IX and Code of Conduct anti-retaliation provisions; 34 C.F.R. 106.71. Cohort communication groups are the primary informal academic channel, so exclusion isolates a student from peer support and time-sensitive information. Lead: {{HU|HU-066}}. Cited by the reporter; alleged facts are the reporter's account.

'''Impact.''' Removal from cohort groups isolates the student from peer support, study collaboration, and program information.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-066}} (lead). Allegation by the reporting party, documented in EthicsPoint. Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-066c: The student reported a false accusation about a cohort group photo he had permission to post ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED that the report was made; the characterization is the reporter's
|-
! Issue type
| Reported False Accusation (Cohort Group Photo)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Affairs / Dean of Students
|}
'''Finding.''' The student reported that he faced false accusations regarding a cohort group photo posted on Facebook, for which he states he had permission.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint submission materials: the reporter states he was the subject of false accusations about a cohort group photo posted on Facebook that he had permission to post.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>false accusations against him regarding a cohort group photo posted on Facebook (for which he had permission).</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Student Code of Conduct (false accusations, harassment). Lead: {{HU|HU-066}}. Cited by the reporter; the alleged facts are the reporter's account and the permission claim is not independently adjudicated here.

'''Impact.''' False accusations directed at a reporting student can compound social exclusion and reputational harm within the cohort.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-066}} (lead). Allegation by the reporting party. Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-066d: The student reported conduct he characterized as stalking, including an inquiry into his enrollment status ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED that the report was made (EthicsPoint follow-up, September 22, 2025); the characterization is the reporter's
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Stalking and Improper Inquiry Into Enrollment Status
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Title IX Coordinator / Dean of Students / Campus Security
|}
'''Finding.''' In a September 22, 2025 EthicsPoint follow-up, the student reported conduct he characterized as stalking by Student G, including messaging other individuals about him under the guise of mental-health concern, attempting to track his movements, monitoring his GroupMe, and asking about his enrollment status.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Follow-Up (September 22, 2025, 5:27 PM): the reporter states the situation had become harassment beyond rule-breaking, that he had become aware she was stalking him, messaging others about him under the guise of being concerned about his mental health, trying to track his movements, keeping tabs on his GroupMe, and asking about things like his enrollment status.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I have become aware that she is stalking me, messaging other individuals about me under the guise of being concerned about my mental health, trying to track my movements, as well as keep tabs on my own GroupMe.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g): inquiring about another student's enrollment status without a legitimate educational purpose implicates FERPA protections; Herzing Title IX and Code of Conduct anti-retaliation and anti-harassment provisions; 34 C.F.R. 106.71. Lead: {{HU|HU-066}}. The legal characterizations (stalking, retaliation) are the reporter's and are cited against these standards, not asserted as adjudicated findings.

'''Impact.''' The reporter has documented anxiety and panic disorder ({{HU|HU-004}}), which makes the reported conduct particularly harmful; an unaddressed report of this nature deepens the chilling effect on reporting.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-066}} (lead). Allegation by the reporting party, documented in EthicsPoint; not an adjudicated finding. Split 2026-06-06.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Records, Privacy, and Data Security

2026-09-15T16:38:08Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Records, Privacy, and Data Security''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern records, privacy, and data security. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This topic currently holds a single tracker entry, {{HU|HU-152}}, logged on June 4, 2026 and rated Low severity with a status of CONFIRMED. The entry concerns the AVP's decision to deny a student's Otter.ai transcription assistant from an accommodations meeting, and the absence of any alternative institutional record offered to the student in its place. The owner listed is Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP). The entry is part of a broader June 4, 2026 meeting group that spans {{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}, with this record logged as the transparency and recordkeeping concern arising from that same meeting.

== Issues ==

=== HU-152: Student's request to transcribe the June 4, 2026 accommodations meeting (Otter.ai) was denied ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Low
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| AI Meeting Transcription Denied / No Institutional Record Offered to Student
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP)
|}
'''Finding.''' At the start of the June 4, 2026 meeting, Dr. Danielle Laban stated that the student's Otter.ai transcription assistant was on the Forbidden list for meetings and that she had denied the student's Otter from joining, explaining that the institution stopped allowing employees to use it because it joins meetings on its own. As a result, the student's automated transcription of an accommodations meeting was not permitted. While an institution may reasonably restrict third-party bots from joining its meetings, the concern documented here is that the student was left without an agreed-upon record of a meeting concerning his disability accommodations, and no alternative institutional transcript or recording was offered to him during the meeting. This is a minor transparency and recordkeeping concern.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Danielle Laban: I know we have a set amount of time... did you want us to transcribe the meeting, because otters are on the Forbidden list... for meetings, so I denied your otter; that is exactly why we stopped allowing employees to use it, because it just joins whenever it wants. The reporting student: apparently it showed up in a Zoom meeting today and I do not even know [how]. Source group: recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026, with the reporting student, Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3), and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4), provided by the reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>otters are on the Forbidden list... for meetings, so I denied your otter.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' General recordkeeping and transparency expectations for disability-related meetings: while restricting third-party transcription bots is within an institution's discretion, where a student seeks a record of an accommodations discussion it is good practice to offer an agreed alternative (institutional minutes or a recording). No statutory violation is asserted; this is logged as a low-severity transparency item. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-145}}, {{HU|HU-146}}, {{HU|HU-147}} (the substantive accommodation concerns from the same meeting).

'''Impact.''' The reporting student did not obtain his intended automated transcript of a meeting addressing his accommodations, and no alternative institutional record was offered during the meeting, leaving the student reliant on his own notes for an important accommodations discussion. (The student separately retained a recording and transcript, which is the source for this entry.)

'''Notes.''' Logged as Low severity. The restriction on Otter.ai bots may be a reasonable institutional policy; the trackable element is the absence of an offered alternative record for an accommodations meeting. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-145}}, {{HU|HU-146}}, {{HU|HU-147}}. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing

2026-09-15T16:38:07Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern the ProctorU and ProProctor remote proctoring services, the HESI and Elsevier examination platform, and related test administration failures. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article gathers 27 tracker entries dated from April 30, 2026 through August 11, 2026, all marked CONFIRMED (several with qualified status language preserved verbatim in each entry's table). The severity mix is weighted toward the high end: three entries are rated Critical ({{HU|HU-002}}, {{HU|HU-030}}, {{HU|HU-195}}), nineteen are rated High, and five are rated Medium ({{HU|HU-139}}, {{HU|HU-156}}, {{HU|HU-163c}}, {{HU|HU-176}}, {{HU|HU-188}}).

Three recurring owners appear across the set: the vendor side, ProctorU Inc. doing business as Meazure Learning together with Elsevier and its HESI examination platform; the institutional side, principally the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing (Dr. Stephanie Black), the IT Department, and academic operations staff including Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs) and Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations); and individual course faculty and program leadership who are drawn into troubleshooting and appeals. Several entries document the same failure pattern recurring across different students and cohorts: proctoring software falsely flagging permitted programs or hardware and producing exam zeros ({{HU|HU-002}}, {{HU|HU-030}}), proctors making demands beyond stated policy during HESI exams ({{HU|HU-036}}), exams administered without required camera and microphone monitoring ({{HU|HU-047}}), and IT tickets closed as resolved while a dependent grade appeal remains open ({{HU|HU-052}}).

A second thread traces a single student's exam-day cascade across the summer of 2026. A cluster beginning with {{HU|HU-034}} documents a HESI exam-access failure, a records-integrity error recording an untaken exam as fulfilled, and a threat to drop the student's next-semester enrollment, split into sub-issues {{HU|HU-034a}}, {{HU|HU-034b}}, and {{HU|HU-034c}}. A second cluster beginning with {{HU|HU-163}} documents a weather-related exam interruption misrecorded as a no-show, a support runaround, and vendor-institution ping-pong over responsibility, split into {{HU|HU-163b}}, {{HU|HU-163c}}, and {{HU|HU-163d}}. A third thread, running from {{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-195}}, follows the reporting student's exam retake denial and reversal, a proctor's unauthorized remote takeover of his computer that disabled accommodated magnification and read-aloud features, a chronic pattern of delayed exam starts, and a cumulative compression of an entire semester's examinations into roughly three weeks.

Grade-appeal and accommodation-delivery questions recur throughout: retake denials issued without a stated reason ({{HU|HU-155}}), proctoring accommodation supports (an assigned proctor, a pre-test check) declined as unavailable ({{HU|HU-156}}), and a vendor-side software fix that Herzing represented as resolving an accessibility failure but that recurred days later ({{HU|HU-175}}, {{HU|HU-195}}).

== Issues ==


=== HU-002: ProctorU flagged Google Remote Desktop on student computer during NSG521 final exam, blocking completion ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Technical Issue
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / IT
|}
'''Finding.''' ProctorU flagged Google Remote Desktop on student computer during NSG521 final exam, blocking completion.

'''Evidence.''' INC0552394 (2026-04-28); Grade Appeal Decision email from academicappeals@herzing.edu dated 2026-04-24.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Based on IT ticket, there was a software that was located. [Decision:] Please remove software since this is a one-time approval with the knowledge that the software was removed.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.22-23: policy denies retakes for "personal device incompatibility." However, Google Remote Desktop may have been left running from a prior IT support session. Policy does not distinguish institutional vs. student-caused software conflicts.

'''Impact.''' Student unable to complete NSG521 Final Exam on scheduled date. Required grade appeal process; significant added stress for student with documented anxiety and disability.

'''Notes.''' User confirmed flagged software was Google Remote Desktop. Student had active IT support throughout semester. See {{HU|HU-017}} for one-time exception language. See {{HU|HU-018}} for sound machine blocking pattern.


=== HU-017: Grade appeal approval characterized as "one-time exception"; future similar requests pre-emptively discouraged ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Policy Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Grade appeal approval characterized as "one-time exception"; future similar requests pre-emptively discouraged.

'''Evidence.''' Grade Appeal Decision email (2026-04-24) from academicappeals@herzing.edu.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Please note that this approval is a one-time exception. Future requests of a similar nature will likely not be considered. Any further software issue or incompatibility on student's side may not be approved.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504; Handbook p.20-21 appeals procedures. Blanket pre-emptive denial language for future appeals may chill legitimate requests, particularly for a student with documented disabilities.

'''Impact.''' Student with disabilities may be deterred from reporting legitimate technical failures or seeking accommodations in future exams, knowing future appeals pre-characterized as unlikely to succeed.

'''Notes.''' Student has documented disabilities including test anxiety, GAD, panic disorder, and multiple other conditions (see {{HU|HU-021}}). The combination of this language with those disabilities creates a documented chilling-effect concern.


=== HU-020: University-promised ProctorU coordination meeting (March 20) never held; student rescheduled exam to wait for it ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Associate VP Student Affairs (Dr. Laban)
|}
'''Finding.''' University-promised ProctorU coordination meeting (March 20) never held; student rescheduled exam to wait for it.

'''Evidence.''' Student email to Dr. Danielle Laban (2026-04-13): "You had mentioned setting this meeting up on March 20th and we are coming up on nearly a month. Do you have any updates on this? I have rescheduled my exam which was supposed to be for tomorrow in favor of your response."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I am really struggling with the lack of consistency with both Proctor U and Herzing... due to Proctor U ID, sound machine, etc issues, I have had to reschedule my exams on 5 different occasions thereby wasting my entire day that I planned for the exam.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.18 (Chain of Communication): students directed to follow escalation chain. When university leadership makes commitments, failure to follow through undermines the process and may constitute a failure of duty of care.

'''Impact.''' Student delayed exam sitting unnecessarily; additional scheduling conflict with clinical week. Prolonged uncertainty contributing to documented student stress.

'''Notes.''' Student had already rescheduled exams 5 times due to ProctorU issues. This represents a pattern of disruption, not an isolated incident.


=== HU-030: ProctorU falsely flagged Zoom as running during HESI final exams on Mac computers; multiple students received exam zeros; ProctorU acknowledged known false positive ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| ADA Violation Risk / Technical Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / ProctorU Vendor
|}
'''Finding.''' ProctorU falsely flagged Zoom as running during HESI final exams on Mac computers; multiple students received exam zeros; ProctorU acknowledged it is a known false positive issue.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (April 21-24, 2026): Student AW, Student AX, and at least one additional student received zeros on final HESI exams. ProctorU acknowledged the false positive to Student AW (confirmed April 24, 2026). Student AW's appeal was ultimately approved.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student AW reported that when the student spoke with ProctorU, ProctorU stated that Zoom sometimes shows as running in the background even when it is not, and recommended uninstalling it before testing. The student stated that even though ProctorU admitted this, the student was still told to go through a formal investigation.

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504; 28 CFR Section 35.130(b)(1); Handbook p.22-23 Exam Retake Policy; ACEN Standard 4; Elsevier HESI licensing terms.

'''Impact.''' Multiple students received zeros on HESI final examinations, potentially failing courses, solely due to a known proctoring software false positive. Pattern suggests systemic institutional failure to vet ProctorU's Mac compatibility before deployment.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student created a ProctorU petition site and a Change.org petition. Student AW independently created a Google Form to collect reports from affected students.


=== HU-034: Lead: Student C's HESI final exam-day failure produced three independent problems (technical lockout, a false fulfilled record, and a threat to drop next-semester enrollment); see HU-034a, HU-034b, HU-034c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (three independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split into sub-issues 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for three independent problems arising from Student C's HESI med-surg final exam day (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort GroupMe, March 26 and April 19-20, 2026). The problems are tracked separately: {{HU|HU-034a}} (a ProctorU/HESI technical failure blocked exam access for the full day), {{HU|HU-034b}} (the exam was recorded as fulfilled although it was never taken, a records-integrity problem), and {{HU|HU-034c}} (the student was threatened with having all next-semester classes dropped over the institution's own technical failure). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-034}} on 2026-06-06 into a lead plus three atomic sub-issues; existing references to {{HU|HU-034}} resolve to this lead. This was the second exam-access failure for this student in one semester; Dr. Bowen asked the student to stop emailing about the first incident.

Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.

Parts: {{HU|HU-034a}}, {{HU|HU-034b}}, {{HU|HU-034c}}.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-002}}, {{HU|HU-018}}, {{HU|HU-030}}, {{HU|HU-047}}, {{HU|HU-052}} (ProctorU/HESI failures); {{HU|HU-159}} (records integrity).


=== HU-034a: ProctorU/HESI technical failure blocked Student C from accessing the med-surg HESI final for the entire exam day ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Technical Failure Blocking Exam Access
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / ProctorU (Meazure Learning) / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Student C spent an entire exam day unable to access the med-surg HESI final exam due to a ProctorU/HESI technical failure; even the proctors could not launch the exam. He began trying at 9:50 AM and lost the exam day (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort GroupMe, March 26 and April 19-20, 2026).

'''Evidence.''' GroupMe: Student C attempted to access the med-surg HESI final from 9:50 AM; even proctors could not launch it. Part of a documented pattern of ProctorU failures across multiple students and exam dates.

'''Reported statement.''' Student C reported that he had been trying since 9:50 that morning and it still would not let him into the exam.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (fair, consistent assessment) and Standard 5 (reliable assessment technology); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability; functional assessment infrastructure). Lead: {{HU|HU-034}}. Related ProctorU/HESI failures: {{HU|HU-002}}, {{HU|HU-018}}, {{HU|HU-030}}, {{HU|HU-047}}, {{HU|HU-052}}.

'''Impact.''' Loss of an entire scheduled exam day and exposure to repeated proctoring technical failures in the same semester.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-034}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-034b: The med-surg HESI final was recorded as fulfilled although Student C never took it (records integrity) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Records Integrity: Exam Recorded as Fulfilled Without Being Taken
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / ProctorU (Meazure Learning) / Office of the Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' After the failed access, the system recorded the med-surg HESI final as fulfilled at 3:18 PM although Student C never took it, creating an inaccurate academic record (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort GroupMe, 2026).

'''Evidence.''' Student C reported the exam showed as fulfilled at 3:18 PM that afternoon though he never sat for it.

'''Reported statement.''' Student C reported that the exam was showing as fulfilled at 3:18 that afternoon even though he stated he never took it.

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity; accurate records); FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99), right to accurate education records. Lead: {{HU|HU-034}}. Compare {{HU|HU-159}} (transcript/records integrity).

'''Impact.''' An exam recorded as completed without being taken misstates the academic record and can affect grading, progression, and any later dispute.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-034}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-034c: Student C was threatened with an incomplete and dropped next-semester enrollment over the institution's own technical failure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Arbitrary Academic Action: Threat to Drop Next-Semester Enrollment Over Institution's Technical Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Course Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' A course professor notified Student C that if the issue was not resolved by Wednesday he would take an incomplete and all of his next-semester classes would be dropped, a consequence imposed for the institution's own IT failure (GroupMe, April 19, 2026).

'''Evidence.''' By April 19, a course professor told Student C that if the matter was unresolved by Wednesday he would take an incomplete and his next-semester classes would be dropped.

'''Reported statement.''' Student C reported that if the issue was not resolved by Wednesday they would have to take an incomplete and all of their next semester classes would be dropped.

'''Standards.''' Arbitrary and capricious academic action; due process in higher education (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961)). Lead: {{HU|HU-034}}. Compare {{HU|HU-052}} (IT tickets closed without resolution), {{HU|HU-061}} (course lockout).

'''Impact.''' Threatened loss of subsequent-semester enrollment as a consequence of an institutional technical failure the student did not cause.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-034}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-036: ProctorU proctors routinely made demands during HESI exams going beyond stated policies and substantially disrupting exam performance ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| ADA Compliance Risk / Unreasonable Testing Conditions
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / ProctorU Vendor Management
|}
'''Finding.''' ProctorU proctors routinely made demands during HESI exams going beyond stated policies and substantially disrupting exam performance, including requirements to show under bed, cover or unplug TVs, display socks and forearms, and sit upright throughout.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (March 28, April 18-19, 2026): Multiple students reported. Student AI was kicked out twice for having mail on her bed. Student E was told to cover his TV and was flagged for being too close to camera. Student AU was asked to show socks. Student S was interrupted 10 times to change her sitting position.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, one student reported being interrupted ten times to change her sitting position and being asked to cover her TV with a sheet, which she refused; another student reported that an exam that started at 2 PM did not finish until 5 PM because proctors kept pausing it and troubleshooting was required to get back in.

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504: examination accommodations must be available and proctor actions must not create barriers. Repeated proctor interruptions constitute a material disruption of the examination environment. ACEN Standard 4: assessment conditions must be standardized and fair.

'''Impact.''' Students experienced extended exam durations, elevated anxiety, and disrupted concentration due to unreasonable and inconsistent proctor demands. For students with documented anxiety disorders, panic disorder, or ADHD, these disruptions have a disproportionate impact.

'''Notes.''' Pattern of proctor conduct complaints spans at least two semesters (Fall 2025 and Spring 2026) and involves multiple students in multiple states. This is a vendor management issue for which the institution bears institutional responsibility.


=== HU-047: First HESI exam in Spring 2025 MSN-DE cohort administered without university properly configuring ProctorU to include camera and microphone monitoring ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Exam Administration Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Program Chair / ProctorU Vendor Management
|}
'''Finding.''' The first HESI exam in the Spring 2025 MSN-DE cohort was administered without the university having properly configured ProctorU to include camera and microphone monitoring; students completed the exam under incomplete proctoring conditions.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (February 6, 2025): Student Student AR reported that the school had not set up Proctorio to access video and mic for the exam. Student X confirmed screen recording and audio were activated but camera was not.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student AR reported that the school did not set up Proctorio to access video and microphone for the exam, and Student X confirmed that audio and screen recording had been activated but the camera feature had not been used.

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.24 (Proctoring): "The automated proctoring solution monitors test takers via a webcam, microphone, browser, and device." The institution applied strict no-retake policies to students for device issues but administered a full-cohort exam without required proctoring components. ACEN Standard 4.

'''Impact.''' Students who completed the exam under incomplete proctoring conditions did so without the full monitoring environment described in program policies. The inconsistency between strict student-side requirements and lax institution-side exam configuration demonstrates a double standard.

'''Notes.''' The failure was identified by a student, not by institutional review. The institution's response was to fix it for the next exam rather than to formally acknowledge the configuration failure.


=== HU-052: IT tickets related to ProctorU false-flag exam incidents closed as "resolved" without underlying student grievances addressed; student's IT ticket closed while grade appeal remained open ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| IT Ticket Mismanagement / Due Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' IT tickets related to ProctorU false-flag exam incidents were closed as "resolved" without the underlying student grievances being addressed; at least one student's IT ticket was closed while her grade appeal remained open.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing Proctor U Students GroupMe (May 1, 2026): Student BQ stated that she had not heard anything back about her appeal but her IT ticket had been closed as resolved, and that she might submit a withdrawal request rather than retake the pathophysiology course.

'''Reported statement.''' Student BQ reported that she had not yet heard back about her appeal even though her IT ticket had already been closed as resolved, and stated that she was considering submitting a withdrawal request rather than retake pathophysiology.

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.20: grade appeal procedures require documented evidence. Due process principles in higher education (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961)): students must have meaningful access to evidence and procedures that determine their academic standing. Closing an IT ticket as "resolved" while a dependent grade appeal is pending forecloses the process.

'''Impact.''' Students whose IT tickets are closed before their grade appeals are resolved lose the institutional documentation that supports their appeals. In the absence of this documentation, appeal committees have no technical record to review.

'''Notes.''' This issue intersects with {{HU|HU-030}} (ProctorU false-flag zeros) and {{HU|HU-034}} (HESI exam technical failures). The combination of an inaccessible appeals inbox ({{HU|HU-016}}), IT tickets closed before appeals resolve, and no proactive institutional documentation of technical failures creates a due process environment with no effective recourse pathway.


=== HU-139: Student AS: HESI exam would not load and repeatedly locked her out during intensive week; placed on hold with support for two hours with no answer or resolution; family waiting; student warned others not to test in a hotel; two-hour unresolved support hold is the core institutional failure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| HESI Exam Disruption / Repeated Lockouts / Two-Hour Support Hold with No Resolution
! Date added
| 2026-06-02
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | HESI / Elsevier (exam platform) / Herzing Testing Support / IT
|}
'''Finding.''' Student AS, a student in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN program, posted in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group describing a HESI exam disruption while testing during her intensive week. She had signed up to take her HESI and was unable to complete it: the test would not load, she was repeatedly locked out, and she was placed on hold with support for approximately two hours without resolution or explanation. She wrote that no one could tell her why the test was not loading and that she kept being given the runaround. She attributed the issue to taking the exam on hotel WiFi (she was at intensive that week), and concluded with a warning to other students not to take the HESI in a hotel. While the student herself raised the hotel WiFi as a possible cause, the documented institutional concerns are: (1) the HESI testing platform repeatedly locked her out and failed to load, and (2) Herzing/HESI support kept her on hold for approximately two hours and could not provide any answer or resolution. The two-hour unresolved support hold during a high-stakes, time-bound exam is the core institutional failure, independent of the cause of the connectivity issue.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student AS (Rising contributor), Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, June 2026 (posted approximately 20 hours before capture). Source URL: [post link redacted].

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student AS reported being on hold with support for approximately two hours while her family waited outside the room, with no one able to explain why her test would not load; she stated she was repeatedly locked out and given the runaround, and closed her post by telling other students not to take the HESI in a hotel.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology and assessment systems supporting student learning and evaluation must be reliable and adequately supported. A HESI exam platform that repeatedly locks a student out and fails to load, combined with a two-hour support hold that produces no answer or resolution, documents a failure of both the testing technology and the support infrastructure behind it. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional academic and assessment infrastructure, including responsive support for students experiencing technical failures during high-stakes exams. While the student raised hotel WiFi as a possible contributing factor, a robust testing and support system should be able to diagnose and communicate the cause of a loading failure rather than leaving a student locked out and on hold for two hours with no explanation. This connects to the documented pattern of HESI-related and platform-reliability concerns across the program ({{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-059}}, {{HU|HU-088}}, {{HU|HU-120}}, {{HU|HU-129}}).

'''Impact.''' Student AS was unable to complete her scheduled HESI exam, lost approximately two hours on hold with no resolution, and experienced significant distress (she described herself as very upset and noted her family was waiting for her). For a high-stakes, time-bound exam that students schedule around intensive weeks and family logistics, a platform failure with no support resolution can mean a missed exam attempt, rescheduling difficulties, and added stress. The student's public warning to others (don't take it in a hotel) reflects students developing their own informal risk-avoidance guidance in the absence of clear institutional support or testing-environment requirements. If the institution requires or permits HESI testing during intensives but does not ensure adequate connectivity guidance or responsive support, students are exposed to avoidable exam disruptions.

'''Notes.''' Attributed to student Student AS (Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, Rising contributor). The student identified hotel WiFi as a possible cause; this is documented as the student's own attribution, while the institutional concerns (repeated lockouts, platform not loading, two-hour unresolved support hold) are preserved as the substantive issue. This occurred during an intensive week, when students are often traveling and testing away from home. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI content concerns), {{HU|HU-041}} (recurring platform outages), {{HU|HU-059}} (Sherpath outage), {{HU|HU-120}} (Canvas breach / platform reliability), {{HU|HU-129}} (Sherpath outage during tutoring), {{HU|HU-126}} (NSG525 quiz technical/timing issues). POSSIBLE follow-up: whether Student AS was granted a retake or accommodation for the disrupted exam attempt.

Source Group: Facebook post, Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, Student AS (Rising contributor), June 2026, [post link redacted]; provided by the reporting student.


=== HU-155: Exam retake request for the NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C) reviewed by Dr. Stephanie Black and not approved; no reason stated; underlying basis for the retake not yet documented in this tracker ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED (denial documented); OPEN ITEM (underlying reason for the retake request not yet documented)
|-
! Issue type
| Final Exam Retake Request Denied / No Stated Reason
! Date added
| 2026-06-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations)
|}
'''Finding.''' In her June 5, 2026 CARES case follow-up, Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) informed the reporting student that his exam retake request for the ONL NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C) was reviewed by Dr. Black (Stephanie Black, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) and was not approved. The email states the outcome but gives no reason for the denial. The retake had been escalated through the CARES process, and the reporting student had also requested a legal hold (see {{HU|HU-157}}). The underlying basis for the retake request, that is, the problem the reporting student experienced with the Fundamentals final exam (which would explain why a retake was sought), is not separately documented in this tracker as of this entry. {{HU|HU-019}} references this same exam, but only as an example of where the 250 percent testing-time accommodation appeared, and notes a history of ProctorU disruption (including a sound machine being blocked); it does not document a discrete exam-day failure. This entry documents the denial; the reason for the original retake request remains an open item to be substantiated with the underlying evidence.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026): the exam retake request for the ONL NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C) was reviewed by Dr. Black and was not approved. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-019}}: ProctorU reminder (2026-04-28): NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam 2026 Spring C Accommodations 250%; {{HU|HU-019}} notes a transition from 200% to 250% testing time apparently driven by ongoing ProctorU disruption issues (sound machine blocking).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Exam retake request: ONL: NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C): This request was reviewed by Dr. Black and was not approved.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) and institutional academic-appeal/grade-grievance obligations: a decision on a final-exam retake or grade appeal should be accompanied by a stated rationale and a clear appeal pathway, particularly where the student has disability testing accommodations (250% time, noise-cancelling headset, sound machine per {{HU|HU-142}}) and a documented history of proctoring disruption ({{HU|HU-019}}). If the retake was sought because accommodations were not honored or the testing platform failed, denial without addressing those conditions could implicate ADA (42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq.) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. 794). No conclusion is drawn here; the documented facts are the denial and the absence of a stated reason. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-019}} (same exam, accommodation and ProctorU disruption), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring support), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES closure and legal hold).

'''Impact.''' The reporting student's request to retake the NSG521 Fundamentals NGN final exam was denied without a stated reason, which affects his grade and progression in a foundational nursing course and forecloses a remedy he sought through the CARES process. If the retake was requested because of an accommodation or proctoring failure during the exam, the denial leaves that underlying problem unaddressed. The lack of a stated rationale limits the reporting student's ability to evaluate or appeal the decision.

'''Notes.''' New personnel: Dr. Nicole Franklin, Senior Director of Academic Operations (nifranklin@herzing.edu). Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, identified as the decision-maker (steblack@herzing.edu). IMPORTANT OPEN ITEM: the reason the reporting student requested the retake (the underlying exam-day problem) is not yet captured as a standalone issue; obtain that evidence to document the basis. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-019}} (NSG521 Fundamentals final, 250% accommodation, ProctorU disruption), {{HU|HU-156}}, {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-158}}, {{HU|HU-142}} (accommodation letter). Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-158}}).

Source: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES case follow-up, June 5, 2026.

Source Group: Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban, Nicole), subject CARES Case: Follow-up, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM; provided by the reporting student.


=== HU-156: Exam proctoring support: assigned-proctor request not available (ProctorU unavailable, only ProProctor), ProctorU pre-test not viable; the reporting student told to continue using Test-it-out and allow additional time to initiate each exam ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Proctoring Accommodation Support Limited to Workarounds / Assigned Proctor and Pre-Test Not Available
! Date added
| 2026-06-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Testing / ProctorU / ProProctor
|}
'''Finding.''' In the same June 5, 2026 CARES follow-up, Dr. Nicole Franklin addressed the reporting student's proctoring-related requests. On an assigned proctor, she wrote that she reached out to ProctorU and unfortunately, this is not an available option, that ProProctors remain the most individualized support they offer, and that all upcoming scheduled exams have been flagged for ProProctor connection. On a ProctorU pre-test option, she wrote that this is currently not a viable option and that the reporting student should continue using Test-it-out and allowing additional time to initiate each exam. The reporting student has documented testing accommodations (250% time, noise-cancelling headset, and a sound machine per {{HU|HU-142}}) and a history of ProctorU disruptions ({{HU|HU-019}} notes a sound machine being blocked). Telling the student to continue using Test-it-out and to allow additional time to initiate each exam places the burden of working around proctoring and exam-initiation problems on the student rather than resolving the cause, and the requested supports (an assigned proctor and a pre-test check) were declined as unavailable.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026): assigned proctor request declined as unavailable through ProctorU; ProProctor offered as the most individualized support available, flagged for all upcoming scheduled exams; ProctorU pre-test option declined as not currently viable, with the student directed to continue using Test-it-out and allow additional time to initiate each exam. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-019}} (ProctorU disruption, sound machine blocking; 250% accommodation), {{HU|HU-142}} (testing accommodations including noise-cancelling headset and sound machine).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Assigned proctor: I reached out to ProctorU; unfortunately, this is not an available option... ProctorU pre-test option: This is currently not a viable option. Continue using Test-it-out and allowing additional time to initiate each exam.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA (42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq.) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. 794): where a student has approved testing accommodations and a documented history of proctoring disruption, the institution should ensure the proctoring method reliably delivers those accommodations; directing the student to self-manage via Test-it-out and to allow additional time to initiate each exam, while declining an assigned proctor and a pre-test check, may leave the accommodation dependent on the student absorbing recurring technical friction. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): testing infrastructure must function for students. No violation is concluded; the documented concern is that the supports requested were declined and the remedy offered is a student-side workaround. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-019}}, {{HU|HU-142}}, {{HU|HU-155}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student is left to rely on Test-it-out and to budget extra time to initiate each exam, rather than receiving an assigned proctor or a pre-test verification that his accommodations (sound machine, noise-cancelling headset, 250% time) will function. Given the prior ProctorU disruption ({{HU|HU-019}}), this raises the risk of repeated exam-day friction and of accommodations not being smoothly delivered, which is especially consequential for high-stakes exams.

'''Notes.''' ProProctor (a ProctorU service tier) is now flagged for all upcoming scheduled exams. The distinction between ProctorU (declined as unavailable for an assigned proctor and pre-test) and ProProctor (offered) is documented as stated in the email. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-019}} (ProctorU disruption and 250% accommodation), {{HU|HU-142}} (testing accommodations), {{HU|HU-155}} (retake denial), {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-158}}. Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-158}}).

Source: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES case follow-up, June 5, 2026.

Source Group: Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban, Nicole), subject CARES Case: Follow-up, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM; provided by the reporting student.


=== HU-163: Lead: a documented weather emergency on June 6, 2026 blocked the accommodated NSG524 Mental Health exam, which the vendor then marked a no-show and would not reschedule within the open window, followed by a support runaround, vendor-institution ping-pong, and a burden-shifting appeals process; see HU-163a through HU-163e ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (in-window reschedule blocked; no-show miscategorization; support runaround; vendor-institution ping-pong; burden-shift)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Stephanie Black (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / Dr. Danielle Laban / Dr. Nicole Franklin
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for a June 6, 2026 testing failure on the NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 1 (a 375-minute, 250% accommodated exam with a testing window of June 1 to June 7, 2026). A documented severe-weather event in Kansas (NWS Wichita, scattered storms and flood warnings) interrupted the student's internet during his scheduled June 6 exam. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-163a}} (the student could not reschedule the accommodated exam to the remaining in-window date because no ProProctor was available and the vendor cited a reschedule restriction, so the 250% accommodation could not be exercised before the window closed), {{HU|HU-163b}} (the exam was marked a no-show despite the student's documented contemporaneous contact about the outage before the window closed, which then triggered the reschedule lock), {{HU|HU-163c}} (a support runaround, a non-answer, a re-request for information already provided, and review of the wrong exam), {{HU|HU-163d}} (contradictory explanations and vendor-institution ping-pong, with neither resolving the issue), and {{HU|HU-163e}} (the burden shifted to the student through an appeals and makeup process requiring a Herzing IT ticket). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Exam: ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 1 2026 Summer C (Accommodations 250%), 375 minutes, Herzing University - HESI; previously scheduled Sat June 6, 2026 2:20 PM CDT. The student states he could not test earlier in the window because of financial-aid delays for the university-requested computer (cross-ref {{HU|HU-157}}) and last-minute clinical-schedule changes (cross-ref {{HU|HU-135}}). The vendor stated its reschedule restriction inconsistently as 24 hours (live chat) and 72 hours (email). Added 2026-06-06 at the top of the date-added section (newest first).

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure Learning support thread (ticket 8041745), June 6, 2026; ProctorU live-chat screenshot (June 6, 2026, 1:46 to 1:49 PM CDT); ProctorU scheduling-page screenshot (NSG524, window 6/1 to 6/7/26, 375 minutes); NWS Wichita severe-weather screenshot (June 6, 2026, 1:40 PM CDT); email from the reporting student to Herzing faculty; provided by the reporting student.

Parts: {{HU|HU-163a}}, {{HU|HU-163b}}, {{HU|HU-163c}}, {{HU|HU-163d}}, {{HU|HU-163e}}.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-002}} (prior ProctorU exam block, NSG521), {{HU|HU-119}} (ProctorU/Meazure legal dispute), {{HU|HU-135}} (8-hour clinical accommodation; last-minute schedule changes), {{HU|HU-145}} (eight-hour accommodation characterized as conditional), {{HU|HU-155}} (NSG521 final retake denied), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring support declined), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES closure; computer funds; ProctorU pre-test).


=== HU-163b: The exam was marked a no-show despite the student's documented contemporaneous contact about the weather and internet outage before the window closed, and the no-show then triggered the reschedule lock ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| No-Show Miscategorization Despite Prior Contact
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning
|}
'''Finding.''' ProctorU stated the exam had been marked a no-show and that, as a result, it could not process scheduling within its restriction window. The reporting student documented that he had contacted ProctorU via chat from his phone before the exam, reporting that his internet was out due to the weather, so the appointment should have been set for reschedule rather than recorded as a no-show. The no-show designation then triggered the lock that prevented any in-window reschedule.

'''Evidence.''' ProctorU/Meazure email (Rahul Pradhan) stating the exam has now been marked as a no-show and scheduling cannot be processed within 72 hours; the reporting student reply asking why it was marked a no-show when he contacted ProctorU prior to the exam via chat about the internet outage; ProctorU live chat (June 6, 2026, 1:46 PM CDT).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Why was it marked as a no show? I contacted you prior to the exam in chat to let you know via my phone that my internet was out due to bad weather so it should have been set for reschedule rather than marked as a no-show.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability and accurate records, including over a testing vendor). Recording a weather-and-connectivity interruption (reported in real time) as a no-show, and then using that designation to deny an in-window reschedule, is a records-accuracy and fair-process concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-163}}.

'''Impact.''' The no-show entry, rather than a reschedule flag, is what locked the student out of his remaining in-window date and routed him into a makeup and appeals process.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-163}} (lead). Documented 2026-06-06.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure support thread (ticket 8041745); ProctorU live chat, June 6, 2026.


=== HU-163c: ProctorU support runaround: a non-answer that documented the concern without resolving it, a re-request for information the student had already provided, and review of the wrong exam (NSG523 Med Surg instead of NSG524 Mental Health) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Support Runaround / Wrong Exam Reviewed
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning
|}
'''Finding.''' Across the support thread, ProctorU (1) replied that it had documented the student's concern and that no further action was required, without resolving the scheduling problem; (2) asked the student to provide his full name, account email, exam name, and exam date, all of which he had already submitted; and (3) pulled up the wrong exam, the NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I exam set for June 10, when the student's issue concerned the NSG524 Mental Health exam due by June 7.

'''Evidence.''' ProctorU/Meazure emails: a Facilitator Specialist reply stating the concern was documented and no further action was required; a reply requesting full name, account email, exam name, and date and time (already provided by the student); and a reply quoting Exam: ONL: HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, June 10, 2026 1:00 PM CDT, Scheduled, in response to a question about the NSG524 Mental Health exam.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I can't tell if this is a joke. I already put all of this info in the form I submitted. [And, to the wrong-exam reply:] You are looking at the wrong exam. Look at the exam name I sent you and the exam name you sent back. They are not the same.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including oversight of a testing vendor); consumer-facing support-quality expectations. Repeated non-answers, re-requests for provided information, and review of the wrong exam delayed any resolution while the window closed. Lead: {{HU|HU-163}}.

'''Impact.''' The runaround consumed the limited time remaining in the testing window and left the student without a clear path to take his exam.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-163}} (lead). Documented 2026-06-06.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure support thread (ticket 8041745), June 6, 2026.


=== HU-163d: Contradictory explanations and vendor-institution ping-pong: the vendor said the testing window and any extension are institution-controlled while Herzing faculty said they cannot set up an exam and directed the student to the appeals process, leaving the issue unresolved ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Vendor-Institution Accountability Gap / Contradictory Explanations
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' ProctorU repeatedly directed the student to Herzing to obtain a testing-window extension, stating the exam windows are set by the institution and that ProctorU has no control. Herzing faculty (Dr. Stacey Gombar, relaying the course lead and program lead) stated that Herzing faculty do not have access to set up an additional exam and directed the student to the appeals process. The two positions leave the student bounced between the vendor and the institution with neither resolving the in-window scheduling problem. The vendor also gave shifting rationales (window closed, then marked no-show) and an inconsistent restriction window (24 hours in chat, 72 hours in email).

'''Evidence.''' ProctorU/Meazure emails (Areeba Tariq, Ujjwal Ray, and others) directing the student to Herzing for a window extension and stating the windows are institution-controlled; ProctorU live chat stating the exam windows are set by the exam instructor and ProctorU has no controls; Dr. Stacey Gombar emails stating she does not know the resolution and later that Herzing faculty cannot set up an additional exam and the student must use the appeals process.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[ProctorU:] the exam windows are set by the exam instructor we do not have any controls over it. [Dr. Gombar:] Unfortunately, Herzing faculty does not have access to set up an additional exam, so you must follow this process.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (the institution is responsible for its testing vendor and for a functional process); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear and fair processes). When a vendor and the institution each point to the other, an accommodated student is left with no responsible party to resolve a time-sensitive failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-163}}.

'''Impact.''' The accountability gap left the student without a resolution path during the window, and the contradictory explanations made it impossible to know what actually prevented the reschedule.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-163}} (lead). Documented 2026-06-06.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure support thread (ticket 8041745); Dr. Stacey Gombar emails, June 6, 2026.


=== HU-167b: The reporting student was unable to begin the NSG523 exam for over one hour and fifteen minutes after logging in, made three failed ProProctor connection attempts in one hour, and the session was ultimately transferred to another technician before the exam could start ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Exam Start Delayed Over 75 Minutes; Three Failed Connection Attempts
! Date added
| 2026-06-13
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student logged in to begin his NSG523 exam at approximately 2:25 PM CDT on Saturday June 13, 2026. Screenshots timestamped between 3:27 PM and 3:44 PM show he had been waiting for over one hour and had not yet started. He told the ProctorU agent at 3:33 PM that this was his third connection attempt in the past hour with nothing happening. The ProctorU screen displayed "Wait time is longer than expected" with an average wait of 8 minutes. The agent Gedela T. twice asked him to "allow a few minutes" (at 3:30 PM and 3:37 PM). At 3:43 PM the session was transferred to another technician. The reporting student confirmed in a follow-up email that he was ultimately able to take the exam but that it took over one hour and fifteen minutes for them to let him start.

'''Evidence.''' ProctorU chat screenshots (3:27 to 3:44 PM, Jun 13, 2026) showing three connection cycles, the "Wait time is longer than expected" screen, and the 3:43 PM session transfer; email from the reporting student and a follow-up email confirming the delay.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I have been logged in since 2:25 trying to start my exam. I have now attempted to connect 3 times. As you can see, it has been "allow me a few minutes" for over an hour with multiple people and no proproctor. ... it took over 1 hour and 15 minutes for them to let me start.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability and vendor oversight); 42 U.S.C. 12189 and 28 C.F.R. 36.309 (examinations must be offered in an accessible manner with necessary accommodations); Section 504 (29 U.S.C. 794). An over 75-minute pre-exam delay caused by vendor unavailability, after three failed connection attempts, is an accommodation-delivery and vendor-oversight failure. The delay consumes time and mental energy before the exam begins, which is particularly significant for a 375-minute accommodated exam. Lead: {{HU|HU-167}}.

'''Impact.''' The delay of over one hour and fifteen minutes before the exam started affected the student's testing conditions and consumed time that could have been used for the exam itself or for preparation.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-167}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party screenshots and email. The exam is NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 (375 minutes at 250% accommodation). Documented 2026-06-13.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Seven ProctorU chat/screen screenshots (Sat Jun 13, 2026, 3:27 PM to 3:44 PM CDT); email from the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Nicole Franklin, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, David Steele, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Tanetshia Brown (sent approx. 3:39 PM, Jun 13, 2026); follow-up email from the reporting student confirming exam completed after over 1 hour 15 minute delay; provided by the reporting student.


=== HU-174: Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor, NSG524) forwarded the reporting student the ProctorU link for the NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 (250% accommodation; exam window July 13 to July 19, 2026) while stating she was still waiting on the link for Exam 1; the reporting student asked to complete Exam I and remediation before Exam II so he could identify and address his deficiencies first, then followed up repeatedly; faculty had no updates and were told to wait for further advisement, so the Exam 1 link remained unprovided and the requested sequencing could not be scheduled ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Approved or Requested Accommodation Exam Retake Not Operationalized; Exam 1 (250%) ProctorU Link Not Provided While Exam 2 Link Issued; Multi-Week Delay With No Updates
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor, NSG524) / NSG524 course lead and program leadership / Elizabeth Dwyer (Learning Solutions Integrations Specialist) / Herzing Testing and Accommodations / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair)
|}
'''Finding.''' Elizabeth Dwyer issued the ProctorU accommodation link for ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 2026 Summer C Accommodations 250%, designated for the reporting student, with an exam window of Monday July 13, 2026 12:00 AM CDT to Sunday July 19, 2026 7:00 PM CDT. Dr. Stacey Gombar forwarded that Exam 2 link to the reporting student and stated she was still waiting on the link for Exam 1. The reporting student replied asking to complete Exam I and remediation before Exam II so that he could see what deficiencies he had and address them, and asked how Exam I could be scheduled first. He followed up at least twice asking for updates on the Exam 1 link and stating he would really like to take Exam I before Exam II. Dr. Gombar responded that she would wait for further advisement as to when the link would be received, and later that she did not have any updates, that she was told to wait and the link would be sent out, and that she had been in contact with her course lead and leadership and was watching closely for it. Dr. Stephanie Black's automatic reply indicated she was out of the office for onsite meetings. The result is that the accommodated Exam 1 retake plus remediation that the reporting student requested to take before Exam II could not be scheduled because the Exam 1 testing link had not been provided, while the Exam 2 link issued normally. The student reports that Dr. Prashad previously approved the retake of Exam I in NSG524 Mental Health; the June 15 thread documents the request and the missing link but does not itself contain the approval language, so that approval is recorded here per the student's reference and the prior NSG524 appeal and exam cluster ({{HU|HU-163}} and {{HU|HU-166}}) and is flagged for verification against the approval record.

'''Evidence.''' Email from Elizabeth Dwyer (Learning Solutions Integrations Specialist) providing the accommodation exam link for NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2, June 15, 2026, 12:35 PM. Forward from Dr. Stacey Gombar to the reporting student. Reply from the reporting student to Dr. Gombar, Dr. Laban, Dr. Prashad, and Dr. Black requesting Exam I and remediation before Exam II. Follow-up emails from the reporting student. Replies from Dr. Gombar stating she was waiting for further advisement and had no updates. Automatic reply from Dr. Stephanie Black indicating she was out of the office for onsite meetings.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Dr. Gombar:] I am forwarding the link to sign up for Exam 2. I am still waiting on the link for Exam 1. [the reporting student:] I am going to request the ability to do exam I and remediation prior to exam ii so that I can see what deficiencies I have and address them. [Dr. Gombar:] I do not have any, I was told to wait and the link would be sent out. Please be assured that I have been in contact with my course lead and leadership, and am watching closely for it.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, with 34 C.F.R. 104.44 (postsecondary academic adjustments and auxiliary aids, which are to be provided in a timely and effective manner); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable and timely operational processes); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including fair and reliable processes for accommodated students) and Criterion 4.B (reliable assessment processes); ACEN Standard 4 (fair academic standards and policies). Issuing the Exam 2 accommodation link while the Exam 1 accommodation link remained outstanding, with the assigned faculty unable to obtain it and directed to wait, is a timeliness and effective-access concern, particularly where the student requested to complete Exam I and remediation before Exam II. This entry does not assert a violation and records the matter for review and verification.

'''Impact.''' If the Exam 1 (250%) link is not provided in time to complete Exam I and remediation before the Exam 2 window opens on July 13, 2026, the student loses the requested and reportedly approved sequencing, loses the opportunity to identify and address deficiencies before Exam II, and is pushed toward sitting Exam II without the intended remediation. The delay also shifts the burden of repeated follow-up onto the student and onto an adjunct professor who does not have the access needed to resolve it.

'''Notes.''' Exam: ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 2026 Summer C Accommodations 250%. The Exam 2 window is Mon 07/13/26 12:00 AM CDT to Sun 07/19/26 7:00 PM CDT, designated for the reporting student. As of the June 15, 2026 thread, the Exam 1 link had not been issued. Dr. Gombar stated she was in contact with her course lead and program leadership and was watching for the Exam 1 link. Dr. Stephanie Black's automatic reply indicated she was out of the office for onsite meetings. Per the student, Dr. Prashad previously approved the Exam I retake in NSG524 Mental Health and the delay in providing the new link has extended over several weeks; the approval itself is referenced and flagged for verification, since the June 15 thread documents the request and the missing link but not the approval language. CONFIRMED for the documented facts of the email thread. Added 2026-06-15.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Email thread, subject HESI Exam ProctorU Link, ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 2026 Summer C Accommodations 250%, among Elizabeth (Lizz) Dwyer (Learning Solutions Integrations Specialist), Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor, NSG524), the reporting student, Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair), and Dr. Stephanie Black (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing); original message Monday, June 15, 2026 12:35 PM CDT; provided by the reporting student.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-163}} (NSG524 Mental Health 250% exam blocked by weather, marked no-show, appeals and makeup process; lead cluster), {{HU|HU-166}} (NSG524 grade-appeal thread; Bishop and Prashad conflicting appeal instructions), {{HU|HU-167}} (NSG523 Exam 1; no ProProctor available on the weekend; accommodation testing-access disparity), {{HU|HU-155}} (NSG521 Fundamentals final retake denied), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring supports declined), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES case closure).


=== HU-175: ProctorU proctor took unilateral remote control of the reporting student's computer during the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II session and disabled magnification and read aloud functions mid-exam without his consent, and the testing clock reportedly continued to run while the issue went unresolved ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED; the underlying accessibility failure remained unresolved and recurred at the next scheduled exam attempt around July 21, 2026, with a vendor investigation and partial resolution steps documented through July 24, 2026; see the update in Finding Summary
|-
! Issue type
| Unauthorized Remote Control of Student Device; Disabled Accommodation Features Mid-Exam; Testing Clock Not Paused
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU / Meazure Learning / Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (out of office at the time) / Dr. Stacey Gombar
|}
'''Finding.''' On July 15, 2026, during the NSG524 Exam II session, the reporting student reported that before he could begin the exam, the proctor took control of his mouse and changed settings in his system preferences remotely, something he stated had not happened in the nine months prior. As a result, he could no longer use screen zoom or magnification, and the software stopped reading questions aloud. He completed a portion of the exam under these degraded conditions; Dr. Gombar's written recap places the point of interruption at approximately 30 completed questions. The proctor then had him exit the exam and attempted to use Google Chrome instead of the required Guardian browser, which redirected back to the same page without restoring the disabled features. The reporting student stated the testing clock continued running throughout this troubleshooting. He was ultimately told to reschedule. In his July 16, 2026 reply to Dr. Laban, the reporting student stated the proctor never restored the original settings and that he does not want ProctorU changing settings on his computer without asking going forward. Dr. Gombar's written recap confirms the proctor took control of settings during sign on, that this hindered the reporting student's ability to use magnification to read on screen text, that the proctor asked him to move back when he leaned toward the screen to compensate, that the proctor could not resolve the issue after an extended troubleshooting period, and that the reporting student completed only about 30 questions before the session was effectively lost.

UPDATE (2026-07-21 to 2026-07-24): The underlying accessibility failure remained unresolved by the time the reporting student's next scheduled exam approached. On July 21, 2026, Dr. Danielle Laban wrote that while the issues from the prior week remained unresolved, she recommended the reporting student reschedule that exam, and stated she would follow up with an investigation update the same day. The reporting student replied the same morning stating that his request for zoom and magnification capability had initially been denied, on the basis that it was already built into the software; that he had again blocked off time for an exam he had previously had to stop without finishing; that ProctorU had again taken control of his computer and changed settings without his consent; that he had spent additional time on hold with IT waiting on Elsevier; that he was unsure whether he should attempt the exam or wait for resolution, fearing he would be penalized if he started but could not finish; and that he had no other available testing times in the near term because of virtual clinicals, regular clinicals, and the lack of ProProctor coverage over the weekend. He attached an audio recording of a support call during which he stated he had a panic attack and had to hang up, and stated he intended to file another OCR complaint. Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, asked whether the reporting student had tried the Ctrl and keyboard shortcuts to adjust font size within the Guardian browser, or the ProctorU accessibility menu. The reporting student responded that this was exactly how he had adjusted zoom since admission and that this was what had stopped working, and separately clarified that the exam in question does not use ProctorU's Guardian browser at all, but Elsevier's own secure browser, which does not have an accessibility menu. On July 21, 2026 at 6:26 PM, Dr. Laban stated Elsevier was still investigating and that Herzing would connect with Elsevier the next morning for an update. On July 24, 2026 at 9:26 AM, Dr. Laban wrote that Elsevier's technical team had completed its investigation, had verified that text to speech functioned correctly within the exam, and had tested the zoom feature on a Mac of the same make and model as the reporting student's, finding that zoom worked once the Mac's own operating system accessibility settings were enabled. She explained that because zoom is controlled through the device operating system, if it becomes unavailable during an exam the student would need to exit the secure browser, confirm the operating system accessibility settings remain enabled, and relaunch the exam, and that the same process would apply to other device based accommodation tools such as earphones. She stated Herzing had approved rescheduling both affected exams and asked the reporting student to provide his preferred 72 hour testing window. The reporting student replied that he should not have to restart the mental health exam from the beginning since he had already completed more than half of it before the interruption, and asked for guidance on sequencing his remaining exams given clinicals, virtual clinicals, and a conference, so that he would not end up with four exams in a single week. He requested a test exam with the university before attempting the rescheduled exams, stated he had used the accessibility features successfully for months without issue, maintained that it was ProctorU that made the changes causing the failure, and stated he intended to ask the Department of Education to audit the recordings. He separately attached screenshots he described as showing other students also experiencing ProctorU issues, offered here as POSSIBLE, secondhand pattern evidence rather than a confirmed institution-wide finding. He also raised a separate, previously unresolved claim: that Herzing's office had told him some months earlier that the Boards of Nursing required the use of ProctorU, that he had requested supporting evidence for that claim and been told the university would follow up after speaking with Dr. Black and the compliance team, and that as of his June 9, 2026 follow-up and this July 24, 2026 message, no supporting evidence had been provided. Later on July 24, 2026, the reporting student replied to Dr. Laban disputing her explanation as inaccurate, asking her to pull the ProctorU recording, stating that the zoom shortcut works in every other program using the identical keys and that the problem is isolated to the exam lockdown browser specifically, noting that if the proctor had in fact reversed all of the system preference changes made during the prior session, as he stated the recording shows, then an operating system settings explanation should not have caused a recurrence, and stating that Herzing's IT department, ProctorU, and Elsevier had each redirected him to the others without resolving the underlying cause. He characterized Dr. Laban's email as an institutional admission that the ProctorU representative's settings changes were the source of the problem.

UPDATE (2026-08-04): joint troubleshooting on a recorded call with a representative of Elsevier/HESI, later joined by Dr. Danielle Laban, isolated the technical cause of this failure to the version of the Elsevier secure examination browser rather than to the reporting student's device or its operating system settings. During the call the representative confirmed that the reporting student's macOS slow keys setting was disabled and that his operating system zoom keys were enabled. With those settings verified, zoom and magnification still failed inside the legacy secure browser, while continuing to function normally in Chrome and every other application on the same machine. The representative then directed the reporting student to load a newer secure browser build by way of a separate compatibility check link, and zoom functioned immediately in that build. The representative stated that he did not know what was occurring between the legacy browser and the device, that based on the reporting student's settings it should have been working, and that the newer secure browser has the zoom functionality embedded within it. He further explained that individual examinations can be enabled to deliver on the new secure browser from the vendor back end, that he could enable it shortly before a scheduled examination and disable it afterward, and that doing so would apply to any student launching that examination group during that window. This finding materially undercuts the explanation conveyed to the reporting student on July 24, 2026 attributing the failure to his device's operating system accessibility settings, and corroborates the position the reporting student stated in his July 24, 2026 reply that the failure was isolated specifically to the examination lockdown browser while the identical keyboard shortcut worked in every other program. During the same call, the examination the reporting student was scheduled to sit approximately one hour later was cancelled, making this at least the fourth examination affected. Dr. Laban indicated she would arrange rescheduling on the back end so that the vendor's seventy two hour rescheduling restriction would not apply, and stated she had an Elsevier meeting scheduled to determine next steps. The representative stated repeatedly that the decision to migrate examinations to the new secure browser is Herzing's to make rather than his, so remediation of this issue now rests with the institution. The reporting student also observed on the call that his text to speech read aloud could not be verified during testing because the new browser compatibility check did not present sample items, so whether read aloud functions in the new build remains unconfirmed.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student, email, Jul 15, 2026, 12:10 PM: description of the proctor taking control of his mouse, changing system preferences, and disabling zoom and read aloud, with the testing clock still running. The reporting student, email, Jul 15, 2026, 12:20 PM: statement that the exam procedure changes every time and a request that the recording be reviewed. The reporting student, email, Jul 15, 2026, 12:36 PM: statement that ProctorU acknowledged an issue within their software, that he was asked to reschedule after completing roughly half the exam, and that he considered this an ADA issue for OCR purposes. Dr. Stacey Gombar, written recap of their same day phone call: confirmation that the proctor took control of settings during sign on, that this hindered the reporting student's ability to use magnification, that the proctor asked him to move back from the screen, that the proctor could not resolve the issue, and that the reporting student completed approximately 30 questions before the interruption. The reporting student, email, Jul 16, 2026, 11:02 AM, to Dr. Laban: statement that the proctor did not restore the settings and a request that proctors not change settings without asking going forward. Recorded video call and transcript, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, an Elsevier/HESI representative, and Dr. Danielle Laban: verification that slow keys were disabled and operating system zoom keys enabled; failure of zoom in the legacy secure browser under those verified settings; successful zoom after loading the newer secure browser; the representative's statements that the newer browser has zoom functionality embedded, that individual examination groups can be enabled for it from the vendor back end, and that the decision to migrate examinations is Herzing's; the cancellation of the examination scheduled approximately one hour after the call; and Dr. Laban's statements regarding back end rescheduling outside the seventy two hour restriction. Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 21, 2026, 8:31 AM: recommendation to reschedule while the prior week's issues remained unresolved. The reporting student, email, Jul 21, 2026, 8:44 AM, with attached audio recording (New Recording 22.m4a): description of the recurrence, the denied initial request for zoom and magnification capability, the panic attack during a support call, and scheduling constraints from clinicals and lack of weekend ProProctor coverage. Emilie Thompson, emails, Jul 21, 2026, 9:19 AM and 9:42 AM: troubleshooting questions about keyboard shortcuts and the ProctorU accessibility menu. The reporting student, replies, Jul 21, 2026, 9:27 AM and 9:49 AM: confirmation the shortcut previously worked and had stopped working, and clarification that the exam uses Elsevier's own secure browser rather than ProctorU's Guardian browser. Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 21, 2026, 6:26 PM: update that Elsevier was still investigating. Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 24, 2026, 9:26 AM: Elsevier's investigation findings (text to speech verified functional; zoom functional on a matching Mac once operating system accessibility settings were enabled), an explanation that zoom is operating system controlled, and approval to reschedule both affected exams pending the reporting student's preferred 72 hour window. The reporting student, email, Jul 24, 2026 (today): objection to restarting the mental health exam from the beginning, a scheduling request to avoid four exams in one week, a request for a test exam before the rescheduled exams, three attached screenshots including images described as showing other students' ProctorU issues, and a renewed, previously unanswered request (referencing a June 9, 2026 follow-up) for evidence supporting an earlier claim that the Boards of Nursing require ProctorU. The reporting student, email, Jul 24, 2026, 4:45 PM: dispute of Dr. Laban's explanation, a request that the recording be pulled, and the statement quoted below regarding Herzing's characterization of the ProctorU representative's settings changes.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Today, before starting my exam, they took control of my mouse and changed settings on my computer remotely in my system preferences. Now I cannot zoom in and out nor can I hear the software read the questions to me anymore. My testing clock is running. [Jul 21, 2026:] I am fearful the university will punish me for the failure of the software to cooperate. [Jul 24, 2026:] I am glad Herzing is admitting that the settings changed by the ProctorU representative led to the issue we are having but this does not fix the issue caused. [Elsevier representative, Aug 4, 2026:] I don't know what's going on between the old browser and the device and what's causing everything that he has set on. It should be working. The new secure browser has the functionality embedded within itself that does allow for the zoom in and out functions.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Americans with Disabilities Act, Title III, 42 U.S.C. Section 12182, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, together with the implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Section 104.44 (academic adjustments), require that approved accommodations be provided consistently and not unilaterally withdrawn or altered during an assessment. Whether screen magnification and text to speech read aloud are documented as approved accommodations in the reporting student's June 2026 accommodation letter (Emilie Thompson) has not yet been confirmed in this entry and is flagged as an open item rather than assumed; if confirmed, the mid-exam removal of those features constitutes a direct accommodation interruption rather than a general technical glitch. The obligation to provide accommodations consistently extends to third party vendors performing the assessment function on the institution's behalf and cannot be delegated away, consistent with the vendor and clinical site obligation principle already reflected in this tracker. UPDATE (2026-07-24): Herzing's July 24, 2026 email attributes the underlying cause to the device operating system's accessibility settings rather than to a persistent proctor caused change, while the reporting student disputes this account and states the problem is isolated to the exam lockdown browser and recurs even when the same operating system shortcuts work in every other program. The reporting student's July 24, 2026 reply also characterizes Dr. Laban's email as an institutional admission that a ProctorU representative's settings changes caused the issue. Whether the accepted explanation is an operating system setting, a proctor caused change, or both, remains a disputed question of fact between the parties rather than a matter resolved in this tracker; the confirmation of whether zoom and text to speech read aloud were documented approved accommodations, as opposed to a built in software feature the student was told not to worry about, also remains open and is now informed by the reporting student's statement that this same capability was initially requested and denied as unnecessary. FURTHER UPDATE (2026-08-04): the August 4, 2026 joint testing resolves the factual dispute described above in the reporting student's favor as to technical causation, identifying the legacy secure browser build as the operative cause rather than the device operating system. It also indicates that a functional alternative exists and is available to the institution, which is relevant to whether continued failure to deliver the accommodation is reasonable. The separate question of whether the proctor's unauthorized remote changes on July 15, 2026 independently violated the accommodation obligation remains open and is not resolved by this finding; the two may be independent contributing variables.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student was required to attempt exam content without functioning magnification and read aloud support for a portion of the session, then was told to reschedule after already investing time and effort mid-exam, with the testing clock reportedly still running during the unresolved troubleshooting period. This raises both an accommodation delivery concern and a testing conditions concern, and mirrors the pattern of inconsistent ProctorU session setup already documented elsewhere in this tracker. UPDATE (2026-07-24): the unresolved recurrence forced a second rescheduling, compounding the delay from the original July 15, 2026 session, and created a scheduling conflict with clinicals, virtual clinicals, and a conference that the reporting student states risks compressing his remaining exams into a single week. The reporting student has documented a panic attack during a support call on July 21, 2026 by way of an audio recording, and has stated he intends to file additional OCR complaints in connection with this recurrence.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student stated in his July 16, 2026 reply that he does not want ProctorU changing settings on his computer without asking going forward, and that this is not standard proctor practice and had not occurred in his prior sessions. Confirm whether the session recording has been preserved and produced. UPDATE (2026-07-24): recommend obtaining and preserving the audio recording the reporting student submitted July 21, 2026 (New Recording 22.m4a) and the three screenshots submitted July 24, 2026 as part of this tracker's evidence file. Recommend requesting written confirmation of whether a test exam will be provided before the rescheduled attempts, since the reporting student requested one and no response is reflected in the material reviewed. Recommend separately tracking and requesting written evidence for the claim, attributed by the reporting student to a Herzing office, that the Boards of Nursing require the use of ProctorU, since no supporting documentation has been provided despite a stated commitment to follow up. The exact current count of OCR complaints filed or intended in connection with this and related matters should be confirmed directly rather than assumed from the reporting student's references to a second and later a third complaint. UPDATE (2026-08-04): recommend requesting written confirmation from Herzing of whether it will migrate the reporting student's remaining examinations to the new secure browser, and if not, on what basis. Recommend preserving the recording of the August 4, 2026 call and the short screen capture the reporting student emailed to the Elsevier representative. Whether text to speech read aloud functions in the new secure browser build remains unverified, because the compatibility check for that build did not present sample items. FURTHER UPDATE (2026-08-11): see {{HU|HU-195}}. On August 10, 2026, under the same verified settings, Elsevier confirmed the reporting student was launched into the wrong exam and the zoom and text reader failure recurred, directly contradicting the August 4, 2026 representation that the new secure browser resolved this issue. The August 4, 2026 fix should not be treated as confirmed or durable. FURTHER UPDATE (2026-09-13): see {{HU|HU-197}}. In his September 9, 2026 email, the reporting student stated the zoom and text reader issue still does not work, indicating the failure remained unresolved a full month after the represented fix. FURTHER UPDATE (2026-08-05): in connection with {{HU|HU-189}}, the governing accommodation letter from Emilie Thompson dated February 3, 2026 was located. It expressly documents 250 percent time on timed testing, a 72 hour assignment extension on request, advance provision of synchronous session slides, and recording and transcription of synchronous sessions, but does not on its face enumerate screen magnification or text to speech read aloud as named accommodations. This directly bears on the open item recorded above and on both pending OCR complaints, which assume those features are documented accommodations. The reporting student should be asked whether a later or supplemental accommodation letter exists; if it does not, the framing of the testing issues may need to shift from denial of a documented accommodation toward denial of meaningful access and failure to engage an accommodation request, which remains actionable but rests on a different legal footing.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: The reporting student's emails, subject Exam and Fw: Exam, Jul 15, 2026, 12:10 PM, 12:20 PM, and 12:36 PM, to Herzing staff, Meazure Learning, and ProctorU compliance, with counsel copied; corroborated by Dr. Stacey Gombar's written recap of their same day phone call; and by the reporting student's July 16, 2026 reply to Dr. Danielle Laban.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-176}} (Herzing and Elsevier root cause acknowledgment and appeal waiver for this same session), {{HU|HU-177}} (conflicting appeal instructions arising from this same session), and prior ProctorU and accommodation entries documenting inconsistent proctor session setup; POSSIBLE new tracking item flagged but not yet separately logged: the reporting student's renewed, unanswered request for evidence supporting an earlier institutional claim that the Boards of Nursing require ProctorU; POSSIBLE pattern evidence: screenshots the reporting student attached July 24, 2026 describing other students' ProctorU issues, not independently verified in this entry; {{HU|HU-185}}, {{HU|HU-186}}, {{HU|HU-187}}, and {{HU|HU-188}} (issues identified during the August 4, 2026 joint troubleshooting call); {{HU|HU-195}} (August 10, 2026 recurrence); {{HU|HU-197}} (September 2026 continuation and asthma related scheduling dispute).


=== HU-176: Herzing identifies Elsevier as the probable root cause of the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II software failure documented in HU-175 and waives the grade appeal requirement for the affected attempt ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Vendor Software Failure Acknowledged by Institution; Appeal Requirement Waived
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Danielle Laban / Herzing Academic Affairs / Elsevier
|}
'''Finding.''' Following the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II session documented in {{HU|HU-175}}, Dr. Danielle Laban wrote that Herzing believes the main issue occurred with Elsevier and that Herzing is collaborating with Elsevier to investigate and determine a resolution to prevent the issue from recurring. Dr. Laban further stated that the reporting student would not be required to go through the appeal process because he was impacted by a technical issue outside his control, and that Herzing would reach out for his desired testing window once a resolution is reached. This entry documents the institution's acknowledgment that a vendor side technical failure, not student error, caused the disruption, and that the standard grade appeal step was waived as a result. This pattern is consistent with the prior Elsevier score transmission issues already documented earlier in this tracker.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 16, 2026, 4:45 PM: statement that the main issue occurred with Elsevier, that Herzing is collaborating with Elsevier to investigate and resolve it, and that the appeal process would not be required because the impact was due to a technical issue outside the student's control.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>We believe that the main issue occurred with Elsevier. We will not require you to go through the appeal process since you were impacted by this technical issue by issues outside of your control.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable technology and vendor oversight). This entry is a positive institutional response and is logged primarily as evidence of a recurring pattern of Elsevier related exam and grading disruptions rather than as a new violation.

'''Impact.''' The waiver reduces immediate harm to the reporting student for this specific exam attempt. It does not by itself resolve the broader pattern of recurring Elsevier related technical failures during proctored and accommodated exams, or establish what corrective action, if any, will be implemented before the next scheduled attempt.

'''Notes.''' Request written confirmation once Herzing's investigation concludes, of the specific Elsevier root cause, the rescheduled testing window, and that no late grade or placeholder zero will apply in the interim.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Email, Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs) to the reporting student and others, Thu Jul 16, 2026, 4:45 PM.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-175}} (this entry's underlying exam session failure), {{HU|HU-177}} (conflicting appeal instructions arising from the same session), and the earlier Elsevier score transmission cluster documented earlier in this tracker.


=== HU-179: Following the June 5, 2026 CARES case denial documented in HU-155 and the reporting student's stated intent to file an OCR complaint, Dr. Nicole Franklin issued a written approval confirming Dr. Black approved a retake of the NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam based on ProctorU's admission of fault ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED as to the content of the approval letter and the ProctorU fault admission it quotes; the exact date of the letter and its chronological relationship to the June 5, 2026 denial documented in {{HU|HU-155}} has not been independently confirmed and is flagged as an open item rather than assumed
|-
! Issue type
| Retake Denial Apparently Reversed After Internal Escalation and OCR Complaint Threat; Vendor Fault Admission
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / ProctorU / Meazure Learning
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin wrote to the reporting student with what she described as a positive update on his Spring 2026 NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam appeal. She stated that Herzing had been contacted by ProctorU, which acknowledged that the technical issues during the exam were its responsibility, and quoted ProctorU as stating that Meazure Learning recognized the reporting student's testing experience was unsatisfactory due to a delayed start, required troubleshooting for a technical issue, and distracting noise that occurred at one point during the exam. Based on this, Dr. Franklin stated that Dr. Black, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, approved a retake of the NSG521 final exam, to be completed by Sunday, July 12, with the reporting student given the opportunity to choose his own four day testing window, to be communicated to Dr. Franklin by 5 PM on Tuesday, June 30, after which a ProctorU scheduling link would follow. This approval directly concerns the same NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam retake request that {{HU|HU-155}} documents as having been reviewed by Dr. Black and not approved, per Dr. Franklin's June 5, 2026 CARES case follow-up email, and that the reporting student responded to the same day by stating he would file an OCR complaint and request separate Kansas and Wisconsin Board of Nursing investigations if no further internal appeal steps existed. Whether this approval letter was issued before the June 5 denial, as a renewed request after it, or as a reversal prompted by the reporting student's escalation has not been confirmed from the documents reviewed, and the exact date of this letter is not stated in the material provided; this should be verified against the original email header before treating the sequence as a confirmed reversal.

'''Evidence.''' Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban), subject Spring 2026 NSG521 Final Exam appeal: statement that ProctorU contacted Herzing acknowledging responsibility for the technical issues, quoting Meazure Learning's statement, and confirming Dr. Black's approval of a retake with a stated testing window and response deadlines. Compare against Dr. Nicole Franklin's CARES Case Follow-up email, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM (documented in {{HU|HU-155}}), and the reporting student's June 5, 2026, 3:28 PM email stating his intent to file an OCR complaint and request Kansas and Wisconsin Board of Nursing investigations if no further internal appeal steps existed.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Meazure Learning recognizes the reporting student's testing experience was unsatisfactory due to the delayed start and required troubleshooting for a technical issue, as well as the distracting noise that occurred at one point during his exam.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including consistent and adequately explained decision making) and HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including consistency in communications to students). This entry does not allege retaliation or a confirmed policy violation; it documents that a stated denial and a subsequent approval concern the same exam retake request, and flags the timing relative to the reporting student's internal escalation and stated intent to seek external review as a fact worth verifying rather than a proven causal link. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12131 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, remain relevant given the reporting student's documented testing accommodations and the vendor's admitted role in the exam disruption, consistent with the framing already used in {{HU|HU-155}}.

'''Impact.''' If the retake was in fact denied on June 5 and then approved shortly after the reporting student raised the prospect of an OCR complaint and state board investigations, the sequence is worth documenting and monitoring for institutional consistency purposes, without this entry concluding that the approval was caused by the escalation. Positively, the eventual approval and completion of the retake did allow the reporting student's grade to be corrected, as reflected in {{HU|HU-180}} below. The unresolved question of whether {{HU|HU-155}}'s denial and this approval concern the identical request or two separate requests affects how the overall NSG521 exam dispute timeline should be read.

'''Notes.''' Recommend confirming the exact send date of the Spring 2026 NSG521 Final Exam appeal approval letter and reconciling it against the June 5, 2026 CARES case follow-up denial documented in {{HU|HU-155}}, to establish whether this is a reversal of that same denial or a response to a separate, later request.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin (cc Danielle Laban) to the reporting student, subject Spring 2026 NSG521 Final Exam appeal; compared against the June 5, 2026 CARES Case Follow-up email from Dr. Franklin (documented in {{HU|HU-155}}) and the reporting student's June 5, 2026, 3:28 PM reply stating his intent to file an OCR complaint and to ask the Kansas and Wisconsin Boards of Nursing to open investigations; provided by the reporting student.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-155}} (June 5, 2026 denial of the same NSG521 final exam retake request), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES case closure and legal hold request), {{HU|HU-159}} (NSG521 grade change from A to B and the open question of who authorized it, same course), {{HU|HU-180}} (instructor of record not notified of the resulting grade change).


=== HU-182: The reporting student's July 1, 2026 exam started over an hour late due to a ProctorU/Meazure Learning staffing error, which he identified as the seventh or eighth instance of a delayed exam start in the prior six months, citing five specific prior dates ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED as to the July 1, 2026 delay and Meazure Learning's own acknowledgment of a scheduling error; the characterization as the seventh or eighth such instance rests on the reporting student's own count and the five listed dates, which are CONFIRMED as dates he reports delays occurred but have not been independently corroborated against a separate proctoring log in this entry
|-
! Issue type
| Chronic ProctorU Staffing and Scheduling Failure Causing Repeated Delayed Exam Starts
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Testing and Accommodations
|}
'''Finding.''' Meazure Learning Compliance wrote to the reporting student acknowledging that he experienced a delay in being assigned a PRO Proctor and starting his July 1, 2026 exam administration, attributing it to an inadvertent scheduling error that caused an issue with PRO Proctor availability, apologizing for the inconvenience, and stating a commitment to ensuring PRO Proctor availability for future scheduled exams. Forwarding this response to Herzing ADA, Student Affairs, and Academic Operations staff, the reporting student stated that he started the exam over an hour late, that he would normally accept an isolated apology of this kind, but that this was the seventh or eighth time this had happened in the prior six months, and that simply not scheduling sufficient PRO Proctor staff when students schedule their exams is not acceptable. He listed five specific additional dates on which his exam had started late or been delayed: June 5, June 6, June 13, June 2, and May 4, 2026, and asked what Herzing and the vendor needed to do to ensure consistency. The June 6, 2026 date on this list corresponds to the weather-related no-show and reschedule-lock failure already documented in the {{HU|HU-163}} cluster, so at least one of the five listed dates is independently corroborated elsewhere in this tracker; the remaining four dates (May 4, June 2, June 5, June 13, 2026) are not yet separately documented as standalone entries and rest on the reporting student's own account as stated in this email.

'''Evidence.''' Email, Meazure Learning Compliance to the reporting student: acknowledgment of an inadvertent scheduling error causing PRO Proctor unavailability and delay for the July 1, 2026 exam, an apology, and a stated commitment to future availability. Email, the reporting student to Herzing ADA, Student Affairs, and Academic Operations staff: statement that the exam started over an hour late, that this was the seventh or eighth such instance in six months, and a list of five additional dates (2026-06-05, 2026-06-06, 2026-06-13, 2026-06-02, 2026-05-04) on which his exam started late or was delayed. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-163}} (the June 6, 2026 weather-related no-show and reschedule failure, one of the five listed dates).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Typically, I wouldn't have a problem with the response like this and would be understanding, but this is the seventh or eighth time this has happened in the last six months. Simply not scheduling people to be on staff when students schedule their exams is not acceptable.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including effective oversight of a contracted testing vendor) and, given the reporting student's documented testing accommodations, the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. Section 794), since unreliable proctor staffing has a disproportionate effect on a student who requires a PRO Proctor as part of an approved accommodation. A single delayed exam start, standing alone, would be a minor operational issue; a repeated pattern of seven or eight such instances in six months, if corroborated, would support a finding of a systemic vendor staffing and scheduling reliability failure rather than isolated incidents.

'''Impact.''' Repeated delayed exam starts disrupt testing conditions, consume accommodated testing time, and add to documented cumulative stress and administrative burden already reflected elsewhere in this tracker, including the appeals volume referenced in {{HU|HU-163e}}. If the pattern of seven or eight delayed starts in six months is corroborated, it would indicate the vendor's PRO Proctor staffing problem is ongoing and unresolved despite prior institutional awareness of at least the June 6, 2026 instance documented in {{HU|HU-163}}.

'''Notes.''' Recommend requesting from ProctorU/Meazure Learning or from Herzing a complete log of the reporting student's scheduled exam start times and any delays for the six-month period referenced, to independently corroborate the seven-or-eight-instance count and the four dates (May 4, June 2, June 5, June 13, 2026) not yet separately documented in this tracker.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Email, Meazure Learning Compliance to the reporting student, subject Fw: July 1, 2026 Exam Administration; forwarded by the reporting student to Herzing ADA, Student Affairs, and Academic Operations staff with a list of five additional delay dates; out-of-office auto-replies from Emilie Thompson and Shannon Bishop; provided by the reporting student.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-163}} and its sub-issues {{HU|HU-163a}} through {{HU|HU-163e}} (the June 6, 2026 weather-related no-show and reschedule-lock failure, one of the five dates listed here), {{HU|HU-163e}} (Notes updated 2026-07-17 to reference this entry); {{HU|HU-187}} (cumulative examination scheduling compression resulting from this pattern of delays and disruptions, added 2026-08-04).


=== HU-187: Cumulative vendor caused examination disruptions have compressed a semester of examinations into approximately three weeks, with a fourth examination cancelled on August 4, 2026 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED as to the reporting student's account of his examination schedule, stated on the call in the presence of Dr. Danielle Laban and not disputed by her on the call; the schedule has not been independently verified against Herzing's records in this entry
|-
! Issue type
| Cumulative Rescheduling Burden Compressing Examination Schedule
! Date added
| 2026-08-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs); Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair); Herzing academic leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' On the August 4, 2026 call, the reporting student stated that as a result of the accumulated examination disruptions he faced an examination that day, which was then cancelled during the call, a rescheduled examination the following Monday, a further makeup examination the week after arising from an examination he was unable to attempt while the underlying defect remained unresolved, and two additional examinations the week after that. He stated that he was concerned this compression would affect his performance, and characterized it as unfair that examinations originally distributed across an entire semester were being concentrated into approximately three weeks. He also stated that clinical obligations occupied the remainder of the week of August 4, 2026, leaving no availability until the following week. Dr. Danielle Laban, who was present on the call at that point, indicated the examination would be cancelled and rescheduled on the back end so that the reporting student would not be subject to the vendor's seventy two hour rescheduling restriction, and asked the reporting student to send his available windows. This entry documents the cumulative academic consequence of the disruptions individually documented elsewhere in this tracker.

'''Evidence.''' Recorded call and transcript, August 4, 2026: the reporting student's enumeration of his upcoming examination schedule, his statement regarding clinical obligations for the remainder of that week, his statement of concern about the compression, and Dr. Laban's statements that she would arrange rescheduling on the back end and asked him to send available windows.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>These are starting to add up and pile up, and I'm really nervous that this is going to be like, I'm gonna struggle because this is not fair that I'm having to take exams that were supposed to be done over the entire semester, and like a matter of three weeks.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, and 34 C.F.R. Section 104.44, insofar as the compression arises from repeated failures to deliver approved accommodations rather than from any act of the student. HLC Criterion 3.D (student support) and 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability) are also potentially relevant. This entry is framed as a documented cumulative burden and a risk to academic performance, not as an asserted finding that the reporting student has been academically harmed, which has not been established.

'''Impact.''' Concentrating a semester of high stakes examinations into approximately three weeks, for a student who also carries clinical and virtual clinical obligations, creates a substantial risk to examination performance that is attributable to institutional and vendor failures rather than to the student. This compounds the documented stress and anxiety already recorded in this tracker, including the panic attack the reporting student documented during a July 21, 2026 support call.

'''Notes.''' Recommend requesting written confirmation from Herzing of the final rescheduled examination dates, written confirmation that no late penalty or placeholder grade will apply, and written confirmation of the position Dr. Laban stated on the call that the vendor's seventy two hour rescheduling restriction will not be applied to these rescheduled attempts. The reporting student's stated schedule should be reconciled against Herzing's records before being relied upon in any filing.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Recorded video call, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who joined near the end of the call; transcript provided by the reporting student. Speaker attribution in the automated transcript is inconsistent and the same speaker is labeled variously; the substance is clear but individual lines should be attributed by reference to the underlying recording rather than to transcript speaker labels.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-175}} (accessibility failure cluster), {{HU|HU-182}} (chronic vendor proctor staffing delays), {{HU|HU-163}} and its sub-issues (weather related no-show and the resulting appeals burden), {{HU|HU-186}} (accommodation gesture and integrity flag exposure).


=== HU-188: The calculator within the HESI compatibility check returned an incorrect arithmetic result during joint testing ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED as to the observed behavior in the compatibility check environment; the Elsevier representative stated the calculator delivered within live examinations is a different and updated version, which has not been independently verified
|-
! Issue type
| Vendor Software Defect, Incorrect Calculator Output
! Date added
| 2026-08-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Elsevier / HESI product team
|}
'''Finding.''' While testing the HESI compatibility check environment on August 4, 2026, the reporting student entered two plus two into the built in calculator and received a result of one. The Elsevier representative responded that this was likely the legacy calculator, stated that the calculator available within live examinations had been updated after known accuracy problems, and said he would raise the observation with his product manager. This entry documents a vendor software quality defect observed in the testing environment. Because the representative stated the in-examination calculator is a different, updated build, this defect is not established to affect scored examinations, and should not be characterized as having affected any of the reporting student's examination results absent further verification.

'''Evidence.''' Recorded call and transcript, August 4, 2026: the reporting student's demonstration of the calculator returning one for two plus two, and the Elsevier representative's response attributing it to the legacy calculator, referencing prior known accuracy issues with it, and committing to raise it with the product manager.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>If I go into the calculator and I hit 2 plus 2, it comes out with one. [Elsevier representative:] That might be the old calculator. There was some issues with it not working accurately.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including oversight of vendors delivering core academic functions). This entry is logged primarily as vendor quality assurance evidence supporting the broader pattern of Elsevier and ProctorU technical defects documented in this tracker, rather than as an independent violation.

'''Impact.''' Minimal direct impact on the reporting student, since the defect was observed in a compatibility check rather than a scored examination and the vendor states the live calculator is a different build. The entry is retained as pattern evidence of vendor software quality issues affecting the examination platform, and as a prompt to verify that the calculator used in the reporting student's accommodated examinations is in fact the updated build.

'''Notes.''' Recommend requesting written confirmation from Elsevier or Herzing that the calculator delivered in the reporting student's scored examinations is the updated build, and that no prior examination he sat used the defective legacy calculator. This has not been verified.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Recorded video call, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who joined near the end of the call; transcript provided by the reporting student. Speaker attribution in the automated transcript is inconsistent and the same speaker is labeled variously; the substance is clear but individual lines should be attributed by reference to the underlying recording rather than to transcript speaker labels.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-185}} (secure browser security defects observed on the same call), {{HU|HU-175}} (accessibility failure cluster and August 4, 2026 root cause finding).


=== HU-195: On August 10, 2026, the reporting student was launched into an exam that Elsevier confirmed was not the exam he was scheduled to take, and screen magnification and the text reader failed again even though Herzing had represented on August 4, 2026 that the newer secure browser resolved that failure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED. Elsevier's own representative confirmed in writing that the exam launched was not the original exam
|-
! Issue type
| Wrong Examination Launched by Vendor; Recurrence of Accessibility Failure After Represented Fix; Cumulative Exam Scheduling Pressure
! Date added
| 2026-08-11
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Elsevier/HESI (Thomas Kistner, Meazure Learning coordination) / Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs)
|}
'''Finding.''' On August 10, 2026, the reporting student attempted a scheduled exam and reported that the system started him at question one rather than allowing him to resume, and that screen zoom and the audio text reader malfunctioned, with the reader stopping after a single word. He submitted a video recording demonstrating that the command-plus zoom shortcut did not work. Thomas Kistner, Elsevier's Customer Advocate, confirmed in writing that the exam the reporting student had been launched into was not his original scheduled exam, and separately confirmed that the reporting student's slow keys setting remained disabled, consistent with the settings verified during the August 4, 2026 troubleshooting call documented in {{HU|HU-175}}. The reporting student noted the exams may have been scheduled in reverse and stated this recurrence directly contradicts Herzing's August 4, 2026 representation, following that same troubleshooting call, that the newer secure browser had resolved the zoom and accessibility failure, with no indication a different, unfixed browser build was in use. The reporting student further stated that as a result of the accumulating disruptions he now faced four exams in the following two weeks alongside a virtual clinical make up and normal coursework, that he would not overwhelm himself by attempting multiple exams in the same week, and that he would not complete exams during the scheduled student break. In a same day follow up email, the reporting student told Dr. Laban and Kistner that if the issue was not resolved his upcoming final exams, worth a significant portion of his grade, would need to be pushed back, potentially into the following semester. Dr. Laban responded that she was working internally with the team to investigate and would follow up the next day.

'''Evidence.''' Email, the reporting student to Dr. Laban, Emilie Thompson, ADA, cc Thomas Kistner and Dr. Prashad, August 10, 2026, subject Exam, with an attached video recording (20260810_104632.mp4) demonstrating the failed zoom attempt. Email, Thomas Kistner, August 10, 2026: confirmation that the reporting student's exam session was investigated with Meazure Learning and that the exam launched was not the original exam, and confirmation that slow keys remained disabled. Email, the reporting student, same date: statement that the exams may have been scheduled in reverse and continued inability to zoom or use the text reader. Email, the reporting student to Dr. Laban, Thomas Kistner, ADA, and Emilie Thompson, subject Follow Up, August 10, 2026: statement that without a resolution his final exams would need to be pushed back and might roll into the following semester, and that he would not test during the student break. Email, Dr. Laban, same date: acknowledgment that she was investigating internally and would follow up the next day.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Correct, the exam you launched into was not the original exam. [Thomas Kistner, Elsevier, Aug 10, 2026] ... I am still unable to zoom in or out or have the text reader work. [the reporting student, Aug 10, 2026]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12181 et seq., are implicated by the recurrence of the accessibility failure. This entry is significant chiefly because it directly contradicts the resolution Herzing represented on August 4, 2026 in the correspondence underlying {{HU|HU-175}}, that the newer secure browser resolved the zoom and text reader failure. A representation that a fix has been implemented, followed by an unexplained recurrence of the identical failure under the same verified settings, undermines reliance on that representation and should be treated as an open, unresolved defect rather than a resolved one going forward. The wrong exam launch is a separate administrative/technical control failure implicating 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable vendor oversight).

'''Impact.''' The reporting student was unable to complete a scheduled exam due to a vendor error in exam assignment, and separately experienced a recurrence of the accessibility failure that Herzing had represented as fixed six days earlier. The cumulative effect, four exams in two weeks, an unresolved accessibility failure, and a stated need to push final exams into the following semester, places the reporting student's academic progression at risk for reasons entirely attributable to vendor and institutional failures rather than his own performance.

'''Notes.''' Recommend requesting a written, technical explanation from Elsevier of how a student can be launched into an exam other than the one scheduled, and whether this reflects a systemic scheduling defect beyond the reporting student's account. Recommend also requesting written confirmation of whether the new secure browser fix represented on August 4, 2026 was in fact in use during this August 10, 2026 attempt; if it was and still failed, that materially changes the reliability of Herzing's proposed remediation for {{HU|HU-175}}.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Email thread, subject Exam, between the reporting student, Thomas Kistner (Elsevier/HESI Customer Advocate), Dr. Danielle Laban, Emilie Thompson, and ADA, cc Dr. Raywattie Prashad, August 10, 2026; and email thread, subject Follow Up, between the reporting student, Thomas Kistner, and Dr. Danielle Laban, August 10, 2026.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-175}} (the accessibility failure cluster; this entry directly contradicts the August 4, 2026 resolution documented there and should be read as a continuation), {{HU|HU-187}} (cumulative examination scheduling compression), {{HU|HU-192}} (related materials access dispute in the same period), {{HU|HU-197}} (the September 2026 asthma related exam scheduling dispute that follows this same compressed schedule).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance

2026-09-15T16:38:06Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern whether Herzing's prelicensure nursing program meets state Board of Nursing (BON) requirements and whether the institution disclosed and managed those requirements properly. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This topic covers seven tracker entries: {{HU|HU-070}}, the lead record {{HU|HU-085}} and its four lettered sub-issues {{HU|HU-085a}} through {{HU|HU-085d}}, and {{HU|HU-094}}. All seven are CONFIRMED. Four are rated Critical ({{HU|HU-070}}, {{HU|HU-085}}, {{HU|HU-085a}}, {{HU|HU-085b}}) and three are rated High ({{HU|HU-085c}}, {{HU|HU-085d}}, {{HU|HU-094}}). All seven were added to the tracker on 2026-05-05, with {{HU|HU-085}} split into its lettered parts on 2026-06-06. The underlying source posts span Facebook group activity from November 2024 through May 2026, including December 2025 and April 2026 evidence, drawn from Volumes 6 and 7 of the group export.

The recurring thread is that Herzing repeatedly did not know, or did not act on, state-specific licensure requirements until a student or a state board forced the issue. {{HU|HU-070}} documents that Herzing was unaware of Virginia's 500 direct-care clinical hour requirement until a prospective student threatened to contact the Virginia Board of Nursing, and an enrolled Virginia student had to advocate for her own hour correction. {{HU|HU-085a}} documents a parallel pattern in Alabama, where the Board of Nursing required final-semester students to complete 24 additional in-person hours at UAB before they could sit for the NCLEX, and where, according to the tracker's evidence, only certain clinical coordinators (not top administrators) were aware of the gap until a student threatened legal action.

The remaining sub-issues extend the pattern into enrollment management and disclosure. {{HU|HU-085b}} records a freeze on new prelicensure enrollment from six states (Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota), attributed by Herzing to full capacity. {{HU|HU-085c}} records a Georgia enrollment pause in the same window. {{HU|HU-085d}} records disclosure concerns in additional states, including Florida, New York, and California, alongside the Virginia issue already tracked in {{HU|HU-070}}. {{HU|HU-094}} documents a separate but related consequence for Alabama graduates: Authorization to Test (ATT) waits exceeding 90 days after graduation, roughly triple the typical timeline, which delays NCLEX eligibility and employment. Owners named across the cluster include the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, Compliance, the Office of the Registrar, Enrollment, and State Relations, indicating the pattern crosses multiple institutional functions rather than sitting with a single department.

== Issues ==

=== HU-070: Herzing was unaware of Virginia Board of Nursing 500 direct-care hour requirement and adjusted hours only after a prospective student threatened to contact the VA BON; existing VA student had to advocate for proper hour count herself ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| State Licensure Requirement Compliance Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Compliance / Office of the Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Herzing University was not aware of the Virginia Board of Nursing requirement that out-of-state nursing programs provide at least 500 direct-care clinical hours (with no more than 125 hours of simulation) for Virginia students to be eligible for NCLEX licensure by examination. Herzing only agreed to adjust clinical hours for Virginia students after a prospective student (Student BT) threatened to contact the Virginia Board of Nursing. A current Virginia student had to independently advocate for the hour adjustment she should have automatically received. Some students reportedly left the program after being unable to find adequate Virginia-compliant clinical placement.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook posts by Student BT (Nov 14, 2024, and Jan 26, 2025) describe waiting weeks for a response from the school about Virginia's eligibility requirement for the NCLEX, and state that Virginia requires out-of-state nursing programs to complete 500 direct-care clinical hours with no more than 125 of those hours in simulation. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BT states that Herzing did not know it needed to give Virginia students more clinical hours, since Virginia will not allow licensure if too many clinical hours are simulation hours, and that Herzing did not know this until Student BT told them. Student BT reports that Herzing then agreed to adjust clinical hours for Virginia students only after students said they were contacting the Virginia Board of Nursing, and that a Virginia student ultimately had to tell Herzing to add clinical hours because Herzing had given the wrong hour count.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v): institutions must publicly disclose whether the program meets state educational requirements for professional licensure or certification in each state, and must determine for each enrolled student whether the program meets the licensure requirements in the student's state. U.S. Department of Education Distance Education Rule (effective July 1, 2024): distance education programs or correspondence courses offered to a student in a state different from where the nursing program is located must determine that the program meets the licensure and certification requirements in the state where each student is located at the time of initial enrollment. Virginia Board of Nursing 18 VAC 90-27 (Nursing education programs): out-of-state programs must provide 500 direct-care clinical hours with no more than 125 hours of simulation for Virginia students to be eligible for the NCLEX. NCSBN and USDE compliance framework: failure to determine state-specific licensure requirements before enrollment exposes students to NCLEX ineligibility despite program completion. ACEN Standard 4: program requirements must be aligned with state regulatory standards.

'''Impact.''' Virginia students who completed Herzing's program with the standard clinical hour structure (which heavily relies on VSIM simulation hours) may have been ineligible for NCLEX licensure in Virginia despite paying tuition and completing the program. The institution's reactive, rather than proactive, response to the Virginia requirement (adjusting hours only after threat of regulatory contact) suggests other state-specific licensure requirements may also be unknown to Herzing administration. Students from other states with strict simulation-cap requirements, such as Florida, Texas, and California, may face similar undetected ineligibility risks. Some students reportedly left the program due to inability to find Virginia-compliant clinical placement.

'''Notes.''' This issue intersects with {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-033}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, {{HU|HU-049}} (clinical placement deficiencies) and {{HU|HU-022}}, {{HU|HU-046}}, {{HU|HU-058}} (institutional misrepresentation). The pattern of learning about state requirements only when a student raises them, and adjusting policy only under threat of regulatory contact, is a fundamental compliance failure under 34 CFR 668.43. Verification should include: (1) what other state-specific licensure requirements Herzing is unaware of, (2) whether students who already graduated had adequate state-specific clinical hours, and (3) whether Herzing has formally documented state-by-state licensure eligibility determinations as required by the July 1, 2024 USDE rule. The student who advocated for the Virginia hour adjustment did so without institutional initiative, which the tracker characterizes as a violation of the institution's duty to determine licensure eligibility before enrollment.


=== HU-085: Lead: multi-state Board of Nursing and enrollment problems (Alabama clinical-hour enforcement blocking NCLEX, a six-state enrollment freeze, a Georgia pause, and licensure-disclosure concerns in additional states); see HU-085a through HU-085d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (multi-state BON enforcement and enrollment)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Compliance / Dean of Nursing / State Relations
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for multi-state Board of Nursing and enrollment problems documented in the Facebook group export (Volume 7). The issue is tracked separately as {{HU|HU-085a}} (Alabama BON enforcement of insufficient in-person clinical hours, requiring final-semester Alabama students to complete 24 additional hours at UAB before they could sit for the NCLEX), {{HU|HU-085b}} (a freeze on new prelicensure enrollment from six states, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, citing full enrollment capacity), {{HU|HU-085c}} (a Georgia enrollment pause from April to May 2026), and {{HU|HU-085d}} (licensure-disclosure concerns in additional states, including Virginia, Florida, New York, and California). Across these, at least ten states have documented BON or enrollment issues. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' This significantly extends {{HU|HU-070}}. The reporting student is located in one of the six frozen states. The lead was split into lettered sub-issues on 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-085}} resolve here. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review (Volume 7). Parts: {{HU|HU-085a}}, {{HU|HU-085b}}, {{HU|HU-085c}}, {{HU|HU-085d}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia BON direct-care hours).


=== HU-085a: Alabama Board of Nursing enforcement of insufficient in-person clinical hours required final-semester Alabama students to complete 24 additional hours at UAB before they could sit for NCLEX ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| State BON Enforcement Blocking NCLEX Eligibility
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Compliance / Dean of Nursing / Clinical Coordination
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Alabama Board of Nursing was enforcing a minimum in-person clinical-hour requirement that the program's virtual clinical hours did not satisfy. Final-semester Alabama students were required to complete 24 additional hours at UAB before they could sit for the NCLEX. A student who went to the Alabama Board of Nursing in person reported being told the institution had long known, that only certain clinical coordinators (not top administrators) were aware, and that action followed only after the student threatened legal action and emailed everyone.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 10 (April 4, 2026), reporting an in-person visit to the Alabama Board of Nursing; Handle 4 (April 3, 2026), corroborating that Alabama students could not sit for the NCLEX because of the virtual clinical hours; Anonymous member 441 (December 28, 2025), referencing Alabama Board of Nursing issues. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Handle 10 reports being told by the Alabama Board of Nursing that Herzing had long known about the requirement and should have addressed it, and that none of Herzing's top administrators were aware of it, only certain clinical coordinators. Handle 10 states that action was taken only after threatening legal action and emailing everyone. Handle 4 separately reports that Alabama students could not sit for the NCLEX because of the virtual clinical hours.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 6 (program outcomes include NCLEX eligibility and passage); NCSBN Model Nursing Practice Act (state boards may refuse NCLEX eligibility if program requirements are not met); Alabama Board of Nursing regulations on minimum in-person direct-care hours; 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v) (disclosure of whether a program meets state licensure requirements). Lead: {{HU|HU-085}}. Extends {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia direct-care hours).

'''Impact.''' Alabama students who completed the program could not sit for the NCLEX without completing additional hours at UAB that are not part of the program curriculum, an unexpected cost in time and money. The report that only certain clinical coordinators knew indicates a systemic internal communication failure on a Board of Nursing compliance gap affecting the institution's own students.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-085}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-085b: Herzing froze new prelicensure nursing enrollment from six states (Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota), citing full enrollment capacity ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Multi-State Enrollment Freeze
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Compliance / Enrollment / State Relations
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, as of December 2025 Herzing officially froze new prelicensure nursing enrollment from Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, attributing the freeze to full enrollment capacity.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 5 (December 20, 2025), quoting Herzing's official statement. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>At this time, we have reached full enrollment capacity for prelicensure nursing students from Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. We carefully manage enrollment to ensure a high-quality educational experience for every student.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v) (state licensure disclosure); 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation, where a stated reason may not match an underlying licensure or compliance reason). Lead: {{HU|HU-085}}.

'''Impact.''' Prospective students in the six frozen states cannot currently enroll even if academically eligible. If the stated full-capacity rationale does not match an underlying licensure or compliance reason, the explanation itself is a transparency concern. The reporting student is located in one of the frozen states.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-085}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-085c: Georgia prelicensure enrollment was paused by April to May 2026 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| State Enrollment Pause
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Compliance / Enrollment / State Relations
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, by April to May 2026 Georgia prelicensure enrollment was paused, with one member referencing having gone through a process with Alabama to appease the state Board of Nursing alongside the Georgia situation.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 6 (April 3, 2026) and an anonymous member (May 4, 2026), noting Georgia was paused; Anonymous member 441 (December 28, 2025), referencing Georgia and Alabama. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' One member referenced Georgia and Alabama and stated having just gone through a process with Alabama to appease the state Board of Nursing.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v) (state licensure disclosure). Lead: {{HU|HU-085}}.

'''Impact.''' A Georgia pause further narrows the states in which prospective students can enroll and signals additional state-level regulatory pressure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-085}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-085d: Licensure-disclosure concerns in additional states (Virginia, Florida, New York, California) about whether completing the program satisfies state Board of Nursing requirements ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| State Licensure Disclosure Concern
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Compliance / State Relations
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, beyond the frozen states and Alabama, members documented licensure-disclosure concerns in additional states: Virginia (tracked in {{HU|HU-070}}), Florida (screenshots showing the MSN-DE program not listed on the Florida Board of Nursing website), and New York and California (a member answering No when asked whether the program is accredited there).

'''Evidence.''' Student CC (December 9, 2024), posting four screenshots showing the MSN-DE program not listed on the Florida Board of Nursing website; Anonymous member 938 (February 9, 2025), answering No when asked whether the program is accredited in New York and California; {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia BON direct-care hours). Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous member 938 answered No when asked whether the program is accredited in New York and California.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v) (institutions must disclose whether a program meets licensure requirements in each state where students are located); 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation). Lead: {{HU|HU-085}}. See {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia).

'''Impact.''' Students in these states face potential confusion about whether completing the program satisfies their state Board of Nursing licensure pathway, with the associated risk of enrolling without a clear licensure route.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-085}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. The Florida and New York and California items are member-reported and should be verified against current state Board of Nursing listings.


=== HU-094: Authorization to Test (ATT) wait times exceeding 90 days in Alabama post-graduation; Student AH (veteran) documented 90+ day wait; delays post-graduation NCLEX eligibility and employment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Post-Graduation NCLEX Eligibility Delay
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Registrar / Compliance / State BON Liaison
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student AH (Jul 13, 2025), a veteran, documented an Authorization to Test (ATT) wait exceeding 90 days in Alabama following program completion. Student BJ noted that some states offer a two-week priority ATT process for veterans and military spouses, but Student V, a military spouse, confirmed that not every state offers this and reported waiting almost a month. Student AH's 90+ day wait is approximately triple the typical timeline. During this window, graduates cannot take the NCLEX, cannot obtain licensure, cannot begin employment as an RN, and are servicing student loan debt without income. This delay is compounded by the Alabama Board of Nursing enforcement issues documented in {{HU|HU-085}}, where virtual clinical hours were insufficient for NCLEX eligibility, requiring 24 additional UAB hours that would further extend the post-graduation timeline for affected Alabama students.

'''Evidence.''' Student AH (Jul 13, 2025), reporting a wait approaching 90 days in Alabama and identifying as a veteran; Student BJ (Jul 12, 2025), noting a typical one-month wait with two-week priority for veterans and spouses; Student V (Jul 12, 2025), a military spouse, reporting that not every state offers priority processing and that she still waited almost a month; an anonymous member (Jul 13, 2025), also in Alabama, expressing reluctance to wait another three months after graduation; Anonymous member 601 (Jul 23, 2025), asking whether others in Alabama had taken the LPN NCLEX mid-program to begin working sooner, indicating Alabama students actively seeking workarounds to the ATT delay. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AH reports being at nearly 90 days waiting on the ATT in Alabama and identifies as a veteran.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v): institutions must disclose whether their programs lead to licensure in specific states on a timely basis; if the institution is aware that Alabama's ATT process takes 90+ days for its graduates, this timeline should be disclosed to prospective Alabama students. 38 U.S.C. 3452 (GI Bill): veterans using VA educational benefits have a protected interest in timely access to their chosen career pathway, and a 90+ day post-graduation delay in NCLEX eligibility may implicate VA benefit usage review. NCSBN NCLEX Candidate Rules: state boards control ATT issuance, but institutional delays in transcript submission or record certification can extend state processing timelines, and the institution bears responsibility for ensuring timely submission of all required documentation to state boards upon student graduation.

'''Impact.''' A 90+ day ATT gap means Student AH graduated as an MSN and then waited three or more months before being eligible to take the NCLEX. During that period, student loan repayment obligations began, employment as an RN was impossible, and the investment of approximately $60,000-$95,000 in tuition produced no employable credential for 90+ additional days. For veterans and military families, this timeline may affect housing allowance calculations, VA benefit periods, and employment transitions. The Alabama-specific context is further complicated by {{HU|HU-085}}: Alabama students who needed to complete 24 additional UAB hours to satisfy Board of Nursing in-person hour requirements would face an even longer post-graduation gap before ATT issuance.

'''Notes.''' The ATT delay may be partially attributable to the Alabama Board of Nursing's heightened scrutiny of Herzing's program, documented in {{HU|HU-085}}. If the Board is conducting additional review of Herzing graduates' clinical hour compliance before issuing ATT authorization, individual students bear the consequences of a systemic institutional compliance problem. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama BON enforcement, virtual hour limits, NCLEX ineligibility), {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia BON direct-care hour requirement). Verification: institutional records of time-to-ATT by state, documentation of transcript submission timelines to the Alabama Board of Nursing post-graduation.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records

2026-09-15T16:38:05Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern grading practices, grade changes, exam weighting, and the accuracy of academic records. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers seventeen tracker entries dated from April 30, 2026 through July 17, 2026, though the underlying evidence spans further back, including Facebook posts and gradebook screenshots from late 2024 and early 2025. Four entries are rated Critical ({{HU|HU-045}}, {{HU|HU-045a}}, {{HU|HU-074}}, {{HU|HU-083}}), eight are rated High ({{HU|HU-045b}}, {{HU|HU-057}}, {{HU|HU-088}}, {{HU|HU-118}}, {{HU|HU-124}}, {{HU|HU-126}}, {{HU|HU-159}}, {{HU|HU-168c}}), and five are rated Medium ({{HU|HU-012}}, {{HU|HU-099}}, {{HU|HU-101}}, {{HU|HU-164e}}, {{HU|HU-180}}). Fifteen entries are CONFIRMED and two ({{HU|HU-012}} and {{HU|HU-164e}}) remain POSSIBLE, meaning they are reported concerns pending further verification.

One recurring thread is the escalation of HESI exam weighting and structure across cohorts: {{HU|HU-074}} traces HESI weighting rising from roughly 20 percent to 82 percent of a course grade over about eighteen months, {{HU|HU-083}} documents the elimination of the Milestones retake system in September 2024 alongside that escalation, {{HU|HU-088}} documents HESI content that students and faculty say does not match what was taught, and {{HU|HU-101}} documents a further change adding two more graded HESI exams in the final semester for the Spring 2026 cohort. A second thread concerns individual grading and appeal failures owned by specific faculty and administrators: {{HU|HU-045}} and its sub-issues {{HU|HU-045a}} and {{HU|HU-045b}} cover an ungraded makeup clinical and a failed escalation to the Dean, {{HU|HU-118}} covers a zero issued for a screenshot formatting problem later shown to be an unclear instruction, {{HU|HU-124}} covers a faculty member deducting points for reference links that were actually present in the submission, and {{HU|HU-126}} covers a quiz deadline set 23 hours earlier than announced. A third thread concerns the integrity of academic records themselves: {{HU|HU-012}} flags seven or more simultaneous grade changes with no explanation, {{HU|HU-168c}} documents a 69 percentage point course grade drop captured in two screenshots 15 seconds apart, and {{HU|HU-159}} and {{HU|HU-180}} together document an official transcript grade of A in NSG 521 that later became a B on an unofficial transcript, along with the multi step grade change process that may partly explain how that happened.

The owners named across these entries recur consistently: the Program Chair, the Dean of Nursing or Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, and Academic Affairs appear on more than half the entries, with named faculty (Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Stacey Gombar, Dr. Tanetshia Brown, Dr. Kellie Soles, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN) and the Office of the Registrar appearing on the remainder. Two entries ({{HU|HU-012}} and {{HU|HU-164e}}) are reported concerns rather than confirmed findings and are worded accordingly below.

== Issues ==


=== HU-012: Seven+ NSG520 assignment grades changed simultaneously within a 5-minute window on October 14, 2025 with no documented explanation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Grading Transparency
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | NSG520 Faculty / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, seven or more NSG520 assignment grades were changed simultaneously within a five minute window on October 14, 2025, with no documented explanation on record.

'''Evidence.''' Seven or more "Grade Changed" notification emails for NSG520 Pathophysiology and Pharmacology, all re-graded between 4:03 PM and 4:08 PM on October 14, 2025. Source group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' The tracker's evidence consists of seven successive grade-change notifications for NSG520 assignments, all re-graded within that same five minute window.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: grading policies must be communicated clearly and applied consistently. Mass simultaneous retroactive grade changes without documented rationale or student notification are a transparency concern.

'''Impact.''' Without documented rationale, students and accreditors cannot verify whether the grade changes were appropriate, constituted a curve, corrected an error, or applied a policy change.

'''Notes.''' Could be a legitimate curve or error correction, but the simultaneous timing and absence of explanation requires verification.


=== HU-045: Lead: Student P failed Clinical I after a faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical that was submitted before the grade deadline, causing a failure by under three points and academic probation; escalation to the Dean produced no resolution; see HU-045a, HU-045b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (faculty grading failure, failed escalation)
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for a Clinical I failure reported by Student P (Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe, March 5, 2025). The tracked problems are {{HU|HU-045a}} (a faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical submitted before final grades were due, producing a failure by under three points and academic probation) and {{HU|HU-045b}} (escalation to the Dean and others produced no resolution, leaving the student without effective recourse). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Source group: multiple GroupMe archives, including Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (January to June 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (January to April 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

'''Notes.''' Split into lettered sub-issues on 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-045}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-045a}}, {{HU|HU-045b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-016}} (unmonitored grade-appeal inbox).


=== HU-045a: A faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical that was submitted before the grade deadline, causing a Clinical I failure by under three points and academic probation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Non-Responsiveness / Course Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student P reported that she had to make up a virtual clinical, that the makeup fell the day before final grades were due, and that her professor did not respond to or grade the assignment, which caused her to fail Clinical I by less than three points and be placed on academic probation.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (March 5, 2025), Student P. Source group: Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe.

'''Reported statement.''' Student P states that she failed the class because she had to make up a virtual clinical that fell the day before final grades were due, and that her professor did not respond to or grade her assignment, which caused her to fail by less than three points.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (timely faculty feedback and fair grading); Handbook page 20 (grade-appeal procedures); institutional duty of fair grading: when work is submitted before the deadline and a faculty member does not grade it before grades are due, a resulting failure is attributable to institutional failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-045}}.

'''Impact.''' The student failed a clinical course, was placed on academic probation, and had to repeat an entire clinical course because a timely submission was not graded before the deadline.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-045}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-045b: Escalation to the Dean and others produced no resolution, leaving the student without effective recourse after the grading failure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Administrative Non-Response / Lack of Recourse
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, after the failure the student reported reaching out to everyone, including the Dean, and that nothing was done. Combined with an unmonitored grade-appeal channel, the non-response left the student without effective recourse.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (March 5, 2025), Student P. Source group: Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe.

'''Reported statement.''' Student P states that she reached out to everyone, including the Dean, and that nothing was done.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 and Handbook page 20 (grade-appeal procedures must be accessible and responsive). A lack of response to a direct escalation, alongside an unmonitored appeals inbox, removes effective recourse. Lead: {{HU|HU-045}}. See {{HU|HU-016}} (unmonitored grade-appeal inbox).

'''Impact.''' A student facing an erroneous failure had no functioning channel to obtain review, which compounded the underlying grading failure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-045}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-016}}.


=== HU-057: Identical Sherpath lessons assigned in both Clinical II (NSG525) and Medical Surgical Nursing I (NSG523) with same due date but different grading schemes (Pass/Fail vs. Scored) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Duplicate Assignment Across Courses / Grading Inconsistency
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Curriculum Director / Elsevier (Sherpath)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, identical Sherpath lessons, including "Professional Nursing Practice and Its Influences," "Patient-Centered Care and Interprofessional Partnerships," and "Safety, Quality Improvement, Informatics, and Evidence-Based Practice" (all Chapter 1, Professional Nursing), appear as required graded assignments in both Clinical II (NSG525-7E) and Medical Surgical Nursing I (NSG523-7E) at the same time, with the same due date (May 10, 2026) but different grading schemes: Pass/Fail in NSG525 and Scored in NSG523.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot of the Sherpath course plan for Clinical II (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16 (2026-05-04): three lessons from Chapter 1, all due May 10, 2026, graded Pass/Fail. Screenshot of the Sherpath course plan for Medical Surgical Nursing I (NSG523-7E), 2026 Summer C16: the same three lessons, all due May 10, 2026, graded Scored; NSG523 additionally contains a 50 question Adaptive EAQ not present in NSG525. Source group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' The Sherpath screenshots confirm identical lesson titles listed as required assignments in both NSG525-7E and NSG523-7E, with identical due dates of May 10, 2026, but different grading designations.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: course content must be accurately described and consistently applied. ACEN Standard 5: workload assigned must be appropriate to credit hours. 34 CFR 600.2 (credit hour definition): credit hours must reflect a reasonable approximation of work expected per unit of credit.

'''Impact.''' Students enrolled in both NSG525 and NSG523 in Summer C16 are required to complete the same three Sherpath lessons twice, once for a Pass/Fail grade and once for a Scored grade, without doubling learning. The duplicate assignment structure compounds the risk that a platform failure will cause double credit loss.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath chronic platform failures) and {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content). The duplicate structure may be a Sherpath course configuration error rather than an intentional curriculum decision.


=== HU-074: HESI exam grade weighting escalated mid-program: 45% in Fall 2024 to 75% in late 2024 to 82% in 2025 cohort Pharmacology (gradebook screenshot evidence: 1,700 of 2,059 total points) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Program Grade Weighting Escalation
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the weight of HESI and final exams in MSN-DE course grades was progressively escalated mid-program without prospective student notification: from approximately 20 percent early in the program, to 45 percent by October 2024, to 75 percent as reported in September 2024, to 82 percent shown in a Spring 2025 Pharmacology gradebook screenshot with HESI exams worth 1,700 of 2,059 total points. Students who enrolled with one grading expectation are being graded under materially different and increasingly unforgiving rules.

'''Evidence.''' A Facebook post from an anonymous member (September 9, 2024) reported that exams and HESI would soon be worth 75 percent of grades. A student pseudonymously identified as Student H (October 25, 2024) reported disagreeing with a new grade weight policy raising final exams to 45 percent of grade in each course. Another student, Student BL (October 20, 2024), said the school could surely do a better job prepping students for the HESI final exam that is worth 45 percent of the grade. Student D (February 20, 2025) posted a screenshot of the Pharmacology Canvas gradebook showing 2,059 total points for the class, with exams (HESI) accounting for 1,700 of those points: HESI exam 1 worth 450 points, HESI exam 2 worth 450 points, and the HESI final worth 800 points, for a total of 82 percent of the course grade, from a student in the cohort that started January 6, 2025. Student N (February 15, 2025) noted variability, believing HESI was 20 percent for some courses and 45 percent for Med Surg. An anonymous Facebook post (April 7, 2026) reported HESI at 40 percent of the entire grade at the Clarksville and Nashville campus. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D's gradebook screenshot documents that of the 2,059 total points for the Pharmacology course, exams (HESI) account for 1,700 of those points, with HESI exam 1 at 450 points, HESI exam 2 at 450 points, and the HESI final at 800 points, meaning HESI exams made up 82 percent of the course grade for the cohort that started January 6, 2025.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43 (disclosure requirements): material program characteristics, including grading structure, must be disclosed before enrollment; mid-program escalation of HESI weighting is a material change. ACEN Standard 4: assessment policies must be consistently applied. The {{HU|HU-064}} retroactive supersession framework provides the institution with claimed authority for these mid-program changes, but does not address the fundamental disclosure issue. ACEN Standard 4.6 (academic integrity): when 82 percent of a course grade depends on a single externally administered exam and the same exam questions are documented to be circulating on third-party platforms ({{HU|HU-026}}, {{HU|HU-037}}, {{HU|HU-051}}, {{HU|HU-078}}), the integrity of the entire grading system depends on exam security that is demonstrably compromised.

'''Impact.''' Students who enrolled with the original, lower HESI weighting (e.g., 20-30%) and made tuition or loan commitments based on that structure are now subject to grading frameworks where 75 to 82 percent of their course grade depends on a single high-stakes exam, with course failure and no meaningful remediation possible if they underperform. This compounds the harm of {{HU|HU-030}} (ProctorU false-flag exam zeros), {{HU|HU-034}} (ProctorU technical failures), and {{HU|HU-052}} (IT ticket closure before appeal), all of which can now drive course failure and loan default for institutional reasons. The 82 percent weighting in Pharmacology means a single technical or proctoring failure on the 800-point HESI final is mathematically unrecoverable for that course. Combined with {{HU|HU-060}} ($500 retake fee), the cumulative financial exposure for an institutionally caused failure is significant.

'''Notes.''' The grade weighting escalation appears to have occurred without prospective student notification or documentation in original enrollment materials. The progression from roughly 20 to 30 percent up to 82 percent over approximately eighteen months represents a substantial change in academic policy. Verification: review MSN-DE syllabi from each cohort to document the actual grade weighting at time of enrollment compared to the weighting applied at course completion. The Student D gradebook screenshot is the strongest single piece of evidence and should be preserved for any external review. This issue compounds {{HU|HU-010}} (exit exam benchmarks changeable at any time) and {{HU|HU-064}} (retroactive supersession framework).


=== HU-083: Milestones assessment regime eliminated September 2024 with no retake option; finals escalated to 45%; enrolled students never consented to this fundamental restructuring ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Program Assessment Regime Elimination
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, in September 2024 Herzing eliminated the Milestone exam system that had been in place since the program's inception and replaced it with a system in which course finals, high-stakes HESI exams, count for 45 percent of the overall course grade with no retake option. Students who enrolled under the Milestone system, which allowed up to three retakes, were subjected to the new high-stakes, no-retake final system mid-program. Multiple students independently expressed a preference for the prior Milestone system. This change materially restructured the conditions under which students were enrolled.

'''Evidence.''' A student pseudonymously identified as Student U (December 13, 2024) reported that Milestones no longer existed as of September 2024, and that for certain courses finals had been raised to 45 percent. An anonymous member, identified only as member 946 (December 13, 2024), reported that Milestones and the retest option were both gone, describing a score of 750 on the pathophysiology HESI against 1,020 on fundamentals, and noting content on the pathophysiology HESI that had never been covered. Another anonymous member (March 24, 2025) said the Milestones process had been much better than the new one and called the 45 percent final weighting excessive. Student N (March 31, 2025) called the HESI exams poorly aligned with preparation. Student BL (February 4, 2025) referenced finals being 45 percent of grades, and Student N (February 12, 2025) noted that with a 45 percent HESI exam, a student needs those 30 points. Student CH (March 20, 2025) explained that a student could enter the final HESI with an A and still risk failing or barely passing the course if that single exam went poorly, since any grade under 80 is failing. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student U states that Milestones no longer existed as of September 2024, and that for certain courses the finals had been raised to 45 percent. The anonymous member identified as member 946 states that Milestones and the retest option were both gone, describing a score of 750 on the pathophysiology HESI against 1,020 on fundamentals, and noting content on the pathophysiology HESI that had never been covered.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation): students enrolled under a specific grading structure have a reasonable expectation that structure will remain in place; material changes to grading scheme without adequate notice or consent constitute a misrepresentation risk. Contract law principles in higher education (Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410, 7th Cir. 1992): student enrollment constitutes a contract with the institution, and material changes to assessment structure mid-enrollment may breach that contract. ACEN Standard 4: assessment instruments must be fair, consistent, and aligned with course content. The lack of a retake option is significant, since the prior Milestone system allowed up to three retakes, acknowledging that a single exam may not reflect student competency, while the new system provides zero remediation opportunity.

'''Impact.''' Students who were enrolled under the Milestone system with retakes faced an immediate and irreversible change to their academic standing requirements. Students who scored below the HESI threshold without the option to retake faced course failure with no remediation path. The member identified as 946 failed the pathophysiology HESI citing content never covered, direct evidence that curriculum-assessment misalignment, combined with the no-retake policy, caused a student failure that would not have occurred under the prior system. Student CH's account illustrates that a single bad exam day can erase an entire semester of strong performance.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weighting escalation) significantly. {{HU|HU-074}} documented the percentage escalation; {{HU|HU-083}} documents the simultaneous elimination of the retake safety net. Together these constitute a two-part restructuring that dramatically increased the consequences of a single poor exam performance. The petition movement (F68/{{HU|HU-093}}) is directly attributable to this change. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weight escalation), {{HU|HU-076}} (curriculum-assessment misalignment), {{HU|HU-090}} (HESI covers untaught content).


=== HU-088: HESI final examinations cover content not taught in courses; documented across multiple cohorts with direct student testimony and faculty acknowledgment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum-Assessment Misalignment
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Curriculum Committee / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, multiple independent student accounts across multiple cohorts documented that HESI final examinations test content that was not taught in the corresponding courses. A student pseudonymously identified as Student D (February 14, 2025) reported that instructors themselves say they are not aware of how HESI test content is developed, so the material students are assigned does not match the material they are tested on. Sherpath was separately documented as teaching content unrelated to what HESI actually tests.

'''Evidence.''' Student D (February 14, 2025, 19 reactions) reported that instructors are not aware of how the HESI test content is developed, at least as instructors themselves describe it, and that the material students are assigned does not match the material tested on HESI. The anonymous member identified as member 946 (December 13, 2024) reported content on the pathophysiology HESI that had never been covered. Another anonymous member (March 13, 2025) reported finding incorrect content in Sherpath and being told simply to report it, and stated that the HESI exams have nothing to do with what is taught in Sherpath. Student AV (February 16, 2025) reported that HESI tests material not covered in class. An anonymous member (April 3, 2026), after scoring over 1,300 on an exit exam, expressed surprise that the exam covered material the cohort had not learned. Student B (March 24, 2025) reported that RealizeIt does not prepare students for HESI and barely prepares them for in-class exams. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D states that instructors are not aware of how the HESI test content is developed, at least as instructors themselves describe it, and that the material students are assigned does not match the material they are tested on in HESI. The member identified as 946 states there was content on the pathophysiology HESI never covered in class. Another anonymous member states that the HESI exams have nothing to do with what is taught in Sherpath.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: curriculum and assessment must be aligned, and examinations must assess content students were taught. Standard assessment practice in higher education requires that high-stakes examinations be constructed from course content objectives. Faculty reportedly acknowledging they are not aware of how HESI test content is developed, while that test constitutes 45 to 82 percent of the course grade, constitutes a fundamental curriculum design failure. 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation): marketing a course as teaching nursing content while administering exams on different content misrepresents what students receive for their tuition.

'''Impact.''' Students who master all course content may still fail HESI exams because the exams test content not covered in the course, making failure a product of curriculum-assessment misalignment rather than student incompetence. This is illustrated by the student who scored over 1,300 yet still expressed surprise at untaught content. The pattern creates a situation where only students who self-source external resources (YourBestGrade, NAXLEX, Simple Nursing, Bootcamp) are positioned to pass, effectively requiring additional paid resources to compensate for curriculum-assessment misalignment. This compounds {{HU|HU-078}} (systematic external resource reliance) and {{HU|HU-074}} (high HESI weighting).

'''Notes.''' Faculty reportedly acknowledging they do not know how HESI content is developed is a critical program design failure. An institution using a third-party examination as 45 to 82 percent of course grade has a responsibility to either teach to the examination content or disclose that the examination tests beyond course content and provide preparation accordingly. Neither is occurring, per the tracker's evidence. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weight escalation), {{HU|HU-076}} (Realizeit format mismatch), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath incorrect content), {{HU|HU-083}} (Milestones elimination and no retake).


=== HU-099: Discussion board "3 separate calendar days" posting rule results in zero credit for substantively correct posts submitted on same day; arbitrary procedural rule driving grade deductions independent of content quality ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Arbitrary Procedural Grading Rule
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, discussion board assignments in the MSN-DE program require an initial response and two peer replies on three separate calendar days within the assignment window, typically Sunday through Wednesday. Posts made on only two days, even if all content requirements are met and every post is substantively correct, receive zero credit for the timing violation. The rule is enforced even when students are unaware of it and even when the content of all posts fully complies with assignment requirements.

'''Evidence.''' A student pseudonymously identified as Student D (July 10, 2025) warned that posting the required content only at 11:30 PM and 11:59 PM the same night would not earn credit. Student D (March 8, 2026) clarified the rule: an initial post responding to the week's prompt must be posted by 11:59 PM Central time each Wednesday, followed by two peer replies, with all posts required to be on separate days, calling the rule complete busy work. Student D (July 10, 2025) separately noted that Herzing makes concessions elsewhere, allowing appeals, makeups, and countless extensions, while enforcing the three-day posting rule strictly. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D states that posting required content only at 11:30 PM and 11:59 PM the same night will not earn credit, and separately describes the three-separate-days requirement as complete busy work.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 600.2 (credit hour): grading criteria must reflect academic achievement. A rule that awards zero credit for substantively correct posts submitted on two days rather than three conflates procedural compliance with academic achievement, penalizing students for timing rather than content quality. ACEN Standard 4: assessment instruments must measure learning outcomes, and a discussion board timing rule does not measure nursing knowledge, critical thinking, or clinical competency, but rather calendar management. Enforcing this rule strictly while allowing frequent makeups and extensions on other assignments creates an internally inconsistent enforcement posture that compounds the confusion documented in {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).

'''Impact.''' Students who complete all discussion content correctly but post on two days rather than three receive zero credit, the same grade as a student who submitted nothing. In a program where the overall passing threshold is 80 percent and a fraction of a point can mean a four-month delay ({{HU|HU-095}}), a zero on a discussion board assignment for a timing violation rather than a content failure can be academically consequential. Students with unpredictable work schedules, the program's target demographic, are most harmed by a rule that requires precise calendar management across a narrow weekly window.

'''Notes.''' The three-day rule is characterized in the evidence as complete busy work, suggesting it does not advance learning objectives. The contrast between strict enforcement of the three-day posting rule and flexible enforcement of other deadlines reflects an inconsistent institutional approach to academic policy that undermines student trust in the grading system. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-012}} (seven NSG520 grades changed simultaneously with no explanation), {{HU|HU-016}} (grade appeal unmonitored inbox), {{HU|HU-095}} (79.8 percent fails identically to 60 percent).


=== HU-101: HESI exam structure changed for Spring 2026 final semester: now three graded HESI exams (diagnostic, midpoint, exit) all counting toward course grade; prior cohorts had only exit HESI as grade-bearing; change not uniformly communicated across cohorts ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Program Assessment Structure Change / Cohort Inequity
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Curriculum Committee / NSG 635 Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, for the Spring 2026 cohort in NSG 635 (Integration of Concepts, the final semester), Herzing added two additional graded HESI exams, a diagnostic HESI and a midpoint HESI, alongside the existing exit HESI. Prior cohorts had the diagnostic and midpoint as ungraded gauges of readiness, with only the exit HESI determining pass or fail. The exit HESI still requires a score of 900 or higher to graduate; failure results in repeating the entire 16-week course.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 10 (February 12, 2026) reported that the final semester now has three HESI exams, diagnostic, midpoint, and exit, all being added to the overall grade. Student B (February 13, 2026) confirmed the change, stating that grades in the gradebook now reflect scores on all three, and described semester five as HESI exit exam prep requiring a baseline HESI, a midpoint HESI, and then the final exit exam. An anonymous member identified as member 835 (February 12, 2026) initially reported understanding that only the final exit HESI counted, contradicted by students actually in the course. Handle 11 (February 12, 2026) confirmed the exit HESI must be over 900 to graduate, or the student repeats the entire class. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Handle 10 states that in the last semester there are now three HESI exams, diagnostic, midpoint, and exit, all being added to the overall grade. Student B separately observes that Herzing is known for changing things from semester to semester and cohort to cohort.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation): students who enrolled with the understanding that only the exit HESI was grade-bearing in the final semester face a materially different grading structure than disclosed. Contract law principles (Ross v. Creighton University): material changes to grading structure mid-enrollment may breach the implicit enrollment agreement. ACEN Standard 4: assessment instruments must be consistently applied and clearly communicated. The cohort-to-cohort variation, acknowledged in the evidence as an institutional norm, documents a systemic policy inconsistency rather than a one-time adjustment. Students who sought advice from recently graduated alumni received inaccurate information because the grading structure had changed.

'''Impact.''' Students in the Spring 2026 cohort face a higher-stakes final semester than prior cohorts, with three graded HESI exams rather than one. Poor performance on the diagnostic or midpoint HESI, previously advisory, now directly affects the course grade. Students who relied on alumni advice about the final semester structure received incorrect information, potentially underpreparing. The confusion documented in the Facebook thread, with students currently in the course contradicting students who had already graduated from the same course, reflects the institutional inconsistency.

'''Notes.''' This issue extends {{HU|HU-083}} (Milestones elimination) and {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weighting escalation), a continuing pattern of increasing HESI stakes across successive cohorts. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-010}} (exit exam benchmark can change at any time), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covers untaught content), {{HU|HU-083}} (no retake option).


=== HU-118: Student AD received zero on Fundamentals I remediation packet for screenshot submission issue despite scoring 93 on exam; appeal denied; institution then issued revised screenshot with "student name" purple box indicator proving original instructions were unclear; multiple students affected; 10-point running grade impact ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Unclear Assignment Instructions / Post-Denial Instruction Revision
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | NSG Faculty / Program Chair / Grade Appeal Committee
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student AD documented receiving a zero on the Fundamentals I remediation packet because of a screenshot submission issue, despite scoring 93 on the associated exam. The zero dropped her final grade 2.5 points and at the time caused a running 10-point grade drop. She appealed and was denied. For the second remediation, the institution then issued a revised screenshot that included a "student name" indicator in a purple box, a clarification absent from the original instructions. She noted she was not the only student affected and that she did not see her name on the completed screen, suggesting the requirement was not clearly displayed at the time of completion. The institution's post-denial revision of the very instructions at issue is treated in the tracker as implicit acknowledgment that the original instructions were unclear, even though the appeal had already been denied before that revision was made.

'''Evidence.''' GroupMe message from Student AD (April 28, 2026, 9:31 PM) describing a zero on the first remediation packet despite scoring 93 on the exam, a 2.5-point drop in final grade, an appeal that was denied, and a new screenshot for remediation 2 showing student name in a purple box that was not on the original instructions. The message received one sleepy or sad reaction from a cohort member. Source group: GroupMe, Herzing MSN-DE Cohort Chat (Student AD, April 28, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AD states that she got a zero on the first funds remediation packet over a screenshot despite scoring 93 on the exam, that she appealed and was denied, that remediation 2 then used a new screenshot showing student name in a purple box, and that the revised screenshot proved her point that the original instructions were unclear. She adds that she heard she was not the only one affected.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: graded assignments must have clear, unambiguous instructions. An institution that issues a revised instruction screenshot with a new indicator after denying appeals based on the original screenshot has implicitly acknowledged the original instructions were deficient. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): grade appeal processes must be fair and consistent; denying an appeal for non-compliance with instructions and then revising those same instructions is procedurally inconsistent. Due process principles (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150, 5th Cir. 1961): students facing academic penalties have a right to fair notice of requirements, and penalizing students for not following instructions that were subsequently clarified denies them that fair notice. The pattern is consistent with {{HU|HU-099}} (discussion board three-day rule) and {{HU|HU-095}} (79.8 percent equals fail), where procedural or formatting compliance determines academic outcomes independent of content mastery.

'''Impact.''' Student AD experienced a 2.5 point final grade reduction and a 10-point running grade impact from a zero on a remediation packet she completed and scored 93 on the exam for, due to a screenshot formatting requirement subsequently clarified. Her denied appeal was never retroactively revisited despite the revised instructions. If other students were similarly affected, the zero-remediation-packet penalty for the same unclear screenshot requirement represents a systemic grade harm across multiple students that was never remediated. In a program where 0.2 percent can trigger a course retake ({{HU|HU-095}}), a 2.5-point final grade deduction from a procedural technicality is academically significant.

'''Notes.''' The remediation packet requirement appears to be a graded assignment tied to the Fundamentals I course (NSG520 or equivalent). The screenshot requirement, likely requiring students to submit a screenshot showing completion with their name visible, was not clearly formatted in the original assignment. The institution's revision for remediation 2, adding a purple "student name" box, directly contradicts the denial of Student AD's appeal. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-012}} (seven NSG520 grades changed simultaneously with no explanation), {{HU|HU-016}} (grade appeal unmonitored inbox), {{HU|HU-095}} (fraction-of-a-point grade consequences), {{HU|HU-099}} (procedural compliance penalized over content quality).


=== HU-124: Faculty deducted points from the reporting student's NU725-7D discussion for not including working links; links were visibly present in the submission; Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN feedback says "please make certain all references have a working link" but all four reference URLs were submitted and visible in Canvas ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Grading Error / Points Deducted for Work Submitted
! Date added
| 2026-05-11
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN / NU725 Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student submitted three original discussion posts in NU725-7D Unit 1 (Legal and Ethical Issues in Technology) on May 5, 2026, between 5:05 and 5:09 AM, each containing properly formatted APA citations with hyperlinked URLs embedded directly in the Canvas submission. Four reference links were submitted and are visible in the Canvas screenshots, mapped by post as follows. Post 1 contained two references: HHS OCR (2023), a cybersecurity newsletter at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2023/index.html], and Wasserman and Wasserman (2022), an article in Frontiers in Digital Health at [https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.862221]. Post 2 contained one reference: HHS OCR (2024), a cybersecurity newsletter at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2024/index.html]. Post 3 contained one reference: Al Bahrani and Medhi (2023), an article in Cureus at [https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40486]. On May 11, 2026 at 10:25 AM, Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN left feedback stating the student should make certain all references have a working link. Canvas displayed a "Re-submit Assignment" button, indicating points were deducted or grading withheld pending resubmission based on that feedback, even though all four reference URLs were submitted and are legitimate working links to government publications and peer-reviewed journals.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas screenshots of the reporting student's NU725-7D Unit 1 discussion posts (May 5, 2026, 5:05 to 5:09 AM) show the four reference links across three posts: Post 1, HHS OCR (2023) at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2023/index.html] and Wasserman and Wasserman (2022) at [https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.862221]; Post 2, HHS OCR (2024) at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2024/index.html]; Post 3, Al Bahrani and Medhi (2023) at [https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40486]. Faculty feedback and a Canvas "Re-submit Assignment" button appear on the May 11, 2026 grading record. Source group: Canvas NU725-7D Discussion Posts and Faculty Feedback, the reporting student, May 5 to 11, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Great information on unauthorized access. Please make certain all references have a working link please.</blockquote>
The submitted post, dated nine days earlier on May 5, 2026, contains four working links visible in the Canvas screenshots: the HHS OCR 2023 newsletter, the Wasserman 2022 DOI, the HHS OCR 2024 newsletter, and the Al Bahrani 2023 DOI, each shown as an active hyperlink in the submission.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: assessment and grading must be accurate and based on submitted work. Deducting points or withholding grades on the basis that links were not submitted, when those links are visibly present in the Canvas submission, is a factual grading error. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): grading processes must accurately reflect what was submitted. Due process principles in academic grading hold that a student must not be penalized for failing to do something they demonstrably did. The May 11 feedback is factually incorrect as applied to this submission, since the links were present in the post as submitted on May 5, 2026.

'''Impact.''' Points were deducted from a discussion post that fully complied with the reference link requirement. The resubmission workflow required the reporting student to spend additional time correcting a problem that did not exist in his submission. If a resubmission was required and not made before any applicable deadline, he risked a zero or reduced grade for work correctly submitted. In a program where fractions of a point can trigger a four-month delay ({{HU|HU-095}}), grade deductions for submitted work constitute a material academic harm. The feedback also raises a concern about whether faculty are reviewing student submissions before posting feedback.

'''Notes.''' Additional facts from the weekly report for the week ending May 17, 2026: the reporting student emailed Dr. Hart-Flynn on Monday and again on Wednesday with no response, and she did not respond until after that week's discussion post deadline had passed. When she finally responded, her explanation was that the security on her computer prevented her from opening the link, which confirms the links existed and were submitted, attributes the grading error to her own computer settings rather than any deficiency in the student's submission, and reflects faculty non-responsiveness that prevented the reporting student from correcting any perceived issue within the submission window. Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN is a newly identified faculty member for NU725-7D. All four submitted URLs are verifiable published sources. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-016}} (grade appeal unmonitored inbox), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-095}} (grade consequences), {{HU|HU-118}} (Student AD zero for unclear instructions).


=== HU-126: NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review Quiz deadline was 12:59 AM Sunday morning, not 11:59 PM Sunday evening as announced; students flagged as late; the reporting student unable to retake after grade correction because quiz closed before correction was applied ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Incorrect Assignment Deadline / Non-Standard Due Time Causing Late Flags
! Date added
| 2026-05-12
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Heather Gregg / Dr. Stacey Gombar / NSG525 Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review Quiz was set with a due time of 12:59 AM early Sunday morning, not 11:59 PM Sunday evening as announced and as is standard throughout the program. As a result, students were caught off guard and flagged as late for missing the non-standard 12:59 AM deadline, and when Dr. Gregg applied the manual grade correction for duplicate answer coding errors, the quiz had already closed under the 12:59 AM deadline, locking the reporting student out of his remaining attempts before the correction was posted. Dr. Gregg confirmed the coding errors affected all sections and were unintentional, and noted the reporting student's score of 57.5 includes the manual corrections.

'''Evidence.''' Email from the reporting student to Dr. Gregg (May 2026) documenting the mismatched deadline and the resulting late flags. Email from Dr. Gregg confirming that two coding errors were identified in the NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review quiz, that the errors were unintentional and affected all sections, and that the student's current score of 57.5 already includes the manual credit adjustments for those questions. Source group: email chain, the reporting student to Dr. Gregg and Dr. Gombar, May 2026; NSG525 Week 1 quiz Canvas deadline documentation.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>For some reason this assignment was due at 12:59 AM early Sunday morning not 11:59 Sunday evening. This was not the announcement. The announcement notes Wed and Sunday at 11:59. Throughout the program, everything was due Sunday evening at 11:59 PM. So many students were caught off guard that they have now been flagged as late.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must ensure that assignment deadlines are accurately set and consistent with announced due dates. ACEN Standard 4: assessments must be administered under fair and consistent conditions. A quiz deadline set for 12:59 AM Sunday, 23 hours earlier than the announced 11:59 PM Sunday deadline and inconsistent with every other assignment in the program, is an administrative error that caused students to be flagged as late through no fault of their own and caused the quiz to close before the grade correction was applied, eliminating remaining retake attempts. The combination of a coding error in quiz answers ({{HU|HU-112}}) and a deadline coding error in the same quiz constitutes compounding administrative failures in a single assessment.

'''Impact.''' Students flagged as late for the NSG525 Week 1 quiz due to the 12:59 AM deadline error face late submission penalties. The reporting student specifically was prevented from using his remaining attempts (out of 10 allowed) after the grade correction was applied, because the quiz had already closed under the non-standard deadline. His final score of 57.5, after manual corrections, reflects the remaining questions he missed, but he was denied the opportunity to improve that score with the benefit of knowing which duplicate-answer questions would be corrected. The interaction between the deadline error and the coding error created a situation where the grade correction came too late to be useful.

'''Notes.''' This issue is distinct from {{HU|HU-112}} (duplicate answer coding errors) but directly compounds it. The quiz had two simultaneous errors: wrong answer choices ({{HU|HU-112}}) and wrong deadline ({{HU|HU-126}}). Combined with {{HU|HU-125}} (accommodation blocked), these three issues in the same assessment create a comprehensive access and fairness failure for the reporting student in Week 1. Dr. Gregg's explanation that faculty from different courses were responding to the same email thread (Dr. Gombar for NSG621, Dr. Gregg for NSG525) also adds to the confusion, with students receiving multiple emails about different courses from different faculty without clear course identification. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-112}} (NSG525 quiz coding errors), {{HU|HU-125}} (accommodation blocked), {{HU|HU-099}} (three-day posting rule timing), {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).


=== HU-159: Official Herzing transcript dated 04/23/2026 documented a grade of A in NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment and a 4.00 cumulative GPA; a later Unofficial Transcript dated 06/05/2026 shows that grade changed to a B with the cumulative GPA dropped to 3.75; the A-to-B grade change is now CONFIRMED by the before-and-after transcripts; FERPA and grade-change-process concern; same course as the denied Fundamentals final retake (HU-155) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED (grade change from A to B documented by before-and-after transcripts: Official 04/23/2026 showed A and 4.00 GPA; Unofficial 06/05/2026 shows B and 3.75 GPA)
|-
! Issue type
| Grade Change After Official Transcript Documented an A (NSG 521) / Records Integrity
! Date added
| 2026-06-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Office of the Registrar / Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / NSG 521 Course Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student's Official Academic Transcript, dated 04/23/2026 and bearing the Office of the Registrar seal, documents that for the 2026 Spring term (01/05/26 to 04/22/26) he earned a grade of A in NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment (5.00 credits, 4.00 quality points), along with an A in NSG 522 Clinical I, a Term GPA of 4.00, a Program GPA of 4.00, a Cumulative GPA of 4.00, and 37.00 total credits earned. An Unofficial Transcript dated 06/05/2026 shows NSG 521 with a grade of B and 15.00 quality points, a 2026 Spring Term GPA of 3.29, and a Cumulative GPA of 3.75. The two transcripts, issued roughly six weeks apart for the same closed 2026 Spring term, together document a grade change from A to B that lowered the cumulative GPA from 4.00 to 3.75. If the grade was changed after the term closed and after an official transcript documented an A, the change would need to be supported by a documented, properly noticed grade-change process. This course is the same NSG 521 whose RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam retake request was denied ({{HU|HU-155}}), so the grade dispute and the final-exam dispute concern the same course.

'''Evidence.''' Official Academic Transcript, Herzing University (5218 East Terrace Drive, Madison, WI 53718; www.herzing.edu/online), Office of the Registrar, dated 04/23/2026: Student, the reporting student; Student ID [student ID redacted]; Original Start Date 9/3/2025; Program, Master of Science in Nursing; Cumulative GPA 4.00; 2026 Spring term shows NSG 521 (5.00 credits, grade A, 4.00 quality points) and NSG 522 Clinical I (2.00 credits, grade A, 4.00 quality points); Term GPA 4.00; Program GPA 4.00; Total Credits Earned 37.00; marked Official with registrar seal and signature. Per the Herzing grade scale on the transcript key, an A carries 4.00 quality points and a B carries 3.00 quality points, and graduate degrees require a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher. Unofficial Transcript, Herzing University, dated 06/05/2026: Student GPA 3.75; Term 2261 (2026 Spring) shows NSG 521 (5.00 credits, grade B, 15.00 quality points) and NSG 522 Clinical I (2.00 credits, grade A, 8.00 quality points); Term GPA 3.29; Cum GPA 3.75. The 06/05/2026 transcript also lists 2026 Summer courses in progress, named in full as NSG 523 Medical Surgical Nursing I, NSG 524 Mental Health Nursing, NSG 525 Clinical II, and NU 725 Technology and Nursing Informatics, along with a Fall 2025 CR 021 Clinical Readiness Pre-licensure Nursing course marked Pass. Source group: Official Academic Transcript, Herzing University, Office of the Registrar, dated 04/23/2026 (student-provided), compared against the student's report of a subsequent grade change in NSG 521.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Official Academic Transcript, 04/23/2026]: NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment, 5.00 credits, grade A, 4.00 quality points. Cumulative GPA: 4.00. Total Credits Earned: 37.00. [Unofficial Transcript, 06/05/2026]: NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment, 5.00 credits, grade B, 15.00 quality points. Cum GPA: 3.75.</blockquote>
The A on the 04/23/2026 Official transcript became a B on the 06/05/2026 transcript, and the cumulative GPA fell from 4.00 to 3.75.

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99): students have the right to inspect their education records and to request amendment of records they believe are inaccurate, and to a hearing if an amendment request is denied; a grade reflected on an official transcript is an education record, and any change should be documented and explainable to the student. Institutional grade-change and grade-appeal policy (Prelicensure Student Handbook): grade changes after a grade is posted should follow a defined process with notice to the student and a stated basis. HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity): academic records must be accurate and fairly maintained. The transcript itself states that the record is official when it bears the Office of the Registrar seal and that alteration of the transcript may be a criminal offense; this entry does not allege improper alteration, but documents that an official record showed an A and that the student reports a later change to a B, which should be reconciled through the documented grade-change and FERPA amendment processes. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-155}} (NSG 521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam retake denied), {{HU|HU-019}} (NSG 521 testing-time accommodation), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES closure), {{HU|HU-158}} (decision-maker availability).

'''Impact.''' If the NSG 521 grade was changed from A to B after the official transcript documented an A, the change would lower the reporting student's quality points for a five-credit course from 20.0 (A) to 15.0 (B) and reduce his 4.00 cumulative GPA, affecting his academic standing in a graduate program that requires a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher and any honors or progression implications. A grade change made after an official transcript has issued, without a documented and properly noticed basis, raises records-integrity and FERPA concerns and undermines the reliability of the official record. Because the same course's final exam retake was denied ({{HU|HU-155}}), the student is left with both a denied remedy and a disputed grade in the same foundational course.

'''Notes.''' The confirmed element is that the 04/23/2026 official transcript shows NSG 521 as an A with a cumulative GPA of 4.00. The A-to-B change is now confirmed by the Unofficial Transcript dated 06/05/2026 (NSG 521 as a B, cumulative GPA 3.75) compared against the Official Academic Transcript dated 04/23/2026. The changed grade (B) appears on an Unofficial Transcript while the A appears on the Official Academic Transcript. A remaining open question is who authorized the grade change, on what date, on what stated basis, and whether the student received notice and an opportunity to appeal. This transcript also serves as authoritative documentation of the reporting student's full record to date, including all A grades in Fall 2025 (NSG 520, NSG 633, NU 730, NU 780) and transfer credits in SC 186, SC 154, SC 166, SC 254, and MA 320. Course-name note: the transcript lists the course as NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment, while {{HU|HU-155}} refers to the NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam, which is the final exam within this same course. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-155}} (retake denied, same course), {{HU|HU-019}} (NSG 521 accommodation), {{HU|HU-156}}, {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-158}}. A possible follow-up noted in the tracker is to file a FERPA amendment request and a grade appeal if the change is confirmed and undocumented. Update (2026-07-17): {{HU|HU-179}} documents Dr. Franklin's letter confirming Dr. Black approved a retake of this same exam based on ProctorU's admission of fault, and {{HU|HU-180}} documents that Dr. Soles, the instructor of record, was not notified of an additional retake attempt and the resulting grade change, discovering it only by checking Elsevier herself. {{HU|HU-180}} also documents the multi-step grade-change process (an interim Incomplete grade, then a Canvas roll and registrar sync) that may partly explain how a transitional grade could have appeared on the 06/05/2026 unofficial transcript, which remains an open item to confirm rather than a settled explanation. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-179}}, {{HU|HU-180}}.


=== HU-164e: Reported failure to update the GPA after the grade appeal was approved, placing the reporter on Satisfactory Academic Progress status, with the correction again deferred to the advisor ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| GPA Not Updated After Appeal / Erroneous SAP Status (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Registrar / Financial Aid / Academic Advising
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, the reporter states that even after her grade appeal was approved, her GPA was never updated, which placed her on Satisfactory Academic Progress status. She states she was told to address the SAP and GPA issue with her advisor, who again directed her to file a grade appeal that was already approved. She states this was about three weeks after the approval and nearly two months after she filed the initial appeal.

'''Evidence.''' Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describes a GPA not updated after appeal approval, a resulting SAP status, and being redirected to the advisor and to an already-approved appeal to resolve it.

'''Reported statement.''' Reporter Student I states that her GPA was never updated, so she was placed on SAP, and that she was told to address it with her advisor.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under Satisfactory Academic Progress requirements (34 CFR 668.34) and administrative-capability and records-accuracy expectations (34 CFR 668.14), as well as HLC Criterion 2.A. A grade-appeal outcome that is not reflected in the student's GPA, leading to an erroneous SAP determination, is a records-integrity and financial-aid concern. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-164}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, an erroneous SAP status can carry financial-aid and standing consequences, and the reporter states the correction was delayed by repeated misdirection.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-164}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.


=== HU-168c: The NSG523 course grade dropped from 95.01% to 25.91%, approximately 69 percentage points, as documented in two Canvas dashboard screenshots taken 15 seconds apart at 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM on June 15, 2026, apparently during a grading event for the 100-point HESI Exam 1 assignment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| 69-Percentage-Point Course Grade Drop in 15 Seconds Observed in Sequential Screenshots
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, two Canvas dashboard screenshots taken at 3:36:06 PM (Screenshot 3) and 3:36:21 PM (Screenshot 4) on June 15, 2026, show the NSG523-7E, 2262C16 (Medical Surgical Nursing I) course tile grade changing from 95.01 percent to 25.91 percent, a decrease of approximately 69.1 percentage points. The 15-second interval between the screenshots indicates this change occurred during a page refresh or live grading event while the reporting student was viewing his dashboard. The To-Do List in Screenshot 3 shows Unit 6, HESI Exam 1, listed as due 06/14 at 11:59 PM (100 points, overdue), and it no longer appears in Screenshot 4, which instead shows Recent Feedback for Unit 6, HESI Exam 1, confirming the grading event was for this specific assignment.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas submission screenshot for NSG523-7E Unit 6, HESI Exam 1 (June 15, 2026, 3:22 PM). Email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (June 15, 2026, 1:13 PM, marked High Importance). Canvas dashboard screenshots taken at 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM on June 15, 2026. HESI Assessment Results report (NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM). Provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Screenshot 3, 3:36:06 PM]: NSG523-7E 95.01%. [Screenshot 4, 3:36:21 PM]: NSG523-7E 25.91%.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and accurate academic records); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair and clearly stated academic standards). A 69-percentage-point course grade drop resulting from a 0 on the 100-point exam, an exam that was actually completed at the maximum conversion score of 99.99, is a high-impact grading event. The speed of the change, 15 seconds, observed directly by the student, documents the real-time impact on academic standing. Lead: {{HU|HU-168}}.

'''Impact.''' A course grade of 25.91 percent in NSG523 places the student at risk of failing the course and may trigger academic-standing, SAP, and progression consequences if not resolved. The prior grade was 95.01 percent.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-168}} (lead). Confirmed from two timestamped sequential screenshots. The dashboard also shows NSG524-7B at 73.12 percent and NSG525-7E at 94.19 percent in both screenshots, confirming only NSG523 changed. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-180: Herzing's multi-step grade-change process, requiring an interim Incomplete grade before a Canvas roll and registrar sync, combined with a failure to notify the instructor of record of an additional NSG521 HESI retake attempt, caused confusion and delay in finalizing the reporting student's grade change ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Instructor of Record Not Notified of Additional Exam Retake; Multi-Step Grade Change Process Causes Delay and Confusion
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Kellie Soles (Faculty MSN-DE, instructor of record) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Nicole Franklin / Registrar Services
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Dr. Prashad explained to the reporting student and Dr. Soles that to change a grade, Herzing must first issue an Incomplete, after which the grade is adjusted once that Incomplete shows in the system. A separate Student Services notice confirmed that an Incomplete had been processed for NSG521 and that the reporting student would regain Canvas access within five to six hours. The reporting student confirmed the Incomplete appeared on his transcript. Dr. Prashad further explained the change must then wait for a Canvas roll and registrar sync, approved by her in the HUB, taking approximately 48 to 72 hours; Dr. Soles later confirmed the grade had been updated in Canvas and the HUB. Separately, Dr. Soles explained that the reporting student took the Final HESI at the end of April, scored 748, and that she updated his grade from 58 percent to 85 percent based on that score. When the reporting student later followed up about a further change reflecting an A rather than a B for scholarship application purposes, Dr. Soles stated she had not been aware any additional change was needed. After his message, she checked Elsevier and discovered he appeared to have taken the Final HESI again at a later date, of which she had not been notified, and stated she would need to request renewed IT access to the gradebook to address it. The reporting student stated he was surprised that Dr. Soles, as instructor of record, had not been made aware of the retake, since he expected her to submit the resulting grade change. Dr. Prashad then stated the academic MSN-DE team, rather than the individual instructor, would handle the matter going forward.

'''Evidence.''' Email from Dr. Raywattie Prashad to the reporting student and Dr. Kellie Soles, subject "Re: Grade Change for NSG521," explaining the Incomplete-first process and the 48 to 72 hour Canvas roll and registrar sync timeline. Student Services email confirming an Incomplete was processed for NSG521 and that course access would return within five to six hours. Email from Dr. Kellie Soles to the reporting student and Dr. Prashad, subject "Grade Change," stating the reporting student scored 748 on a HESI retake at the end of April, that she updated his grade from 58 percent to 85 percent based on that score, and that after his follow-up message she checked Elsevier and found he appeared to have taken the Final HESI again at a later date without her having been notified. Email from the reporting student to Dr. Soles, Dr. Prashad, Dr. Franklin, Dr. Black, and Dr. Laban, stating he was notified on June 25 by Dr. Franklin that Dr. Black had approved his retake, that ProctorU admitted fault, that the retake changed his grade from a B to an A, and that he was surprised Dr. Soles as instructor of record was not made aware of this.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I noticed it appears he may have taken the Final HESI again at a later date. I was not notified of an additional attempt, so I was unaware that another grade update might be needed.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable and consistent internal communication supporting accurate academic records) and HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including accurate and fairly maintained records). FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) supports a student's interest in accurate and promptly corrected education records. A grade-change process that permits an additional exam retake and resulting grade change to proceed without notice to the instructor of record who must certify or process that change risks inconsistent, delayed, or duplicated grade records, and directly parallels the unresolved question already flagged in {{HU|HU-159}} concerning who authorized a grade change and on what basis.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student stated he needed up to date grade information for scholarship applications and needed a timeframe for when the change would reach the registrar; the notification gap and multi-step process contributed to delay in that respect. The instructor's need to independently discover an additional retake and request renewed gradebook access also risks duplicated or inconsistent edits to the academic record, echoing the broader record-reliability concern already raised in {{HU|HU-159}} regarding the same course.

'''Notes.''' This entry may help partly explain the mechanism behind {{HU|HU-159}}'s open question, since a grade change requires an interim Incomplete before the new grade posts, which could account for a transitional grade appearing on an unofficial transcript pulled mid-process. Whether the B shown on the 06/05/2026 unofficial transcript documented in {{HU|HU-159}} was such a transitional artifact, or a separate and independent grade change, has not been confirmed and remains open. Recommend requesting a complete, dated grade-change audit trail for NSG521 from Registrar Services covering all exam attempts, scores, and grade postings. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-159}} (NSG521 grade change from A to B and the open question of who authorized it and on what basis, same course), {{HU|HU-155}} (original retake request denial), {{HU|HU-179}} (retake approval based on ProctorU's fault admission, same underlying exam).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Financial Aid

2026-09-15T16:38:04Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Financial Aid''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern financial aid. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article collects six tracker records, dated between April 30, 2026 and May 5, 2026, spanning severities from Medium to Critical, with one record marked Critical. Three records are CONFIRMED ({{HU|HU-011}}, {{HU|HU-028}}, {{HU|HU-048}}) and three are POSSIBLE ({{HU|HU-059}}, {{HU|HU-060}}, {{HU|HU-061}}), meaning the latter group rests on single, unverified reports rather than confirmed evidence.

The confirmed records describe recurring process failures inside the Financial Aid Department: duplicate 48-hour ultimatum notices for the same required documents ({{HU|HU-011}}), a backend processing error that misrouted a student's Graduate PLUS loan preference ({{HU|HU-028}}), and a Department of Education rule change that eliminated Graduate PLUS loan eligibility for nurses who withdraw, a change that Herzing did not communicate to students weighing withdrawal after ProctorU-related course failures ({{HU|HU-048}}). The Financial Aid Department is the named or co-named owner on every record in this set, with Central Processing, Academic Affairs, Compliance, Admissions, and the Bursar's office appearing as secondary owners depending on the issue.

The three POSSIBLE records describe undisclosed costs and enforcement practices reported by students on public platforms: a financial aid cap not explained at enrollment ({{HU|HU-059}}), a 500 dollar course retake fee not prominently disclosed ({{HU|HU-060}}), and course lockouts triggered by late or missed payment without adequate notice ({{HU|HU-061}}). None of these three has been verified against Herzing's catalog or enrollment agreements, but the notes on each one point back to the confirmed processing failures above as corroborating context for a broader pattern of financial aid administration problems.

== Issues ==

=== HU-011: Student received multiple 48-hour ultimatum notices for required FA documents (MPN, Entrance Counseling) in July 2025 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid Department
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the student received multiple 48-hour ultimatum notices for required FA documents (MPN, Entrance Counseling) in July 2025.

'''Evidence.''' FA email (2025-07-22) and (2025-07-29) from fa@herzing.edu. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>This notice is to inform you that we are missing critical information needed to process your financial aid. Please provide the requested document(s) listed below within 48 hours to avoid any delay.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14: institutions must maintain adequate student financial aid procedures. Two separate 48-hour ultimatum notices for the same documents suggests either inadequate initial FA counseling or a process failure in tracking completion.

'''Impact.''' Pressure-timeline notifications for required documents may cause undue stress. If unmet, can delay disbursement and enrollment. Two notices for the same items suggest the process was not resolved after the first.

'''Notes.''' Student ID [student ID redacted]. Notices sent July 22 and July 29, 2025.


=== HU-028: Student's Graduate PLUS loan preference not processed correctly; backend team failed to note preference ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Error
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid Department / Central Processing
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the student's Graduate PLUS loan preference was not processed correctly, and the backend team failed to note the preference.

'''Evidence.''' Email chain between McChesney and the reporting student (March to April 2026). Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I think that the backend team did not see the note about the PLUS Loan being your preference. I emailed that team and asked them to review and correct this.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR Part 682 (FFEL/Direct Loan regulations); 20 U.S.C. §1078-2 (PLUS Loan). Failure to process the student's documented loan preference constitutes a financial aid processing error.

'''Impact.''' The student's summer 2026 financial aid was incorrectly packaged. Required multiple follow-up communications to correct. Delay in summer funding could affect enrollment and tuition payment.

'''Notes.''' Summer 2026 funding was not available until mid-May per the FA advisor. The student was anxious about coverage at the term transition.


=== HU-048: DOE rule effective July 1, 2026 reclassifies nurses as no longer "professional students," eliminating Graduate PLUS loan eligibility; students considering withdrawal due to ProctorU incidents not informed of this material financial consequence ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Material Financial Risk / Failure to Notify
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid Department / Academic Affairs / Compliance
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, a Department of Education rule effective July 1, 2026 reclassifies nurses as no longer "professional students," eliminating Graduate PLUS loan eligibility for students who withdraw. Herzing students considering withdrawal due to ProctorU incidents were not informed of this material financial consequence.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing Proctor U Students GroupMe (May 1, 2026): the reporting student warned students considering withdrawal. Students Student BR, Student BS, and Student BQ were all actively considering withdrawal due to ProctorU false-flag course failures at the time of this warning. Source Group: Multiple GroupMe Archives: Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>As of today the Department of Education has released a rule that designates nurses as no longer professional students. If you withdraw and you are not at another program by July 1, you are no longer eligible for the grad plus loan.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR Part 682 (FFEL/Direct Loan regulations); 20 U.S.C. §1078-2 (PLUS Loan); 34 CFR §668.14 (institutional obligations to provide accurate financial information). Institutions have an affirmative duty to inform students of material changes in financial aid eligibility, particularly when those changes are triggered by institutional actions (such as course failures caused by ProctorU false-flags) that may drive students to withdraw.

'''Impact.''' Students who withdrew due to ProctorU-caused course failures after July 1, 2026 may permanently lose Graduate PLUS loan eligibility if not enrolled in another qualifying program. For students whose withdrawals were caused by institutional failures, the financial harm compounds the academic harm.

'''Notes.''' This issue is particularly urgent because the July 1, 2026 deadline is imminent at the time of this document update. The intersection of ProctorU false-flags ({{HU|HU-030}}) causing course failures, driving withdrawal decisions, with this financial aid rule change creates a compounding harm scenario with direct institutional liability.


=== HU-059: Student reports Herzing imposes financial aid cap below full cost of program completion; cap not disclosed or explained at enrollment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Non-Disclosure of Financial Aid Cap at Enrollment
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid Department / Admissions / Compliance
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, at least one student reports that Herzing University imposes a financial aid cap, limiting total aid below the full cost of program completion, and that this cap was not disclosed or explained at enrollment, resulting in the student facing unexpected out-of-pocket costs mid-program.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student BX (January 30, 2026). Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BX states that Herzing caps the amount of financial aid a student can receive and that once the cap is reached, the student is expected to cover the remaining cost out of pocket, and that this limit was never explained at the start of enrollment.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.41-43: institutions must provide clear, accurate, and complete information about the cost of attendance and available financial aid before enrollment. 34 CFR §668.14: institutions participating in Title IV programs must provide students with information about any limitations. HEA §484 (20 U.S.C. §1091). Failure to disclose a cap that results in mid-program out-of-pocket costs constitutes a potential enrollment misrepresentation under 34 CFR §668.71.

'''Impact.''' A student who enrolls expecting financial aid to cover program costs may be unable to continue or complete the program when aid is exhausted mid-program, particularly in a multi-year nursing degree where the final semesters may require out-of-pocket payment.

'''Notes.''' Based on a single public Facebook post; treat as POSSIBLE pending verification. Given the documented patterns of financial aid process errors already in this tracker ({{HU|HU-011}}, {{HU|HU-028}}, {{HU|HU-048}}), the underlying concern about financial aid disclosure adequacy is corroborated by the broader evidentiary record.


=== HU-060: Herzing student (Clarksville/Nashville campus) reported that failing a course requires paying $500 fee to retake; fee not prominently disclosed in enrollment materials ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Undisclosed Per-Course Retake Fee
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid / Academic Affairs / Bursar
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, a Herzing student at the Clarksville/Nashville campus reported that failing a course requires paying a 500 dollar fee to retake it, and that this fee does not appear to be prominently disclosed in enrollment materials, compounding the financial harm for students who fail courses due to documented institutional failures.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment thread (April 7, 2026): Anonymous participant 615, identifying as a Herzing Clarksville/Nashville campus student. Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous participant 615 states that the HESI exam counts for 40 percent of the final grade and that retaking a failed course costs 500 dollars.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.41-43: all costs associated with enrollment, including fees for course repeats, must be disclosed in the cost of attendance information provided to students before enrollment. HEA §484 (20 U.S.C. §1091): students must have access to accurate cost information.

'''Impact.''' A student who fails a course due to an institutional failure (ProctorU false-flag, Sherpath outage, WCAG-inaccessible content) and is then charged 500 dollars to retake the course suffers compounding financial harm.

'''Notes.''' POSSIBLE, the comment comes from an anonymous Facebook user and describes campus-based policies that may differ from the online program. Verification against the current Herzing University catalog and enrollment agreements is required.


=== HU-061: Herzing University locks students out of courses immediately upon late or missed payment without adequate advance notice; former LPN-to-RN student reported lockout as direct cause of withdrawal ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Course Lockout Without Adequate Notice
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid / Bursar / Student Services
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, Herzing University locks students out of their courses immediately upon late or missed payment without adequate advance notice, and a former LPN-to-RN online student reported being locked out as a direct cause of her withdrawal from the program.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student BY (April 25, 2026), a former Herzing LPN-to-RN online student who withdrew. Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BY states that Herzing quickly locks students out of their courses if payment is not made immediately, that some professors did not respond to her in a timely manner, and that she would recommend other schools instead.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14: institutions participating in Title IV programs must not place undue payment conditions on enrolled students' ability to continue their studies. 34 CFR §685.102 (federal loan disbursement timelines): locking students out of courses before disbursements arrive may violate these timelines. HEA §487: institutions must maintain adequate administrative capability, including payment processing, to not disrupt student academic progress.

'''Impact.''' Students who are locked out of courses immediately upon a missed payment cannot complete assignments, attend synchronous sessions, or communicate with faculty. For students using financial aid, particularly those waiting for disbursements, course lockout before aid arrives is particularly harmful.

'''Notes.''' Reported by a single former student. Combined with the documented financial aid processing errors ({{HU|HU-011}}, {{HU|HU-028}}) and the financial aid cap non-disclosure ({{HU|HU-059}}), a pattern of inadequate financial processes harming students emerges. Course lockout practices should be verified against Herzing's published enrollment and financial policies.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design

2026-09-15T16:38:03Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern faculty instruction and curriculum design. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article gathers twenty six tracker entries filed between April 30, 2026 and June 6, 2026 (three lead entries, {{HU|HU-062}}, {{HU|HU-081}}, and {{HU|HU-091}}, along with {{HU|HU-103}}, were later split into lettered sub issues on June 6, 2026, and one sub issue, {{HU|HU-091a}}, traces to an original incident dated July 14, 2025). All twenty six entries carry a CONFIRMED status in the tracker, though {{HU|HU-161}} qualifies that status to the documented facts of two faculty change notifications and cohort chat messages rather than to the unstated reason for the departures. Severity runs from Medium (thirteen entries) through High (eleven entries) to Critical (two entries, {{HU|HU-044}} and {{HU|HU-117}}).

Three threads recur across the set. The first is contradictory or unavailable faculty guidance: students received conflicting instructions on clinical midterm evaluations ({{HU|HU-031}}) and clinical hour totals ({{HU|HU-033}}), a Clinical IV adjunct resigned with zero institutional notice ({{HU|HU-117}}), a Faculty and Course Information page sat blank in week three of a term ({{HU|HU-130}}), and a synchronous session schedule was posted after three of its own sessions had already passed ({{HU|HU-131}}). The second thread is curriculum design and disclosure: exit exam benchmarks that can change without notice ({{HU|HU-010}}), a catalog supersession memorandum that binds enrolled students to later policy versions ({{HU|HU-064}}), a capstone mentor requirement not disclosed until course start ({{HU|HU-097}}), a modules only curriculum with no standalone textbooks ({{HU|HU-102}}), a capstone described as theoretical rather than implemented ({{HU|HU-111}}), and identical assignments required across two concurrent courses ({{HU|HU-113}}). The third thread is faculty retention and instruction quality, most visible in the New Orleans campus cluster ({{HU|HU-062}}, {{HU|HU-062a}}, {{HU|HU-062b}}), the self teaching characterization of the program ({{HU|HU-077}}), the clinical communication failures around care plans and preceptor briefing ({{HU|HU-081}}, {{HU|HU-081a}}, {{HU|HU-081b}}), two unrelated administrative incidents involving a misdirected Needs Improvement contract and check off policy violations ({{HU|HU-091}}, {{HU|HU-091a}}, {{HU|HU-091b}}), and the broader faculty turnover and instruction quality lead ({{HU|HU-103}}, {{HU|HU-103a}}, {{HU|HU-103b}}), which connects to a second documented Clinical IV faculty departure the following term ({{HU|HU-161}}).

Owners named across the set concentrate in the Program Chair, the Dean of Nursing or Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, Academic Affairs, and the Clinical Coordinator, with named faculty members, Dr. Tressler and Dr. Prashad, appearing directly in the evidence for {{HU|HU-113}}, {{HU|HU-117}}, {{HU|HU-130}}, and {{HU|HU-161}}, and Dr. Gregg appearing in the evidence for {{HU|HU-131}}. Several entries cross reference issues logged under other topics, including Clinical Placement, Technology, LMS, and Platforms, Grading and Academic Records, and Workload and Student Communication, indicating that faculty instruction and curriculum design problems in this tracker rarely occur in isolation.

== Issues ==

=== HU-010: Exit exam benchmark scores can be changed 'at any time' without notice to enrolled students ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Transparency Risk
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | School of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, exit exam benchmark scores can be changed at any time without notice to enrolled students.

'''Evidence.''' Handbook p.23 (both RN and PN Exit Exam sections) states that threshold benchmark scores required to pass the exit exams are based on national student performance data and may be changed at any time by the university. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Threshold benchmark scores required to pass the exit exams are based upon national student performance data and may be changed at any time by the university.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: student policies must be clear and consistently applied. Unilateral, unannounced changes to graduation thresholds raise student fairness and transparency concerns. Accreditation standards require predictable, published program requirements.

'''Impact.''' Students cannot meaningfully plan for graduation when a key progression threshold can change without notice or prospective application. Mid-program changes could retroactively affect students already in progress.

'''Notes.''' The identical language appears in both the RN Exit Exam (p.23) and PN Exit Exam (p.23) sections of the handbook.


=== HU-031: Dr. Pannla told students clinical midterm evaluations were no longer required; Dr. Fabry confirmed they were required; students who relied on Dr. Pannla's guidance were penalized ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Contradictory Faculty Guidance
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Clinical Course Director
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Dr. Pannla told students that clinical midterm evaluations were no longer required, Dr. Fabry confirmed that they were required, and students who had relied on Dr. Pannla's guidance were penalized.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (December 1, 2025): Student C reported conflicting guidance, with Dr. Pannla stating that midterm evaluations were no longer required and Dr. Fabry stating that they are required. Source Group: MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (Sept 2025 to May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student C described receiving conflicting guidance, being told the evaluations were no longer required and then told by Dr. Fabry that they were, and reported being drawn into an email chain between the two faculty members about the conflict while expressing frustration with what the student called disorganized clinical classes.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: policies must be clearly communicated and consistently applied. Handbook p.18 Chain of Communication. Promissory reliance doctrine: students who rely on faculty guidance in good faith cannot be penalized for acting on that guidance.

'''Impact.''' Students who followed Dr. Pannla's guidance were required to complete midterm meetings on short notice, disrupting clinical schedules and preceptor relationships.

'''Notes.''' Pattern consistent with {{HU|HU-023}} (inter-departmental communication failures). Same pattern recurred with clinical hour totals (see {{HU|HU-032}} and {{HU|HU-033}}).


=== HU-033: Clinical III total hour requirement stated as 135 in course syllabus but Dr. Prashad announcement stated 140 hours; contradictory official documents within same semester ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inconsistent Published Requirements
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Clinical III total hour requirement was stated as 135 hours in the course syllabus, but a subsequent Dr. Prashad announcement stated 140 hours (90 in person plus 50 virtual), so students received contradictory official documents within the same semester.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (December 4, 2025): Student C posted a screenshot showing the syllabus stated 135 hours, and Student Y confirmed that Dr. Prashad had sent a new announcement stating 140 hours. Student S noted that the new rule required 90 in person hours, so a student who completed 50 hours online lost the benefit of 5 of those hours. Source Group: MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (Sept 2025 to May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student C reacted to the new requirement by asking why the university would not let her complete just half when she needed only 2.5 more hours, pointing out that the syllabus still said 135 hours, and separately noted that the change had not been communicated correctly from the start.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: policies must be consistently communicated; syllabi are binding academic contracts. 34 CFR §668.41. When a course syllabus and a subsequent instructor announcement directly contradict each other on a material graduation requirement, the institution cannot unilaterally enforce the more restrictive version without formal notice and a reasonable accommodation period.

'''Impact.''' Students who met the 135 hour syllabus requirement in good faith were told they were 5 hours short under the revised 140 hour standard. Administrative confusion cost students real time and money.

'''Notes.''' Closely related to {{HU|HU-032}} (mid semester change to in person hour requirements) and {{HU|HU-010}} (exit exam benchmarks can change at any time). Together these suggest a pattern of material program requirements being changed or inconsistently communicated after enrollment.


=== HU-044: Sherpath academic platform routinely teaches factually incorrect clinical nursing information; errors could cause patient harm if acted upon ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum Deficiency / Patient Safety Risk
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Elsevier / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Sherpath academic platform routinely teaches factually incorrect clinical nursing information, and students identified errors that, if acted upon in clinical practice, could cause patient harm.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (March 3, 2025): Student AQ stated that Sherpath was teaching incorrect information on a regular basis. Student X (Feb 7, 2025) identified at least one question where the correct answer was clearly wrong based on clinical logic. Multiple students across cohorts noted the platform was inadequate preparation for HESI. Source Group: multiple GroupMe archives, Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student AQ said that Sherpath teaches incorrect information regularly and warned that a student who does not recognize an error could carry it forward into practice and make a dangerous mistake as a nurse, and separately described a gap between what the platform teaches and what the HESI exams actually ask.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: course content must be current, evidence based, and accurate. ACEN Standard 5: student learning outcomes must reflect competence in safe nursing practice. NCSBN standards for nursing education require that didactic content be accurate and clinically defensible. Elsevier has a contractual obligation to provide accurate educational content.

'''Impact.''' Students who learn incorrect clinical content from Sherpath and apply it in patient care settings could cause direct patient harm. The institution's reliance on Sherpath as the primary educational resource without institutional correction of inaccuracies represents a systemic curriculum and patient safety failure.

'''Notes.''' Student AQ left the program specifically citing Sherpath inaccuracies as a primary reason, transferring to St. Louis University's MSN direct entry program. See also {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath platform failures).


=== HU-062: Lead: the Herzing New Orleans campus produced three distinct failures (curriculum taught did not match what was tested with no correct books, faculty could not be retained, and a student got no accommodation after emergency surgery); see HU-062a, HU-062b, HU-062c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (three independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Campus Director / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for three distinct Herzing New Orleans campus failures reported by Student L, who left the campus in December 2025, in a Facebook comment thread dated April 27, 2026: {{HU|HU-062a}} (students were taught a milestone curriculum but tested on Elsevier and HESI content without being told or given the correct textbooks), {{HU|HU-062b}} (the campus could not retain faculty and a lab instructor taught the students nothing), and {{HU|HU-062c}} (a student received no accommodation after emergency surgery during the semester). See each sub issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-062}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-062}} resolve to this lead. Campus specific failures consistent with broader online program patterns. Reported by Student L (former Herzing NOLA student), documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-062a}}, {{HU|HU-062b}}, {{HU|HU-062c}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-033}} (conflicting curriculum requirements), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness).


=== HU-062a: NOLA students were taught a milestone curriculum but tested on Elsevier/HESI without notice or the correct books ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum-Assessment Misalignment: Taught One Curriculum, Tested on Another, Without Correct Materials
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Campus Director / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence and according to Student L, the NOLA campus taught a milestone based curriculum but tested students on Elsevier and HESI content, without telling students or providing the correct textbooks, and nothing taught correlated with the HESI exams.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment thread (April 27, 2026), Student L: the campus went through a restructure, taught one curriculum meant to be milestone based, then tested on Elsevier and HESI, which would have been fine if students had been told and given the correct books, but they were not, and nothing taught correlated with the HESI exams.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student L said the campus taught one curriculum, supposed to be milestone based, then tested students on Elsevier and HESI content, which would have been fine if students had been told and given the correct books, but they were not.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: curriculum and examination content must be aligned and clearly communicated, and students must be provided appropriate preparation materials. Lead: {{HU|HU-062}}. Compare {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content).

'''Impact.''' Students taught one curriculum but examined on another, without the right materials, were set up to underperform on HESI through institutional misalignment rather than lack of effort.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-062}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student L (former Herzing NOLA student), documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-062b: NOLA campus could not retain faculty and a lab instructor taught the students nothing ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Retention Failure / Inadequate Instruction
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Campus Director / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence and according to Student L, the NOLA campus still could not retain staff, and a lab instructor had taught the students nothing.

'''Evidence.''' Same April 27, 2026 thread: the lab teacher had not taught the students anything, and the campus still could not retain staff.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student L said the lab teacher had not taught them anything and that the campus still could not retain staff.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: faculty must be adequate in number and qualified; an inability to retain staff and an instructor providing no instruction are accreditation concerns. Lead: {{HU|HU-062}}. Compare {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness).

'''Impact.''' Students experienced an instructional gap in lab content while still being held to the same assessment standards.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-062}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student L (former Herzing NOLA student), documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-064: Herzing institutional memorandum (May 4, 2026) states updated catalogs 'supersede all previously published versions'; framework permits retroactive changes binding enrolled students without proactive individual notice ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Retroactive Policy Supersession Framework / Inadequate Change Notification
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Compliance / Office of the Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, a Herzing University institutional memorandum dated May 4, 2026, distributed to all students, states that updated catalogs supersede all previously published versions and that students are responsible for adhering to the most up to date policies, a framework that contractually permits Herzing to change material program requirements at any time and retroactively bind enrolled students to those changes without proactive individual notice.

'''Evidence.''' Photograph of a Herzing University official memorandum (May 4, 2026), shared via a Facebook post, addressed "To: All Herzing University Students" regarding "Catalog and Policy Changes Effective Summer 2026 Semester." Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Students are responsible for adhering to the most up-to-date policies as published in the current students catalogs. Updated catalogs, and the policies contained therein, supersede all previously published versions. Students should seek clarification from the Director of Campus Operations or Academic Dean for Online Learning if they are told or read any information inconsistent or contradictory with the student catalogs.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.41-43 (disclosure requirements): retroactive changes to program requirements may violate disclosure obligations. Contract law and promissory estoppel: students who enrolled based on specific program representations and made irreversible commitments have a reliance interest. OCR Dear Colleague Letter (2011): enrollment agreements and published policies constitute binding commitments to students.

'''Impact.''' The retroactive supersession framework, combined with the documented pattern of mid program policy changes ({{HU|HU-010}}, {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-033}}) and enrollment misrepresentations ({{HU|HU-022}}, {{HU|HU-046}}, {{HU|HU-058}}), creates a legal environment in which Herzing can alter any program requirement after enrollment and defend the change by pointing to the current catalog, regardless of what students were told at enrollment.

'''Notes.''' The memo was distributed via Facebook, not confirmed to have been received through individual direct email or Canvas notification, which means students with email accessibility barriers ({{HU|HU-054}}) or limited Facebook access may not have received it. A separate Facebook post in the same archive contains screenshots of a complete 49 question pharmacology exam with all correct answers highlighted and publicly shared on Facebook, direct photographic evidence of the academic integrity failures documented in {{HU|HU-037}} and {{HU|HU-051}}.


=== HU-077: Faculty explicitly told students program is '80-20' (80% self-taught) and would not lecture; documented across multiple cohorts including mental health professor stating 'this was a self taught program' ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Self-Teaching Expectation Contradicting Marketed Program Structure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, multiple students documented that Herzing faculty explicitly told them the program is 80 percent self taught and 20 percent taught, or refused to lecture entirely, characterizing the program as self taught, which contradicts the institutional marketing of the program as a structured graduate education with faculty instruction. One mental health professor reportedly stated from day one that she would never lecture and that this was a self taught program, and Student BA cited the 80-20 comment as a direct cause of her withdrawal.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student BA (Sep 27, 2024) and Student F (Dec 30, 2023), with corroborating comments from Student D (Apr 26, 2025), Student CB (Oct 20, 2024), and Student M (Sep 26, 2024). Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student BA said she withdrew from the program partly because of what she called the 80-20 comment, and stated that she was paying to be taught rather than to find 80 percent of the material independently or reread directions she did not understand. Student F separately described a mental health professor who told the cohort from day one that she would never lecture and that the program was self taught, and said the first cohort acted as guinea pigs sharing information with classmates about their clinical experiences. Other students corroborated the pattern, describing instructors who gave brief lectures and left students to figure out the material on their own, and describing having taught themselves nearly everything.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): institutions may not make substantial misrepresentations about the nature of their educational programs. Marketing a program as a structured graduate degree while explicitly directing faculty to require 80 percent self teaching constitutes a potential misrepresentation of program structure. ACEN Standard 5: faculty must provide adequate instruction to support student learning outcomes. Herzing Mission: educate, support, and empower all students for success. If faculty are instructing students that the program is fundamentally self directed, this contradicts the educational duty implied by educate. 34 CFR §600.2 (credit hour definition): credit hours assume a balance of direct faculty instruction and student work; a program that is 80 percent self taught may not meet the credit hour standard.

'''Impact.''' Students who enrolled with the expectation of structured graduate education face a fundamentally different educational experience than represented. Student BA's withdrawal cited the 80-20 comment specifically as her reason, indicating this expectation gap drives attrition. Students who succeed do so through self teaching and outside resources ({{HU|HU-081}} documents Bootcamp, Mark Klimek, YourBestGrade, Quizlet, and Studocu use as a documented norm), reducing the institutional value add for the substantial tuition. Cumulative tuition cost (approximately $12,465 per term) for a substantially self taught program raises consumer protection concerns.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-014}} (student documenting systemic inability to succeed), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-073}} (high GPA withdrawals). The 80-20 phrasing appears to be a specific institutional formulation referenced in faculty communications. Verification recommended: faculty training materials, course syllabi expectations of student versus faculty time, and documented faculty office hour engagement should be reviewed. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-081}} (additional faculty instruction failure involving care plans and preceptor communication).


=== HU-081: Lead: two distinct clinical-communication failures (a major assignment given with no guidance, and preceptors not briefed so students had to define their own scope); see HU-081a, HU-081b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for two distinct clinical communication failures reported by Student F in a Facebook comment on December 30, 2023: {{HU|HU-081a}} (18 page care plans assigned without guidance or even mention, discovered only by seeing another school's student carrying her packet) and {{HU|HU-081b}} (the institution did not brief preceptors on Herzing expectations, so students had to tell preceptors what they thought they could do, inverting the preceptorship structure). See each sub issue.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-081}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-081}} resolve to this lead. Verification recommended: clinical syllabi for care plan requirements and preceptor orientation materials. Reported by Student F (2023 to 2024 clinical), documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-081a}}, {{HU|HU-081b}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-023}}, {{HU|HU-031}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, {{HU|HU-045}}, {{HU|HU-077}}.


=== HU-081a: 18-page care plans assigned with no guidance or even mention ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Assignment Not Communicated: Major Requirement Given Without Guidance
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students were expected to complete 18 page care plans with no real guidance or even mention of them, and one student learned of the requirement only by seeing a student from another school carrying her care plan packet on December 30, 2023.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student F (December 30, 2023): students were expected to complete 18 page care plans with no real guidance or even mention, and she only found out when she saw another student from another school carrying her packet around.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student F said students were expected to complete 18 page care plans with no real guidance or even mention of them, and that she only found out about the requirement when she saw a student from another school carrying her packet around.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: assignment requirements must be clearly communicated to students. Lead: {{HU|HU-081}}. Compare {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).

'''Impact.''' Students unaware of a major requirement face academic harm caused by institutional non-communication, not lack of effort.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-081}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student F, documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-081b: Preceptors were not briefed, so students had to define their own clinical scope ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Preceptor Orientation Failure: Scope Inversion
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the institution did not brief preceptors on Herzing's clinical expectations, so students had to tell the preceptors what they thought they could do, inverting the normal structure in which preceptors guide students, on December 30, 2023.

'''Evidence.''' Same December 30, 2023 comment by Student F: the institution did not talk to the preceptors, so the students had to tell the preceptors what they thought they could do.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student F said the institution had not talked to the preceptors, so the students had to tell the preceptors what they thought they could do.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: preceptors are essential partners and must be oriented to program expectations; standard nursing education practice (NCSBN, AACN) places preceptor orientation on the institution, not the student. Lead: {{HU|HU-081}}.

'''Impact.''' A student is not the appropriate party to define their own clinical scope; the inversion creates patient safety risk and undermines preceptor authority.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-081}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student F, documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-091: Lead: two unrelated faculty/administrative incidents (an NI contract issued to the wrong student, and improper conduct during intensive check-offs); see HU-091a, HU-091b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two independent incidents)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for two unrelated administrative and faculty incidents documented in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group export: {{HU|HU-091a}} (a Needs Improvement contract issued to the wrong student, Student C, July 14, 2025) and {{HU|HU-091b}} (faculty check off policy violations during intensives reported by Handle 1, May 4, 2026). They involve different students, dates, and facts and are tracked separately. Both were ultimately resolved on appeal.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-091}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-091}} resolve to this lead. Student C and Handle 1 (cohort students); documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-091a}}, {{HU|HU-091b}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-016}}, {{HU|HU-031}}, {{HU|HU-040}}, {{HU|HU-045}}.


=== HU-091a: Needs Improvement contract issued to the wrong student (Student C); a full day of anxiety before the instructor admitted the error ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Administrative Error: Needs Improvement Contract Issued to the Wrong Student
! Date added
| 2025-07-14 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student C received a Needs Improvement contract at 9:30 AM on July 14, 2025 stating that he had not completed required lab work, with a warning that he would fail clinicals if it was not completed by midnight, and he spent the day searching for the missing work before the instructor admitted the next day that she had been looking at the wrong person.

'''Evidence.''' Student C: received the Needs Improvement contract at 9:30 AM stating lab one work was incomplete, with a midnight deadline or clinical fail; the instructor later said she had been looking at the wrong person and it was a mistake.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student C described the instructor later admitting that she had been looking at the wrong person and that the whole matter was a mistake.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 (faculty professionalism). A Needs Improvement contract that threatens clinical failure without an accurate basis exposes a student to academic harm caused by faculty error. Lead: {{HU|HU-091}}. Compare {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-response), {{HU|HU-016}} (appeal inbox).

'''Impact.''' A full day of extreme anxiety over a faculty administrative error; the burden of remediation fell on the student.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-091}} (lead). Resolved the next day. Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-091b: Faculty check-off policy violations during intensives caused fails; appeal granted a redo (Handle 1) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Policy Violation: Improper Conduct During Intensive Check-Offs
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Handle 1 reported failing intensives due to instructor check off policy violations, including instructors interrupting check offs, an instructor on her phone missing check offs, and instructors asking questions during check offs; multiple students had the same problem and had to return, and Handle 1 appealed and was granted a redo on May 4, 2026.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 1: failed the first check off, which caused failing two classes, then appealed because instructors broke policy during check offs.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Handle 1 described a head to toe check off in which instructors kept stopping the student, one instructor was on her phone and missed check offs, instructors asked questions during the check off itself, and a lot of people had the same problem and had to come back because of it.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 (faculty competence and professionalism in evaluation); integrity of skills check offs. Lead: {{HU|HU-091}}. Compare {{HU|HU-040}} (intensive validation stamp dispute).

'''Impact.''' Handle 1 failed two classes due to instructor policy violations before a successful appeal; institutional harm occurred before corrective action was available.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-091}} (lead). Appeal granted a redo. Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-097: Synthesis I/II capstone mentor requirement not disclosed until course start; students must independently find MSN/terminal-degree mentor in same state within 2 weeks; Student BH's Maryland mentor rejected; institutional burden-shift for capstone supervision ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Material Requirement Non-Disclosure / Student Burden-Shift
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Curriculum Committee / Synthesis Course Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Synthesis I and Synthesis II capstone courses require students to independently locate, recruit, and secure a nurse mentor who holds an MSN or higher, has at least one year of experience, is actively practicing, and is physically located in the same state as the student, with no advance disclosure before the course begins and approximately two weeks from the course start date to secure a qualified mentor. Student BH documented a Maryland mentor being rejected because Student BH is located in Virginia, adding an undisclosed state restriction layer.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous member 753 (May 28, 2025) said the school should be more upfront about the requirement. Student U (May 28, 2025) said students are not told until the class starts. Student BH (Jul 11, 2025) documented her Maryland mentor being rejected. Student CM (Aug 26, 2025) clarified the requirement as a nurse with a terminal degree and at least one year of experience. Handle 10 (Feb 13, 2026) confirmed that the school does not help find a mentor. Student B (Feb 13, 2026) confirmed the two week deadline. Anonymous member 878 (Jul 11, 2025) advised choosing a mentor close by, since on-site or in-person hours with the mentor are required for Synthesis II. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, Volume 7.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student U said students are not told about the mentor requirement until they start the class. Anonymous member 753 said the school should be more upfront about the requirement, calling it a tall order that is not a simple checkbox for everyone. Student BH described having a willing mentor in Maryland who was rejected because Student BH needed someone located in Virginia. Student CM described the requirement as a registered nurse with a terminal degree and at least one year of experience, and advised students without a mentor in mind to start networking as soon as possible. Handle 10 confirmed the school does not help students find a mentor and recommended starting early because required forms are due early in the semester. Student B confirmed that the mentor must hold an MSN, cannot have gone from BSN to DNP without an MSN in between, and must be secured no later than week two of Synthesis I.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): material program requirements must be disclosed to students before enrollment so they can make informed decisions. A requirement to independently locate a qualified MSN mentor in the student's specific state, within two weeks of course start, is a material requirement that affects whether a student can progress through the program. Non-disclosure until course start is a transparency failure. ACEN Standard 4: capstone supervision is an institutional responsibility; shifting the burden of securing qualified supervision to the student, with no advance notice, no institutional support, and a two week deadline, constitutes a curriculum design deficiency. The state restriction on mentors (mentor must be in same state as student) interacts with {{HU|HU-085}} (frozen or paused states): students in states with enrollment issues may face additional difficulty finding qualified mentors. NCSBN Standards for Nursing Education: clinical and capstone supervision must be adequate and institutionally arranged.

'''Impact.''' Students who cannot locate a qualifying mentor within two weeks face potential course failure or withdrawal at the final stages of the program, after investing approximately 18 months and $60,000 to $95,000 in tuition. Student BH's case documents a concrete harm: a willing mentor was rejected on geographic grounds that were not disclosed in advance, requiring her to restart the networking process. Students without existing professional networks in nursing, particularly career changers with no medical background, are disproportionately harmed. The in person hour requirement for Synthesis II, approximately 27 hours with the mentor on site, adds logistical complexity that students in rural or underserved areas may be unable to meet.

'''Notes.''' The non-disclosure pattern is consistent across the program: care plans not mentioned until students see another school's student carrying them ({{HU|HU-081}}); Virginia Board of Nursing direct care hour requirements not known until a prospective student threatened to contact the board ({{HU|HU-070}}); Alabama Board of Nursing virtual hour limits known only to certain clinical coordinators ({{HU|HU-085}}). The Synthesis mentor requirement is another instance of the same institutional pattern: material information withheld until students are already committed to the course. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-081}} (care plan non-disclosure), {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia Board of Nursing non-disclosure), {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama Board of Nursing non-disclosure).


=== HU-102: No physical textbooks provided in MSN-DE program; students receive modules only; required to purchase outside study resources (YourBestGrade, NAXLEX, Simple Nursing) at additional cost to compensate ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum Resource Inadequacy
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the MSN-DE program provides no physical or digital textbooks as standalone learning materials; all content is embedded in Sherpath and Canvas modules. This creates two compounding problems: students cannot access content independently of the LMS platform, so platform outages ({{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-092}}) eliminate access to all study materials, and because the modules do not adequately prepare students for HESI exams ({{HU|HU-088}}), the effective curriculum requires students to independently purchase outside resources such as YourBestGrade, NAXLEX, Simple Nursing, Bootcamp, and Nurse Sarah tutorials at costs ranging from about $30 to more than $300 per resource.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 11 (Dec 29, 2025) confirmed there are no books, only modules. Anonymous member 533 (Jul 12, 2025) said students need to purchase outside software and materials to study for and pass the HESI exams. Student D (Jul 10, 2025) said the student focuses study time on non-Herzing materials. Student AE (May 29, 2025) described YourBestGrade as the closest study resource for most students, though pricey. Multiple students consistently recommended YourBestGrade (about $30 to $100 or more per month), NAXLEX, Simple Nursing, Level Up RN, and Bootcamp as necessary supplemental resources. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, Volume 7.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student CG asked whether there were books available with an access code that could be added to the VitalSource bookshelf, and Handle 11 replied that there are no books, only modules. Anonymous member 533 said students will need to purchase software and materials outside of Herzing coursework to study for and pass the HESI exams, adding that there is a financial aspect to consider.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): prospective students are not informed that the program's own curriculum is insufficient to pass required examinations and that additional paid resources are effectively mandatory. ACEN Standard 4: curriculum must adequately prepare students for program outcomes including HESI passage. A curriculum that requires systematic student purchase of outside resources to pass its own required examinations is not adequately designed. 34 CFR §600.2 (credit hour): credit hours imply access to sufficient learning materials; a modules only structure with no standalone textbooks may not meet this standard. Consumer protection principles: the effective additional cost of outside study resources, roughly $100 to $500 or more per student, is an undisclosed program cost that affects the total cost of attendance.

'''Impact.''' Students who cannot afford outside study resources are at a competitive disadvantage within the program because the curriculum alone does not prepare them for HESI examinations. The pattern of modules only content combined with HESI exams covering untaught content ({{HU|HU-088}}) creates a structural dependency on paid third party resources, and this financial burden falls disproportionately on lower income students. Platform dependency also means a Sherpath or Canvas outage eliminates access to all study materials simultaneously.

'''Notes.''' This issue connects to {{HU|HU-078}} (systematic third party resource reliance documented in the Facebook group), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covering untaught content), and {{HU|HU-077}} (80-20 self teaching expectation). The modules only structure is consistent with the 80-20 characterization: if 80 percent of learning is student driven using self sourced materials, the institution is effectively outsourcing curriculum delivery to commercial study platforms while charging full tuition. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-047}} (tuition increase), {{HU|HU-048}} (financial aid cap).


=== HU-103: Lead: high faculty turnover and inconsistent instruction quality across cohorts (instructors lost mid-program, and large variation in teaching from cohort to cohort); see HU-103a, HU-103b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (faculty retention, instruction quality)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Human Resources / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for faculty stability and instruction quality problems documented across cohorts. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-103a}} (high faculty turnover and loss of instructional continuity, including an instructor who disappeared on day one of Clinical IV and a mental health instructor not retained for later cohorts) and {{HU|HU-103b}} (inconsistent instruction quality across cohorts, with some students reporting minimal lectures and being left to self teach). See each sub issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Split into lettered sub issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-103}} resolve here. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7). Parts: {{HU|HU-103a}}, {{HU|HU-103b}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-043}} (Clinical IV instructor absent day one), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-077}} (80-20 self teaching expectation).


=== HU-103a: High faculty turnover and loss of instructional continuity, including a Clinical IV instructor who disappeared on day one and a mental-health instructor not retained for later cohorts ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Retention / Instructional Continuity
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Human Resources
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students documented high faculty turnover and loss of instructional continuity, including a Clinical IV instructor who disappeared on day one of the semester with no replacement or communication (tracked in {{HU|HU-043}}) and a first cohort mental health instructor who stated from day one that she would never lecture and was not retained for subsequent cohorts.

'''Evidence.''' Student AY (January 26, 2025) listed very high faculty turnover as a primary deficiency. {{HU|HU-043}} documents the Clinical IV instructor absent on day one. Student F (December 30, 2023) described a mental health instructor who said she would never lecture and that students were left as guinea pigs passing information to classmates. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student AY described very high faculty turnover as a primary deficiency of the program. Student F said the cohort had a mental health professor who told them from day one that she would never lecture and that the program was self taught, leaving the first cohort to act as guinea pigs sharing information with classmates.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 (sufficient, qualified faculty to support program outcomes; instructional continuity); 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability, including stable qualified faculty); HLC Criterion 3.C (sufficient faculty resources). Lead: {{HU|HU-103}}. Extends {{HU|HU-043}}.

'''Impact.''' Loss of instructors mid program disrupts learning and disproportionately affected early cohorts who bore the cost of a developing faculty infrastructure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-103}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-103b: Inconsistent instruction quality across cohorts, with some students receiving minimal lectures and being left to self-teach ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inconsistent Instruction Quality / Faculty Evaluation
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students reported wide variation in instruction quality, with some faculty providing only brief lectures and leaving students to figure out the material while other cohorts reported adequate teaching, a variability consistent with a high turnover environment in which faculty quality is unpredictable and underperformance may not be addressed.

'''Evidence.''' Student CB (October 20, 2024) described a few great professors and quite a few who put out a ten minute lecture and hope students figure it out. Student F (December 30, 2023) described the first cohort acting as guinea pigs. Anonymous member 261 (August 29, 2025) described the cohort as a disorganized disaster in the context of faculty quality. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student CB said there were a few great professors and quite a few who put out a ten minute lecture and basically hoped students would figure it out on their own.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 (faculty must be evaluated and underperformance addressed). Students paying the same tuition receiving materially different instruction depending on assignment is a program quality concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-103}}. See {{HU|HU-077}} (self teaching expectation).

'''Impact.''' Students who pay the same tuition receive materially different instructional experiences depending on which faculty member they are assigned, independent of their own effort.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-103}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-111: MSN capstone project 'not actually implemented, just theoretical'; presented to classmates and professors via Zoom only; raises questions about MSN-level competency assessment for a professional degree ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Capstone Implementation Gap
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Curriculum Committee / Synthesis Course Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the MSN-DE capstone project, framed as a quality improvement initiative in a clinical setting, is not actually executed in that setting; students develop a project proposal and present it virtually but do not implement the intervention, collect real data, or evaluate actual clinical outcomes, raising questions about MSN level competency assessment for a professional degree. This finding is partially captured in {{HU|HU-097}} (mentor requirement not disclosed), but the specific pedagogical concern, that the capstone is a proposal exercise rather than an implemented quality improvement project, warrants its own issue.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous member 753 (May 28, 2025), a student who had completed or was completing Synthesis I and II, disclosed that the capstone is not currently implemented and is presented to classmates and professors only by Zoom. Student CR (May 28, 2025, a December 2024 graduate) said students needed to secure only one mentor for the last two semesters of the capstone project. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, Volume 7.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, anonymous member 753 said that as of the time of posting, the capstone is not actually implemented, only theoretical, and is presented to classmates and professors by Zoom, and separately described the capstone process as something of a mess so far.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: MSN curriculum must include learning experiences that develop graduate level clinical competencies. A capstone that is purely theoretical, not implemented in a real clinical environment, not generating real data, and not evaluating actual patient or system outcomes, does not meet the standard of a graduate capstone in clinical nursing education. AACN Essentials for Master's Education in Nursing (2011, revised 2021): master's level education requires application of evidence based practice and quality improvement in real clinical contexts, not solely theoretical proposal development. If the capstone is presented as a clinical quality improvement project to state boards of nursing or accreditors but is in fact a theoretical Zoom presentation, this constitutes a potential misrepresentation of curriculum rigor. 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): marketing the program as including a clinical capstone implies a level of implementation that a theoretical Zoom presentation does not provide.

'''Impact.''' MSN graduates whose capstone was a theoretical proposal have not demonstrated their ability to design, implement, evaluate, and disseminate a clinical quality improvement initiative, skills expected of MSN level nurses in practice, leadership, and advanced practice roles. Employers and post graduate programs (NP certificate programs, DNP programs) may expect MSN graduates to have completed a real capstone, which a theoretical only exercise may not satisfy. Students who invested significantly in the mentor finding process ({{HU|HU-097}}), including geographic restrictions, credential requirements, and in person hour requirements, may reasonably expect the capstone to constitute meaningful clinical work in return for that investment.

'''Notes.''' This issue is marked CONFIRMED based on anonymous member 753's firsthand account as a student who had reached Synthesis. It is possible that the capstone format has changed for subsequent cohorts; Student CR's December 2024 graduation account does not specifically address whether implementation occurred. Verification recommended: review of Synthesis I and II syllabi for capstone deliverable requirements, and comparison of those requirements to ACEN and AACN capstone standards for MSN programs. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-097}} (mentor requirement not disclosed), {{HU|HU-077}} (80-20 self teaching expectation).


=== HU-113: Identical assignment questions appearing in two separate concurrent credit-bearing courses (Clinical II and MedSurg I, Week 1, May 2026); confirmed intentional by Dr. Tressler; Dr. Prashad states it happens in 'many courses'; students submitting same answers twice for separate course credit ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Duplicate Cross-Course Assignment Content
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Jessica Tressler (Lead Faculty MSN-DE) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Curriculum Committee
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, on May 4, 2026 the reporting student notified program leadership that Clinical II and MedSurg I contained identical assignment questions in week one of the current semester. Dr. Tressler confirmed on May 5, 2026 that the duplication was intentional, stating the rationale was reinforcement of professionalism and safety content. Dr. Prashad confirmed on May 6, 2026 that the practice extends to many courses across the program and said she would be posting a recording in all courses to emphasize this. Students are completing identical work counted separately toward credit for two distinct courses; both courses appear on the transcript with separate grades, and the identical assignments contribute to both.

'''Evidence.''' Email from the reporting student to Dr. Prashad, Dr. Black, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Gregg (May 4, 2026, 7:07 PM). Email from Dr. Tressler to the chain (May 5, 2026, 2:38 PM). Email from Dr. Prashad to the reporting student (May 6, 2026, 7:29 AM). Source Group: email chain, the reporting student to Dr. Prashad, Dr. Black, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Gregg, May 4 to 6, 2026; Dr. Tressler reply May 5, 2026; Dr. Prashad reply May 6, 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Yes, we are aware that similar assignments appear in both Clinical II and MedSurg I during Week One... You should complete the assignment as directed within each course, even if the questions are the same, as they are tied to course-specific requirements.</blockquote> Dr. Prashad separately stated: <blockquote>There will be many courses where materials will be repeated and that is to reinforce knowledge.</blockquote> The reporting student replied inline that the students were basically doing the exact same work for two courses, and suggested the concepts could still be reinforced by asking different questions.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §600.2 (credit hour definition): each credit hour must represent a distinct, substantive learning activity. Requiring students to complete identical assignments in two separate courses and counting that work toward the credit hours of both courses does not represent distinct learning activity for each course. ACEN Standard 4: curriculum must be designed to build on prior learning rather than repeat identical content within the same semester. The stated rationale of reinforcement does not justify identical questions; reinforcement can be achieved with distinct but related content that builds on prior learning. 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): students enrolled in two courses expecting two distinct educational experiences are receiving one experience counted twice. Academic integrity principles: submitting the same work for credit in two separate courses, sometimes called double dipping, is typically a prohibited practice when initiated by students; when the institution requires it, the same academic integrity concern applies to the curriculum design itself.

'''Impact.''' Students are spending time completing assignments for which they have already provided identical answers in a concurrent course, time that could be used for actual learning. In a program where students document 90 to 100 assignments per week ({{HU|HU-096}}) and extreme time pressure ({{HU|HU-096}}), institutionally required duplicate work increases assignment burden without increasing educational value. Dr. Prashad's statement that many courses will repeat materials suggests this is a systemic curriculum design feature rather than a one time overlap, potentially affecting multiple course pairs across the program. If accreditors or the Department of Education review whether course assignments represent distinct credit hour learning activity, intentionally identical cross course assignments may not satisfy the regulatory standard.

'''Notes.''' Attachments to the reporting student's May 4 email show the duplicate assignments. Dr. Gregg forwarded the reporting student's email to Dr. Tressler without informing the reporting student, then apologized: <blockquote>I forwarded your email to Dr. Tressler, as she oversees clinicals and communicates directly with the Med-Surg course lead, those are the courses you had questions about. I do not have visibility into courses outside of ours, so I would not have been able to provide accurate information. I apologize for not communicating that more clearly earlier.</blockquote> This documents an internal forwarding practice without student notification. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-096}} (extreme workload, duplicate assignments compound an already documented overload), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covers untaught content, curriculum quality concerns), {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).


=== HU-117: Clinical IV (NSG621) Adjunct Professor Celia Pfaff resigned 'effective this morning' at the start of Week 1 of the current semester; Herzing sent zero notification to students; students discovered the resignation only because Pfaff personally emailed one student (Student AG), who then shared via GroupMe ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Mid-Semester Resignation / Zero Student Notification
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Dr. Tressler / Dr. Prashad / HR
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Celia Pfaff, RN MSN, WCC (Wound Care Certified), DWC, CLT, Adjunct Professor I at Herzing University Madison, resigned from the MSN-DE program effective the morning of a day in week one of the current semester (May 2026). Herzing issued zero official communication to students enrolled in Clinical IV, and students discovered the resignation only because Pfaff personally emailed Student AG, who shared the message in the cohort GroupMe.

'''Evidence.''' Email from Celia Pfaff (cpfaffjump@herzing.edu) to Student AG, 3:53 PM (May 2026). GroupMe messages from Student AG at 4:18 and 4:19 PM forwarding and explaining the resignation to the cohort. Source Group: email from Celia Pfaff to Student AG (3:53 PM, May 2026); GroupMe, Herzing MSN-DE Cohort Chat (Student AG, 4:18-4:19 PM, May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I am so glad to hear from you! I regrettably had resigned from the MSN-DE program effective this morning. It truly was a pleasure to have gotten to know you and I wish you nothing but success!</blockquote> Student AG then told the cohort by GroupMe that if Celia had been listed as their Clinical IV professor, she had been Student AG's professor as well, and that a new professor was apparently forthcoming.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: institutions must employ and retain sufficient qualified faculty; a faculty resignation on the first day of a clinical semester constitutes a failure of faculty resource management. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain administrative capacity to notify students of material changes to their enrolled courses; a professor resignation is a material change. HLC Criteria 3.C: institutions must demonstrate sufficient faculty resources to support educational programs. The complete absence of institutional notification, forcing students to rely on a faculty member's personal email to a single student, forwarded informally via GroupMe, demonstrates a breakdown in basic administrative communication. This is a direct recurrence of the pattern documented in {{HU|HU-043}} (Clinical IV instructor absent day one, prior cohort) and {{HU|HU-103}} (high faculty turnover, mental health professor refused to lecture), establishing that mid semester faculty loss in Clinical IV specifically is a documented recurring pattern.

'''Impact.''' Students enrolled in Clinical IV NSG621 did not know who their professor was as of the first week of the semester, and no replacement announcement was made through official channels. Students who needed to communicate with faculty about the week one assignments, including the two assignments added mid week per {{HU|HU-116}}, had no confirmed faculty contact. Clinical IV is a high stakes semester with 135 on site clinical hours and major graded activities, so a faculty vacancy at the semester's start disrupts supervision, feedback, and academic standing management. The zero notification approach also means students who did not happen to see the GroupMe post remained unaware of the change, creating an information asymmetry within the cohort.

'''Notes.''' Celia Pfaff's resignation effective the morning of a day in week one places this event among the most disruptive possible timing for faculty departure. Students have already begun submitting work and attending clinical; the absence of a supervising faculty member creates both academic and clinical safety concerns. This is the second documented instance of a Clinical IV faculty departure without notice, see {{HU|HU-043}} for the prior cohort in the same course. The recurrence in the same course across multiple semesters suggests a structural problem with Clinical IV faculty retention, potentially related to the documented issues in that course, including extreme workload ({{HU|HU-116}}) and clinical placement difficulties ({{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-043}} (Clinical IV faculty absent day one, prior cohort), {{HU|HU-103}} (high faculty turnover), {{HU|HU-116}} (NSG621 week one mid week assignment additions), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness).


=== HU-130: NSG633-7H (2253A18) Safety and Quality: Faculty and Course Information page is a blank unfilled template, with Instructor Name, eMail, Phone, Office Hours, Virtual, Campus, Expectations, Location, Days of the week, and Times all empty; students have no faculty contact information as of Week 3, May 21, 2026 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Information Page Not Completed / Student Contact Information Missing
! Date added
| 2026-05-21
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | NSG633 Faculty / Dr. Tressler / Dr. Prashad
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Faculty and Course Information page for NSG633-7H (2253A18), Safety and Quality, was a completely blank template as of May 21, 2026, week three of the semester, with every field, including Instructor Name, eMail, Phone, Virtual Office Hours, Campus Office Hours, Expectations, Campus Location, Days of the week, Times, and Lab Location, showing only placeholder template labels with no populated content. Students in NSG633-7H have no way to identify their instructor by name, contact them by email or phone, or know when office hours are held. The course also shows Proctorio listed in the navigation sidebar as the exam proctoring tool, distinct from ProctorU/Meazure Learning used in other courses, which may create additional student confusion.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas screenshot, NSG633-7H, 2253A18, Pages, Faculty and Course Information, May 21, 2026, showing all fields blank. Source Group: Canvas screenshot, NSG633-7H, 2253A18 Faculty and Course Information page, May 21, 2026, the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Instructor Name: [blank]; eMail: [blank]; Phone: [blank]; Virtual Office Hours: [blank]; Campus Office Hours: [blank]; all fields contain only unfilled template placeholder labels.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: students must have access to qualified, identifiable faculty and be able to contact them. A Faculty and Course Information page with no faculty name, email, or office hours in week three means students cannot identify or contact their instructor. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional administrative infrastructure including faculty contact information. The blank page also undermines the chain of communication process ({{HU|HU-114}}); students cannot follow chain of communication to their faculty if they do not know who that faculty member is.

'''Impact.''' Students in NSG633-7H could not contact their instructor for week three questions, assignment clarification, or academic support. Any student needing help had to bypass the faculty first chain of communication because the faculty member was unidentifiable from the course page. The course's use of Proctorio in the navigation sidebar, distinct from the ProctorU and Meazure Learning tools used in other courses, added a further proctoring system inconsistency for students preparing for exams.

'''Notes.''' NSG633-7H, 2253A18 is identified as Safety and Quality. The course uses Proctorio for secure exams while other courses in the program use ProctorU or Meazure Learning, an undisclosed proctoring system inconsistency across courses in the same program. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-043}} (Clinical IV instructor absent day one), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-103}} (high faculty turnover), {{HU|HU-117}} (Celia Pfaff resignation day one), {{HU|HU-114}} (chain of communication directives).


=== HU-131: NSG525 synchronous session schedule posted Week 4 (May 27) after Weeks 1-3 already passed; 9-minute notice for Week 4 session; posted by unknown U user; Posted on date blank in Canvas; non-standard times Week 1 and Week 4; Week 15 on Sunday ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Synchronous Session Schedule Posted After Sessions Already Occurred / Missing Posted Date / Unknown Poster
! Date added
| 2026-05-27
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Gregg / NSG525 Faculty / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the NSG525 (Clinical II) Synchronous Session Schedule was posted as a Canvas announcement and emailed to students on Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 9:21 AM, week four of the semester. The schedule listed sessions for weeks one through fifteen, and weeks one (May 6), two (May 11), and three (May 18) had already passed before students received any notice of the schedule. Students had no advance notification of the Week 1, 2, or 3 synchronous sessions. The week four session was listed for Wednesday, May 27 at 0930 to 1030 CST, the same day the announcement was sent, with only nine minutes between the email notification (9:21 AM) and the session start (9:30 AM). The Canvas announcement list view showed the Posted on date as blank, suggesting the announcement was backdated or the date was deliberately omitted. The announcement was posted by an unknown user shown only as U, with no faculty name attached, though it was signed by Dr. Gregg. Additional scheduling irregularities included a non-standard time for week one (1030 to 1130 CST instead of 11 to 12 CST), a non-standard time for week four (0930 to 1030 CST), and week fifteen scheduled for Sunday, August 23 at 0800 to 0900 CST, a different day of the week from all other sessions.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas announcement, NSG525 Synchronous Session Schedule, signed Dr. Gregg, posted by an unknown U user, Posted on date blank. The posted schedule listed: week 1, Wednesday May 6, 1030 to 1130 CST; week 2, Monday May 11, 11 to 12 CST; week 3, Monday May 18, 11 to 12 CST; week 4, Wednesday May 27, 0930 to 1030 CST; weeks 5 through 8, Mondays June 1, 8, 15, and 22, 11 to 12 CST; week 9, Monday July 6; weeks 10 through 13, Mondays July 13, 20, and 27, and August 3; week 14, Monday August 10; and week 15, Sunday August 23, 0800 to 0900 CST. Canvas email notification from ClinicalII(NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16, notifications@instructure.com, to the reporting student, Wed 5/27/2026, 9:21 AM; the week four session started at 9:30 AM CST, nine minutes after the notification email. Source Group: Canvas NSG525 Announcement, NSG525 Synchronous Session Schedule; Canvas Notification Email from ClinicalII(NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16, to the reporting student, Wed 5/27/2026 9:21 AM.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Please review the schedule below for weekly synchronous sessions. We will typically meet every Monday except week 1 when you are just getting access to the course and the week of Memorial Day. Those weeks will be Wednesday.</blockquote> The notification email was sent at 9:21 AM and the week four session began at 9:30 AM, nine minutes later.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must provide students with timely and adequate notice of course requirements including synchronous attendance obligations. ACEN Standard 4: course schedules must be communicated to students in advance of the sessions they govern. Posting a fifteen week synchronous schedule in week four, after three sessions have already occurred, deprives students of the advance notice needed to plan attendance. The nine minute notice for the week four session provides no meaningful opportunity for students to prepare or attend. The missing Posted on date in Canvas raises a backdating concern, since if the announcement was created with a future or past date the timestamp records have been altered or omitted. The unknown U poster identity prevents accountability, since students and administrators cannot identify who posted the schedule or verify its authority.

'''Impact.''' Students missed weeks one, two, and three synchronous sessions without knowing they existed or were required. Synchronous sessions in the MSN-DE program are recorded and posted, per Dr. Gregg: "These will be recorded and posted," but attendance may be tracked separately, so students who did not attend due to lack of notice may face attendance or participation penalties. The nine minute notice for week four effectively eliminated any reasonable opportunity to attend that session. Week fifteen on a Sunday at 8:00 AM CST diverges significantly from the program standard and may catch students off guard when it occurs, and the non standard times in weeks one and four versus all other weeks create additional confusion.

'''Notes.''' The announcement was labeled All Sections and signed by Dr. Gregg (hgregg@herzing.edu). The Canvas notification confirmed the course was NSG525 Clinical II. The blank Posted on date is visible in the Canvas Announcements list view; standard Canvas announcements show a post date, and this field was empty. The unknown U poster identity is unusual, since Canvas typically displays the faculty member's name and profile picture when they post announcements, and a U with no name may indicate a deleted or deactivated account, a system generated post, or a posting under an unrecognized user account. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-096}} (last minute assignment posting), {{HU|HU-098}} (graduation email communication failures), {{HU|HU-126}} (NSG525 quiz deadline discrepancy), {{HU|HU-112}} (NSG525 week one duplicate quiz answers).


=== HU-161: Cohort-level faculty instability and unclear faculty-change communication during 2026 Summer C16: another student's NSG 523 Medical Surgical Nursing I and NSG 525 Clinical II sections lost the same instructor (Dr. Jennings) mid-session, with piecemeal notices and a Clinical II announcement closed for comments while inviting questions ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED for the documented facts (two faculty-change notifications, the closed-for-comments marking, and the student-group messages). This is cohort-wide evidence from another student's sections; the reason for the departures is not stated and is not characterized here.
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Sufficiency and Continuity of Instruction, with Student-Facing Communication Gap (cohort-wide evidence)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | MSN-DE Program Chair (Dr. Raywattie Prashad); Dean of Prelicensure Nursing (Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP); faculty affairs and program communications
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, two Canvas Faculty Change Notifications for the 2026 Summer C16 term, both signed by MSN-DE Program Chair Dr. Prashad, document that Dr. Jennings stepped away mid session from NSG 523 Medical Surgical Nursing I and from NSG 525 Clinical II. For Med-Surg, the Program Chair stated she would cover the course in the interim; for Clinical II, the notification stated Dr. Tressler would cover the section. This entry is cohort wide, program level evidence from another student's sections (7C) and did not involve the documenting student's instructor; the documenting student is enrolled in NSG 523 and NSG 525 this term in a different section (see {{HU|HU-159}}), noted only as context. The reason for the departures is not stated; students speculated a possible family or personal-health reason, and this entry does not characterize the reason.

'''Evidence.''' Med-Surg notification (NSG523-7C): the instructor stepped away from the course this session and the Program Chair covered in the interim. Clinical II notification (NSG525-7C): the instructor stepped away and Dr. Tressler covered the section, though the announcement was marked closed for comments. Nursing '27 student group chat (June 5, 2026): a student noted that two of her instructors had left so far that semester, on only week five, and expressed uncertainty about whether the same instructor had also left Clinical II until another student confirmed it. Source Group: Canvas Faculty Change Notification for Medical Surgical Nursing (NSG523-7C), 2026 Summer C16, and Canvas Faculty Change Notification for Clinical II (NSG525-7C), 2026 Summer C16, both signed by Dr. Raywattie Prashad; Nursing '27 student group chat messages dated June 5, 2026; screenshots captured June 6, 2026, provided by the reporting student as cohort-wide evidence.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Dr. Jennings had to step away from the course this session. I will be covering the course in the interim.</blockquote> (Faculty Change Notification, NSG 523-7C, 2026.) <blockquote>Dr. Tressler will be covering this section for course work.</blockquote> and <blockquote>This topic is closed for comments.</blockquote> (Faculty Change Notification, NSG 525-7C, 2026.) According to the tracker, a student in the Nursing '27 group chat said that made two of her instructors who had left so far that semester and that the cohort was only on week five, and another student clarified that Dr. Prashad's email had mentioned only Med-Surg, before another student confirmed the instructor had stepped away from Clinical II as well.

'''Standards.''' Faculty sufficiency and continuity: accreditation expects sufficient qualified faculty to achieve program outcomes and maintain continuity of instruction (Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, 2023; the tracker references ACEN Standard 5 for faculty sufficiency, to be confirmed against the current ACEN Standards and Criteria). Clear and consistent communication of course and faculty information (ACEN, 2023; the tracker references ACEN Standard 4 for communication of requirements). HLC Criterion 3.C: the institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high quality programs. HLC Criterion 2.A: integrity in communications, applied fairly and transparently. Federal administrative capability and notice: 34 CFR §668.14. This entry documents continuity, staffing, and communication concerns and does not allege wrongdoing by any departing instructor; the reason for the departures is not stated. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-160}} (NSG 525 Clinical II documentation, the documenting student's section 7E), {{HU|HU-158}} (decision maker availability), {{HU|HU-126}} (communication of deadlines), {{HU|HU-090}} (petition non-response).

'''Impact.''' Mid session instructor changes in required prelicensure courses can disrupt continuity of instruction, grading consistency, and clinical supervision, especially when one instructor was covering multiple courses and the Program Chair had to step in. Unclear, piecemeal notices about which courses were affected and who would cover each left students uncertain about who their instructor would be during an active term, and inviting questions while closing the comment thread left students without a clear channel to resolve that uncertainty. Students in the cohort expressed anxiety about the program's stability and their ability to finish. As cohort wide evidence, this supports a broader pattern of faculty instability and communication gaps in the program; it is not logged as direct impact on the documenting student.

'''Notes.''' Recommended verification: the total number of faculty changes in the cohort this term and whether a pattern exists across terms; whether a single consolidated notice clarified all of the instructor's affected courses and their coverage, and whether an open channel for questions was provided after the announcement was closed; and the reason for the departures, which is not provided and is not assumed here. This is cohort wide evidence from another student's sections (NSG523-7C, NSG525-7C); it did not involve the documenting student's instructor, and the documenting student's enrollment in these courses, in a different section, is noted only as context. Recommended follow up: preserve the two notifications and the chat as exhibits; if a pattern of faculty turnover is corroborated across the cohort or across terms, develop it with dates and counts. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-090}}, {{HU|HU-126}}, {{HU|HU-158}}, {{HU|HU-160}}. Canvas announcements and group chat messages are treated as personal communications for citation purposes and are not included in a reference list.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation

2026-09-15T16:38:02Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern ethics and credential representation. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers five tracker issues dated between April 30, 2026 and June 3, 2026. Three are rated Medium severity ({{HU|HU-015}}, {{HU|HU-069}}, {{HU|HU-105}}) and two are rated High ({{HU|HU-119}}, {{HU|HU-143}}). Status ranges from CONFIRMED ({{HU|HU-015}}, {{HU|HU-119}}) to POSSIBLE and POSSIBLE requiring verification ({{HU|HU-069}}, {{HU|HU-105}}), with {{HU|HU-143}} carrying a mixed status: the report and the license record check are CONFIRMED, while the reporter's legal characterization is marked POSSIBLE pending a determination by the Florida Board of Nursing.

The entries split into three threads. The first concerns disclosure and privacy: a handbook provision requiring pregnancy disclosure to a Program Chair rather than confidential health services ({{HU|HU-015}}), and a report that a student shared medical images of a minor child in cohort group communications ({{HU|HU-069}}). The second concerns the institutional climate around speech and legal advocacy: a documented student perception that the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group is monitored and that speaking out carries retaliation risk ({{HU|HU-105}}), and a vendor's outside counsel confirming a records hold and plans to communicate with Herzing about a student who filed claims against that vendor ({{HU|HU-119}}). The third concerns credential integrity and institutional branding: a report that an enrolled MSN student publicly represented himself as a licensed RN while wearing Herzing-branded scrubs, alongside a Florida Board of Nursing record search that returned no license on file ({{HU|HU-143}}).

Recurring owners include the Title IX Coordinator ({{HU|HU-015}}, {{HU|HU-069}}) and Student Affairs ({{HU|HU-069}}, {{HU|HU-105}}), while {{HU|HU-105}} also names the Dean of Nursing and {{HU|HU-119}} and {{HU|HU-143}} bring in external parties: a vendor's outside counsel and the Florida Board of Nursing. Taken together, the issues in this topic trace a pattern in which the institution's channels for disclosure, reporting, and oversight are themselves the subject of the concern, whether the question is who receives a disclosure, whether speech is chilled, how a vendor dispute intersects with a student's institutional standing, or how the institution responds when its own branding appears in a credential-integrity report.

== Issues ==

=== HU-015: Mandatory pregnancy disclosure to Program Chair required; raises Title IX and privacy concerns ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Policy Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Title IX Coordinator / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Prelicensure Student Handbook requires a student who is pregnant to notify the Program Chair or designee and submit a medical clearance form to continue in clinical.

'''Evidence.''' Handbook p.12: "If a student is pregnant, the student must notify the Program Chair or designee and submit a medical clearance form to continue in clinical." Handbook p.14 repeats this requirement. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Although we consider pregnancy to be a normal event, for the student's safety, the nursing program requires a statement from the student's healthcare provider providing permission to continue clinical experiences or delineate any special needs or restrictions.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Title IX (20 U.S.C. §1681); 34 CFR §106.40; OCR Guidance on Pregnancy (2022). Mandatory disclosure requirements must be narrowly tailored. Routing disclosure through Program Chair rather than confidential health services may chill voluntary disclosure.

'''Impact.''' If accommodations are then limited based on disclosed pregnancy status, this could constitute pregnancy discrimination under Title IX. Disclosure to Program Chair rather than confidential health office is a privacy concern.

'''Notes.''' Clinical safety rationale is legitimate. However, procedure as written requires disclosure to academic supervisor. Compare to ADA/FMLA models where disclosures go to HR/health services, not direct supervisors.


=== HU-069: Student (Student G) shared medical images of a minor child (not her dependent) in cohort group communications, raising ethical and potential HIPAA/child privacy concerns ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE (Requires Verification)
|-
! Issue type
| Ethical Violation (Sharing Medical Images of a Minor)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Affairs / Compliance / Title IX Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, Student G shared medical images of a minor child who was not her dependent in the cohort's Discord/GroupMe group communications. The EthicsPoint report characterizes this as "raising ethical concerns." The context raises potential HIPAA, FERPA, and child privacy concerns depending on the source and nature of the images.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (Sept 18, 2025), Section II (Behavioral and Student Conduct Concerns): "Sharing of medical images of a minor child (not their dependent), raising ethical concerns by Student G." Listed alongside other inappropriate group discussion topics. Source Group: EthicsPoint Reports: Sept 18, 2025 (Report #1); Dec 3, 2025 (Report #2).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Sharing of medical images of a minor child (not their dependent), raising ethical concerns by Student G.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Nursing Program Confidentiality Statement (Handbook Appendix I, p.36): "Protected health information (PHI) including the patient's admission, diagnosis, treatment, and financial status is confidential and is protected by law (HIPAA). You are expected to limit your uses and disclosures of protected health information." If images originated from a clinical setting: 45 CFR §164.502 (HIPAA Privacy Rule): sharing patient PHI without authorization is a violation. 42 U.S.C. §1320d-6: criminal penalties for wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information. ANA Code of Ethics Provision 3.1: the nurse promotes and protects the privacy of the patient. Herzing P.R.I.C.E. Values (Handbook p.14): Integrity and Caring standards.

'''Impact.''' If the medical images originated from a clinical setting, this would constitute a HIPAA violation with potential criminal liability and would be grounds for program dismissal under the Herzing Confidentiality Statement. Even if not clinical, sharing medical images of a non-dependent minor raises serious ethical questions about professional judgment and fitness for clinical practice.

'''Notes.''' Reported as POSSIBLE because the EthicsPoint report does not specify the source of the images (clinical vs. personal), the nature of the medical content, or the identity of the minor. If the images came from a clinical rotation, severity should be elevated to Critical. The EthicsPoint investigation closure (Sept 25, 2025) did not specifically address this allegation, which represents a potential gap in the investigation's scope (see {{HU|HU-067}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-067}} (investigation adequacy), {{HU|HU-066}} (broader pattern of unprofessional conduct in cohort groups).


=== HU-105: Chilling effect on student speech: students documented fear that Herzing monitors the Facebook group and that speaking out results in institutional retaliation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Student Speech Suppression / Institutional Surveillance Concern
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, an anonymous member of the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group stated on July 5, 2023 that comments shared in the group are often relayed to Herzing and that members take a risk by speaking out. This statement documents a fear among students that the group is monitored by the institution and that speech critical of the program creates institutional risk for the speaker. Whether Herzing actively monitors the group or not, the reporter states that the perception of surveillance creates a chilling effect on student advocacy. The reporter ties this perception to documented retaliation against the reporting student after his EthicsPoint report ({{HU|HU-066}}) and to a recurring pattern of petition dismissals ({{HU|HU-090}}), and notes that the group's extensive use of anonymous posting (over 1,000 anonymous posts documented) is consistent with students taking precautions to conceal their identities when raising concerns.

'''Evidence.''' The anonymous member's July 5, 2023 statement, paraphrased above. {{HU|HU-066}} (existing issue): retaliation against the reporting student following a good-faith EthicsPoint report. {{HU|HU-090}}: recurring petitions reported as dismissed without substantive engagement. Anonymous posting pattern: the Facebook group's extensive use of anonymous posting (over 1,000 anonymous posts across the archive) is cited as behavior consistent with a perceived surveillance and retaliation environment. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' An anonymous member of the Facebook group stated that what members say in the groups is often shared with Herzing and that speaking out carries significant risk.

'''Standards.''' First Amendment principles in higher education (Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 1972): students at institutions receiving federal funds have protected associational and speech rights; institutional surveillance of student communications and retaliation for protected speech implicates these rights. 34 CFR §668.46 (campus security and safety): institutions may not create environments that discourage reporting of concerns. ACEN Standard 2 (Governance): students must have meaningful channels for raising program concerns without fear of retaliation. If the institutional environment has created, whether through actual surveillance or documented retaliation, a chilling effect on student speech, this undermines the integrity of all student feedback mechanisms including course evaluations, town halls, and complaint processes.

'''Impact.''' A chilling effect on student speech means the institution receives artificially suppressed negative feedback, creating a false picture of student satisfaction. Students who believe speaking out is risky are less likely to file EthicsPoint reports, contact accreditors, or participate in town halls, making it harder for the institution to identify and address legitimate program deficiencies. The reporter states that the documented pattern of retaliation ({{HU|HU-066}}) and petition dismissal ({{HU|HU-090}}) provides a rational basis for the stated fear, meaning this is presented as a concern grounded in observed institutional behavior rather than perception alone.

'''Notes.''' Marked POSSIBLE because direct evidence of institutional monitoring of the Facebook group is not confirmed; only student perception is documented. The tracker states that the perception itself is the finding: when students believe they are surveilled and that advocacy is risky, the educational environment is materially harmed. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation post-EthicsPoint), {{HU|HU-090}} (petition non-response pattern), {{HU|HU-067}} (EthicsPoint investigation reported as closed inadequately).


=== HU-119: ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning retained outside counsel (Potomac Law Group, PLLC) in response to the reporting student's April 28, 2026 claims letter; records hold issued; Meazure Learning plans to communicate with Herzing University about the reporting student's account, creating potential conflict of interest and retaliation risk ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Legal Response from Institutional Vendor / Records Hold / Conflict of Interest Risk
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU / Meazure Learning (Ariel E. Warner, Potomac Law Group); Herzing University Administration
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, on May 7, 2026, Ariel E. Warner of Potomac Law Group, PLLC wrote to the reporting student on behalf of ProctorU, Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning in response to the reporting student's April 28, 2026 letter setting out claims related to Meazure Learning's administration of remote examinations as part of his coursework at Herzing University. The letter confirms three developments: Meazure Learning has issued a records hold notice and taken steps to preserve potentially relevant records; Meazure Learning is reviewing the claims; and, as part of that review, Meazure Learning plans to communicate with Herzing University about the reporting student's account. The third point is the most significant from a conflict of interest and retaliation standpoint: ProctorU/Meazure Learning is a vendor contracted by Herzing University to administer remote exams, and when that vendor's legal team contacts the university about a student who has filed claims against the vendor, the student's institutional standing may be affected by his exercise of legal rights against a third party. This creates a structural conflict between the reporting student's rights and the institutional relationship between Herzing and its exam vendor.

'''Evidence.''' Letter from Ariel E. Warner, Potomac Law Group PLLC (May 7, 2026): "I write on behalf of our client, ProctorU, Inc., d/b/a Meazure Learning, in response to your April 28, 2026 letter setting out claims related to Meazure Learning's administration of remote examinations as part of your coursework at Herzing University. This letter provides confirmation that Meazure Learning has issued a records hold notice and has taken steps to preserve all records that are potentially relevant to your claims. Meazure Learning is in the process of reviewing your claims. Please note that as part of our review, we plan to communicate with Herzing University about your account." Signed /s/ Ariel E. Warner. Potomac Law Group, PLLC, www.potomaclaw.com. Source Group: Letter from Ariel E. Warner, Potomac Law Group PLLC, to the reporting student, May 7, 2026 (Re: April 28, 2026 Correspondence to ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>This letter provides confirmation that Meazure Learning has issued a records hold notice and has taken steps to preserve all records that are potentially relevant to your claims. Please note that as part of our review, we plan to communicate with Herzing University about your account.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Retaliation protections: a student's exercise of legal rights against a third-party vendor contracted by the institution should not affect the student's standing with the institution. The planned communication between Meazure Learning's legal team and Herzing University about the reporting student's account creates a conduit through which his legal advocacy could influence his institutional treatment. This intersects with the retaliation pattern documented in {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation post-EthicsPoint) and {{HU|HU-114}} (conflicting communication directives used to limit advocacy). 34 CFR §668.46: institutions may not retaliate against students for exercising legal rights. Consumer protection principles: a student using a vendor-administered service as part of his educational program has the right to raise claims about that service without those claims being used to his institutional detriment. Records hold significance: Meazure Learning's issuance of a records hold is a formal legal preservation step, indicating the company's legal team has assessed that litigation or formal dispute resolution is a realistic possibility.

'''Impact.''' The planned Meazure Learning-to-Herzing communication creates three specific risks: Herzing could be notified of the reporting student's legal claims against its vendor before the reporting student has had an opportunity to raise those claims through institutional channels, potentially biasing the institution's response; Herzing could take adverse academic action under the guise of unrelated reasons after being notified of the claims; and the vendor-institution communication could result in coordinated responses that are adverse to the reporting student's interests. The records hold is a two-edged sword: it preserves evidence favorable to the reporting student's claims, but also signals that Meazure Learning's legal team is treating this as a serious matter requiring formal response.

'''Notes.''' The underlying April 28, 2026 claims letter sent by the reporting student to ProctorU/Meazure Learning is not in the tracker. The nature of the ProctorU claims should be documented when available. Existing issues related to ProctorU: {{HU|HU-001}} (ProctorU Google Remote Desktop flag), {{HU|HU-002}} (ProctorU software identification), and prior GroupMe documentation of students' ProctorU concerns. The attorney of record for future correspondence is Ariel E. Warner, Potomac Law Group. All future communications with Meazure Learning should be through this attorney of record.


=== HU-143: The reporting student reported to David Steele J.D. (Director of Online Academic Operations) that a Herzing MSN student (Student E) publicly represents himself as a licensed RN with an MSN while using Herzing-branded scrubs and logos; Florida Board of Nursing license verification returned no records for the searched name; reporter asserts this is a felony under Florida law and intends to report to the Board of Nursing; institutional branding implicated ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED (report made and BON record check documented); POSSIBLE (underlying legal characterization requires determination by the Florida Board of Nursing)
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Concern: Student Allegedly Representing Self as Licensed RN with MSN While Using Herzing-Branded Scrubs; Reported to Herzing Leadership
! Date added
| 2026-06-03
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | David Steele J.D. (Director of Online Academic Operations) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Stephanie Black / Florida Board of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student reported a concern to David Steele J.D., Director of Online Academic Operations (cc Dr. Prashad and Stephanie Black), regarding another Herzing MSN student, Student E, who publicly represents himself on Instagram as Student E, RN. The reported concerns are that the student is representing online that he has earned an MSN and is a Registered Nurse; that his Instagram includes a highlight category labeled NURSE consisting of photos of him in Herzing-branded scrubs; and that Herzing school logos appear in the content. The reporting student documented that a search of the Florida Board of Nursing QuickConfirm license verification system returned "No search results were found for Student E, RN, FLORIDA" and a separate License Verification search returned "No records found." The reporting student noted that, by his calculation, the student completed his first term in April 2025 and therefore would not graduate until the end of the year, making a current RN credential chronologically inconsistent. The reporting student asserted that, in the State of Florida where the student resides, representing oneself as a nurse without licensure is a felony, and stated he intends to report the matter to the Florida Board of Nursing but wanted to notify Herzing first because Herzing's school logos are on the content. The legal characterization (felony) is the reporter's assertion and a matter for determination by the Florida Board of Nursing and appropriate authorities; this entry documents the report and the objective record-check evidence, not a finding that any crime occurred.

'''Evidence.''' Email: the reporting student to David Steele J.D. (Director of Online Academic Operations), cc Dr. Prashad, Stephanie Black. The email opens by stating that a student was being very abusive in one of the Facebook groups and that, more concerning, this student is representing online that he has earned an MSN and is an RN. Instagram bio: Student E, RN; he/him; highlight categories include NURSE (stethoscope icon). Florida Board of Nursing QuickConfirm License Verification Search Results: "No search results were found for Student E, RN, FLORIDA." License Verification dialog: "No records found. Please try your search again with other search values." Source Group: Email: the reporting student to David Steele J.D. (Director of Online Academic Operations), cc Dr. Raywattie Prashad and Stephanie Black, June 2026; Instagram profile [Instagram handle redacted]; Florida Board of Nursing QuickConfirm License Verification screenshots; archived profile capture. Reported By: the reporting student. Subject of Report: Student E (Herzing MSN student; Instagram [Instagram handle redacted]).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>This student is representing online that he has earned an MSN and is a RN. He also has a category called nurse which is actually photos of him in his Herzing scrubs... in the State of Florida, where he lives, this is a felony... The Florida Board of Nursing has no record of him as a nurse... Herzing's school logos are all over this. [Florida BON]: No search results were found for Student E, RN, FLORIDA.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Florida Statutes section 464.015 (Titles and abbreviations; restrictions): a person may not use the title Registered Nurse or the abbreviation R.N. unless that person holds an active Florida nursing license or a valid multistate license. Florida Statutes section 456.065 (Unlicensed practice of a health care profession): practicing or holding oneself out as able to practice a licensed health care profession without a license may constitute a third-degree felony. Florida Statutes section 464.016 (Violations and penalties): addresses penalties for nursing-title and practice violations. NURSYS / Nurse Licensure Compact: multistate license verification is available via NURSYS; the Florida BON QuickConfirm result and the License Verification "No records found" result are the documented objective evidence that, at the time of the search, no Florida RN license record was located for the searched name. HLC Criteria 2.A (institutional integrity): institutions have an interest in addressing the misuse of their name, logos, and branded materials in connection with potentially inaccurate credential claims by enrolled students. Licensure databases reflect status at the time of search and can change; this entry documents the report and the search result, and the ultimate legal determination rests with the Florida Board of Nursing and appropriate authorities, not with this tracker.

'''Impact.''' If an enrolled Herzing MSN student is publicly representing himself as a licensed RN before completing the program and obtaining licensure, while wearing Herzing-branded scrubs and displaying Herzing logos, the institution faces reputational and integrity exposure, since the public may associate the alleged misrepresentation with Herzing's brand. There is also a potential public-safety dimension to any unlicensed person holding themselves out as a nurse. The matter was formally reported to Herzing's Director of Online Academic Operations, placing the institution on notice; the institution's response, or lack thereof, to a documented credential-integrity concern involving its own branding is itself trackable. The reporter has stated an intent to escalate to the Florida Board of Nursing. The objective record-check evidence and the chronological inconsistency (first term completed April 2025) are the documented bases for the concern; final determination of licensure status and any legal consequence rests with the Florida Board of Nursing.

'''Notes.''' This entry documents a report made by the reporting student and the objective evidence he gathered; it is not a finding by this tracker that Student E committed any offense. The legal characterization as a felony is expressly the reporter's assertion, supported by citation to Florida Statutes sections 464.015, 464.016, and 456.065, and is a matter for the Florida Board of Nursing and appropriate authorities to determine. New personnel identified: David Steele J.D., Director of Online Academic Operations (the official to whom this was reported). The Instagram profile lists Student E, RN (note: SMSN appears to denote student MSN; the RN claim is the subject of the report), 8 posts, 3,442 followers, with a NURSE highlight category. A parallel or secondary Instagram handle appears in one screenshot (a January 8, 2025 post about classes having started). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-115}} (EthicsPoint AI academic-integrity report against another student), {{HU|HU-102}} / {{HU|HU-103}} (program integrity concerns). POSSIBLE follow-up: Herzing's response to David Steele regarding the report; outcome of any Florida Board of Nursing report; confirmation of the student's actual enrollment status and graduation timeline. Sensitive third-party allegation: handle in accordance with the evidence-first, non-accusatory standard; update status if the Board of Nursing or the institution makes a determination.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing

2026-09-15T16:38:01Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern enrollment, registration, and billing. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article gathers fourteen tracker entries dated between April 30, 2026 and June 6, 2026 that touch enrollment operations, registration, and billing. The severity mix is two High entries ({{HU|HU-114}}, {{HU|HU-140}}), eleven Medium entries, and one Low entry ({{HU|HU-029}}). By status, seven entries are CONFIRMED, one is RESOLVED, and six are POSSIBLE, meaning they are recorded as reported concerns pending institutional verification rather than as established findings.

The entries fall into several recurring threads. A bookstore fulfillment thread ({{HU|HU-013}}, {{HU|HU-029}}) documents repeated problems getting compliant clinical scrubs, including an extended size that was not listed in the ordering system. A financial and tuition thread ({{HU|HU-050}}, {{HU|HU-165e}}) covers a mid-program tuition and fee increase reported without documentation of enrolled-student protection, and a self-paying student's uncertainty over tuition after a scheduling-driven course repeat. A communication and administrative thread ({{HU|HU-098}}, {{HU|HU-114}}) documents a graduation and pinning ceremony email failure and a set of contradictory chain-of-communication directives given to a student by three different institutional leaders on the same day. A prospective-student thread ({{HU|HU-140}}) documents contradictory answers about whether the Oklahoma program exists or is accepting applicants. A reported advising-and-billing thread ({{HU|HU-164}}, {{HU|HU-164a}}, {{HU|HU-164b}}, {{HU|HU-164d}}) documents one former student's account of an automatic re-enrollment during an open grade appeal, repeated advisor non-recall, and a drop delayed past the refund window that she says resulted in a double tuition charge. A separate cluster ({{HU|HU-127}}, {{HU|HU-127a}}, {{HU|HU-127b}}) documents two technical failures at a student honor-society induction ceremony.

Recurring owners across the entries include the Bookstore, Financial Aid, Academic Affairs, the Commencement Team, Academic Advising, the Registrar, and Student Accounts, along with named leadership figures AVP Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, and Dr. Jessica Tressler. Several entries cross reference issues tracked under withdrawals and retention, academic appeals, clinical placement, grading and records, licensure eligibility, technology platforms, and clinical intensives, reflecting how enrollment and billing problems intersect with those other operational areas.

== Issues ==


=== HU-013: Required clinical scrubs sent in wrong size on multiple occasions; student left without compliant clinical attire ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Fulfillment Error
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Bookstore / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Required clinical scrubs sent in wrong size on multiple occasions; student left without compliant clinical attire.

'''Evidence.''' Bookstore email thread and scrub exchange emails (Sept 2025 to Jan 2026). Jeanette Ward (Bookstore Admin) confirmed size issue. Student: scrubs are "humongous." Second set (blue, Jan 2026) also came too large. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' The student reported that the scrubs sent were far too large, requiring a return that would leave the student without scrubs for the intensive, so the student's only option was to buy a replacement pair that could not be used again after the intensive.

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.17: "Approved Herzing scrubs" required for all clinical/lab/simulation. Students not in compliance dismissed for the day. Institutional fulfillment error created compliance risk not attributable to student.

'''Impact.''' Student faced potential clinical exclusion and out-of-pocket costs. Two separate size errors across two distributors suggests systemic fulfillment issues.

'''Notes.''' Student needed 6XL top and 4XL pants. Pattern across both scrub sets suggests distributor issue, not isolated error. Also see {{HU|HU-029}}.


=== HU-029: Extended scrub size (6XL) not available in bookstore system when student attempted to order ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Low
! Status
| RESOLVED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Bookstore
|}
'''Finding.''' Extended scrub size (6XL) not available in bookstore system when student attempted to order.

'''Evidence.''' Student email to Jeanette Ward (Bookstore Admin): "I went to order scrubs from the bookstore, but my size is not listed now. I need a 6X scrub top." Ward worked with distributor to order. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' The student reported to Bookstore Admin Jeanette Ward that the student's size was no longer listed when trying to order scrubs, and that the student needed a 6X scrub top and a 6X scrub jacket.

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.17-18 requires approved Herzing scrubs for clinical. Not stocking required uniform items in all sizes discriminates against students who need extended sizes to meet the uniform requirement.

'''Impact.''' Student unable to self-order required uniform item; required intervention from Bookstore Admin. Delayed uniform acquisition at start of clinical.

'''Notes.''' Bookstore Admin Jeanette Ward worked with distributor to fulfill the order. Marked Resolved but part of a larger pattern; see {{HU|HU-013}}.


=== HU-050: Herzing University announced tuition and fee increase mid-program; no documentation of whether enrolled students were protected or informed before it affected enrollment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Tuition Increase / Enrolled Student Impact
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid / Academic Affairs / Administration
|}
'''Finding.''' Herzing University announced a tuition and fee increase for the next academic year while students were mid-program; no documentation of whether enrolled students were protected from the increase or informed of the rate change before it affected their enrollment.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (June 3, 2025): Student B shared: "Oh looky at that, they're raising tuition and fees next year. And when I say next year, I mean next school year. Which starts in September." Student P confirmed seeing the same email. Source Group: Multiple GroupMe Archives: Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

'''Reported statement.''' Student B reported seeing an announcement that tuition and fees would increase starting the next school year, which she noted would begin in September.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.43: institutions must disclose current tuition and fees before students enroll. 34 CFR §668.41 (General disclosure requirements). Mid-program increases that exceed amounts represented in original financial aid packages may require updated loan disbursements.

'''Impact.''' Students who enrolled with a fixed tuition understanding may face higher total costs than disclosed at enrollment if the increase applies to continuing students.

'''Notes.''' The financial aid offer document already in evidence shows tuition of $12,465 for Fall 2025 and $11,675 for Spring 2026. Any mid-program increase above these amounts for continuing students would require documentation and disclosure.


=== HU-098: Spring 2026 graduation and pinning ceremony emails not delivered to Florida and Tennessee graduates despite promised March 2 delivery date; students forced to use shared links and self-advocate through administrative assistant Darmesha Washington ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Administrative Communication Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Commencement Team / Darmesha Washington / David Steele
|}
'''Finding.''' In February-March 2026, Herzing sent Spring 2026 commencement and pinning ceremony emails to graduates. Multiple graduates, including Student B and others in Florida and Tennessee, did not receive these emails. Handle 10 (Feb 17, 2026) noted emails went out but "some are saying they didn't get one." Student B confirmed she received neither the commencement nor pinning email. An anonymous student in their final semester (Synthesis II, Integration of Concepts, due to graduate April 2026) documented as of March 9, 2026 that they still had not received the email despite: (1) being told emails would go out February 17; (2) being told by administrative assistant Darmesha Washington that Florida/Tennessee grads would receive emails March 2; and (3) the March 2 deadline passing without delivery. The RSVP link shared in the Facebook group was characterized as "not personalized" by the reporting student, meaning students who received a forwarded link could RSVP, but students had no confirmation their self-initiated RSVP was properly recorded in the institutional system.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 10 (Feb 17, 2026): "Emails went out today around 4 pm. But some are saying they didn't get one." Student B (Feb 17, 2026): "I am some too. I never got the email but others did. Apparently there is also a separate one for the Pinning Ceremony. I did not get that either." Anonymous member (Mar 9, 2026): "Update: I was told I would get the email on March 2, never received it. Has anyone else dealt with this? Or did you all get the email now? It is incredibly frustrating!!" Student B (Mar 9, 2026): "She is the contact. She is the one that emailed me, letting me know Florida grads would receive their emails on March 2nd." Anonymous member (Mar 9, 2026): "She said that about TN graduates too. This is so frustrating. Idk why stuff with Herzing always has to have an issue. Even something as basic as graduation invitation." The reporting student (Feb 17, 2026): "Its not a personalized link," confirming students could RSVP via shared link without institutional personalization. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' An anonymous member reported being told the email would arrive March 2 but never receiving it, calling the situation incredibly frustrating, and remarking that something as basic as a graduation invitation should not be a recurring problem for Herzing.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional administrative infrastructure for basic student communications. Graduation is a milestone event; failure to deliver commencement information to graduates who have completed 20 months and approximately $60,000 to $95,000 of investment demonstrates administrative disorganization at the most consequential moment of the student journey. The pattern, promised February 17, promised again March 2, still not delivered by March 9, documents repeated failed commitments by the administrative team. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): official graduation records and commencement participation should be managed through authenticated institutional channels, not student-forwarded links.

'''Impact.''' Graduates who did not receive official commencement communications may not have been properly registered for the ceremony, may not have received pinning ceremony details, and may have relied on a shared RSVP link that was not authenticated to their student record. For students who traveled significant distances for graduation (documented costs: $400 to $600 for hotel near Nashville campus), failing to receive official confirmation of ceremony details created planning uncertainty. The "Idk why stuff with Herzing always has to have an issue" characterization reflects the cumulative erosion of student trust from a pattern of administrative failures.

'''Notes.''' This issue is operationally minor in isolation but significant as part of the documented pattern of institutional communication failures: {{HU|HU-023}} (inter-departmental communication failures), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-082}} (zero communication during grade transfer crisis), {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama BON non-disclosure). The graduation email failure extends that pattern to the program's final moment: the ceremony itself. David Steele (dsteele@herzing.edu) is referenced as a senior escalation contact across multiple issues including {{HU|HU-082}} (grade crisis) and {{HU|HU-098}} (graduation emails), suggesting he is a recurring point of escalation for administrative failures.


=== HU-114: Conflicting chain-of-communication directives: AVP Danielle Laban (May 6, 2026) told the reporting student to cc her and Dr. Franklin on communications; Dr. Prashad (same day, same hour) directed him to start with faculty only; Dr. Tressler also directed him to faculty first; three leadership figures issuing contradictory escalation instructions simultaneously ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Conflicting Institutional Communication Directives
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | AVP Danielle Laban / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Dr. Jessica Tressler
|}
'''Finding.''' On May 6, 2026, the reporting student received contradictory chain-of-communication instructions from three institutional leaders within the same day. Dr. Prashad (7:29 AM, May 6): "I am also asking that if you have concerns, please follow the chain of communication and start with your faculty." Dr. Tressler (May 5): "I would like to gently remind you of the program's chain of communication. Questions or concerns should first be directed to your course faculty." Dr. Laban (2:48 PM, May 6, the same day as Dr. Prashad's directive and approximately 7 hours later): "You are always welcome to cc me or Dr. Franklin on communications if you feel it would be helpful for us to be aware or to provide additional support." The reporting student documented that AVP Danielle Laban had previously told him during a one-on-one conversation to "keep the leadership in the loop when issues arise," instructions he was following when he escalated the duplicate work concern directly to Dr. Prashad, Dr. Black, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Gregg. Faculty then cited chain-of-communication violation for the same conduct the AVP had authorized. The conflicting directives place the reporting student in an impossible position: following one administrator's instructions necessarily violates another's. Dr. Laban's May 6 email also directed future formal grievances to Dr. Nicole Franklin, while also stating she remains available for ProctorU, accommodations, and student services concerns, and confirmed a meeting with the reporting student and Dr. Franklin the following week.

'''Evidence.''' Email: Dr. Prashad to the reporting student (May 6, 2026, 7:29 AM): "I am also asking that if you have concerns, please follow the chain of communication and start with your faculty." Email: Dr. Tressler to the reporting student (May 5, 2026, 2:38 PM): "I would like to gently remind you of the program's chain of communication. Questions or concerns should first be directed to your course faculty." Email: Dr. Laban to the reporting student (May 6, 2026, 2:48 PM): "You are always welcome to cc me or Dr. Franklin on communications if you feel it would be helpful for us to be aware or to provide additional support." The reporting student (inline reply to Dr. Tressler, May 6, 2026): "I have been directed by AVP Danielle Laban to keep the leadership in the loop when issues arise and I intend to follow those instructions." The reporting student (to Dr. Prashad, May 6, 2026, 8:22 AM): "A for communication, I will cc Dr. Laban on my communication since I am being asked not to direct it to program leadership." Personnel identified: Dr. Jessica Tressler (jtressler@herzing.edu), lead faculty MSN-DE; Dr. Raywattie Prashad (rprashad@herzing.edu), Program Chair; Dr. Danielle Laban, AVP; Dr. Nicole Franklin, formal grievance handler; Dr. Heather Gregg (hgregg@herzing.edu); Stephanie Black (steblack@herzing.edu); Tanetshia Brown (tanetbrown@herzing.edu). Source Group: Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Prashad / Dr. Black / Dr. Brown / Dr. Gregg, May 4-6, 2026; Dr. Tressler reply May 5, 2026; Dr. Prashad reply May 6, 2026; Dr. Laban reply May 6, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Dr. Prashad, May 6, 7:29 AM: I am also asking that if you have concerns, please follow the chain of communication and start with your faculty.

Dr. Laban, May 6, 2:48 PM, same day: You are always welcome to cc me or Dr. Franklin on communications if you feel it would be helpful for us to be aware or to provide additional support.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criteria for Accreditation 2.C: institutions must maintain clear, consistent, and accessible processes for students to raise concerns. Contradictory directives from multiple administrators on the same day do not constitute a clear or accessible process. 34 CFR §668.97 (student complaints): institutions must maintain functional complaint processes; a process whose correct steps are contradicted by administrators within the same email thread is not functional. Due process principles (Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 1975): students facing adverse institutional action have a right to fair notice of procedures; conflicting procedures deprive the student of meaningful notice. The pattern of citing chain-of-communication violations for conduct explicitly authorized by the AVP is particularly problematic: it creates a mechanism by which any student advocacy can be characterized as procedurally improper regardless of what the student does.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student is simultaneously instructed to: (1) start with faculty only (Dr. Prashad, Dr. Tressler); and (2) cc leadership freely (Dr. Laban). Any email he sends can be cited as violating one set of instructions. This dynamic mirrors the pattern documented in {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation post-EthicsPoint) and {{HU|HU-105}} (chilling effect on student speech): advocacy is structurally discouraged by making compliance with institutional procedures impossible. The May 6 directive from Dr. Laban to connect the reporting student with Dr. Nicole Franklin for formal grievances also confirms there is an ongoing formal grievance process, cross-referenced with {{HU|HU-066}} and {{HU|HU-067}}.

'''Notes.''' This issue also reveals that Dr. Jessica Tressler (jtressler@herzing.edu) is lead faculty for the MSN-DE program but does not appear as faculty on the reporting student's degree audit, a transparency concern the reporting student himself raised ("do you mind telling me who you are, I don't see you as the faculty for my courses in my degree audit"). Dr. Tressler confirmed she is program lead faculty, not course faculty. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-023}} (inter-departmental communication failures), {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty/administration non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation), {{HU|HU-105}} (chilling effect).


=== HU-127: Lead: the Sigma Theta Tau Alpha Beta Iota 2026 induction ceremony was disrupted by two technical failures (all attendees unmuted at the start, and the MC losing internet connection during the name-calling); see HU-127a, HU-127b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (event technical failures)
! Date added
| 2026-05-12 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student W (MC) / Alpha Beta Iota Chapter Leadership / Event Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for two technical failures that disrupted the Sigma Theta Tau International Alpha Beta Iota Chapter 2026 induction ceremony, held via Zoom. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-127a}} (all attendees were unmuted at the start, making the ceremony inaudible) and {{HU|HU-127b}} (the Master of Ceremonies, Student W, lost her internet connection during the name-calling portion for several minutes). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Source Group: Sigma Theta Tau International Alpha Beta Iota Chapter 2026 Induction Ceremony, Zoom, observed by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' The severity field for the original {{HU|HU-127}} was Medium, and the lead and sub-issues use Medium accordingly (aligning a heading tag that read High to the documented Medium severity). This event is distinct from Herzing's academic operations but connected through the Herzing nursing student community. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-127}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-127a}}, {{HU|HU-127b}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-098}} (graduation email failures), {{HU|HU-120}} (Canvas platform failures during the active academic week).


=== HU-127a: All attendees were unmuted at the start of the ceremony, making the proceedings inaudible (a standard Zoom host configuration error) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Event Technical Failure: Audio
! Date added
| 2026-05-12 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student W (MC) / Event Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' At the start of the ceremony, all attendees were unmuted simultaneously, creating an audio environment so chaotic that the ceremony could not be heard. A properly managed ceremony begins with attendees muted and the host controlling unmuting for individual inductees.

'''Evidence.''' Observed by the reporting student during the ceremony: all attendees unmuted at the start, audio inaudible. Source Group: STTI Alpha Beta Iota 2026 Induction Ceremony, Zoom.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>All attendees unmuted at start, could not hear anything.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Zoom host best practices (attendees muted at start, host-managed unmuting); professional event-management standards for honor-society ceremonies. Lead: {{HU|HU-127}}.

'''Impact.''' The all-attendee unmuting error created an immediate negative impression and made the opening of the ceremony inaudible.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-127}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-127b: The Master of Ceremonies (Student W) lost her internet connection during the name-calling portion of the ceremony for several minutes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Event Technical Failure: Host Connectivity
! Date added
| 2026-05-12 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student W (MC) / Alpha Beta Iota Chapter Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' During the name-calling portion of the ceremony, the most significant moment for inductees, the Master of Ceremonies, Student W, lost her internet connection and was absent from the Zoom session for several minutes (the observation records the absence as approximately five to seven minutes), with no apparent backup plan for host failure.

'''Evidence.''' Observed by the reporting student: Student W lost internet connection in the middle of calling names and was out for several minutes. Source Group: STTI Alpha Beta Iota 2026 Induction Ceremony, Zoom.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>MC Student W lost internet connection in the middle of calling names and was out for around 7 minutes.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Professional event-management standards (the name-calling portion is the ceremony's defining moment and should be protected, including a backup plan for host internet failure); STTI chapter governance standards for event reliability. Lead: {{HU|HU-127}}.

'''Impact.''' Inductees being called during the outage had their induction moment disrupted or delayed; for students in a rigorous program, the ceremony is a rare formal recognition that the failure diminished.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-127}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. The source records the host absence as approximately five to seven minutes.


=== HU-140: Prospective student told three contradictory things about the Oklahoma program: pending acceptance, the program is full, and there is NO Oklahoma program; student confused and considering going elsewhere; connects to documented Oklahoma enrollment freeze (HU-085) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Contradictory Information to Prospective Student About Oklahoma Program Existence and Availability
! Date added
| 2026-06-02
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Admissions / Enrollment / State Authorization / Oklahoma Program Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' A prospective or applying student (posting in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group under the anonymized handle Handle 3) reported receiving three mutually contradictory answers about the Oklahoma program. The student wrote that they had been told: (1) they are pending acceptance; (2) the Oklahoma program is full; and (3) there is NO Oklahoma program. The student expressed confusion and stated they were wondering whether to move on and try somewhere else. These three statements cannot all be true simultaneously: a student cannot be pending acceptance to a program that does not exist, and full and does not exist are themselves contradictory. This documents a failure to provide accurate, consistent information to a prospective student about whether the Oklahoma program exists and whether it is accepting students. This directly connects to {{HU|HU-085}}, which documented Oklahoma (OK) as one of six states frozen for new enrollment. If Oklahoma enrollment is frozen or the program is unavailable, telling a student they are pending acceptance would be inaccurate; conversely, if the student is pending acceptance, telling them there is no Oklahoma program would be inaccurate. The contradictory messaging has direct consequences for the student's enrollment decisions and timeline.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by anonymized member Handle 3, Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, May 27, 2026, 12:35 PM (1 reaction, 8 comments). Post: Is there anyone here from Oklahoma? I've been told: I'm pending acceptance; the Oklahoma program is full; there is NO Oklahoma program. I'm so confused. Just wondering if I should move on and try somewhere else. Source URL: [post link redacted]. Source Group: Facebook post, Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, anonymized member Handle 3, May 27, 2026, 12:35 PM, [post link redacted]; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' Handle 3 reported having received three conflicting statements about the Oklahoma program: that they were pending acceptance, that the program was full, and that there was no Oklahoma program at all, leaving them confused and considering applying elsewhere.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71-668.75 (misrepresentation): institutions participating in Title IV programs must not provide false, erroneous, or misleading statements to prospective students regarding the nature of their educational programs, including program availability. Providing three contradictory statements about whether a program exists and whether it is accepting students implicates accurate-representation obligations. State authorization regulations (34 CFR 668.43(a)(6) and 34 CFR 600.9): institutions must accurately represent in which states a program is authorized and available. HLC Criteria 2.A (integrity) and 2.B (fair and accurate representation to students and the public): institutions must communicate accurately with students and prospective students. The contradictory messaging is inconsistent with these integrity and accurate-representation standards. This connects to the documented Oklahoma enrollment freeze ({{HU|HU-085}}): the institution must reconcile what it tells Oklahoma applicants with the actual authorization and enrollment status of the Oklahoma program.

'''Impact.''' A prospective student cannot make an informed enrollment decision when given three contradictory answers about whether the program they applied to exists. The student is left, in their words, so confused and is considering abandoning their application to try somewhere else. If the student is holding an application, paying fees, or delaying other educational options based on a pending acceptance status to a program that may be full or nonexistent, they face real financial and time costs. More broadly, contradictory messaging about program availability in a state with a documented enrollment freeze ({{HU|HU-085}}, Oklahoma) raises consumer-protection and accurate-representation concerns that could affect multiple Oklahoma applicants.

'''Notes.''' Posted under the anonymized Facebook handle Handle 3; no student name is available, so this is documented as an anonymized prospective-student report rather than attributed to a named individual. The post received 8 comments, suggesting other group members engaged with the question (comment content not captured). This issue is directly linked to {{HU|HU-085}}, which documented six states frozen for new enrollment (CO, IA, KS, MO, OK, SD) plus Georgia paused and Alabama BON enforcement. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-085}} (states frozen for enrollment including Oklahoma), {{HU|HU-090}} (recurring petition non-response), {{HU|HU-087}} (cohort attrition and representation), {{HU|HU-109}} (affiliation agreements). POSSIBLE follow-up: obtain the specific written communications the student received (the pending acceptance, program full, and no program statements) to confirm the sources and dates of each contradictory statement.


=== HU-164: Lead: a former student (reporter Student I) describes a sequence of academic-advising and enrollment-process failures, an automatic re-enrollment during an open grade appeal, repeated advisor non-recall of her documented situation, repeated misdirection to re-file an appeal already open, a double tuition charge with no refund for a class she passed, and an erroneous SAP placement; reported as her account and unverified; see HU-164a through HU-164e ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (reported advising and enrollment-process failures; unverified third-party account)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Advising / Registrar / Student Accounts (specific staff not identified by the reporter)
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for a reported account by a former student, Student I, who states that she ultimately withdrew from Herzing and that her final semester cost her an additional 3,000 dollars because her academic advisor repeatedly could not recall what they had discussed. The account is the reporter's own and is unverified; it is recorded here evidence-first for review against institutional records. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-164a}} (an automatic, reportedly unnecessary re-enrollment in a class while a grade appeal was open, creating double-charge exposure), {{HU|HU-164b}} (repeated advisor failure to recall or act on the reporter's documented situation, including an instruction not to engage in the class followed by a failure to back her out), {{HU|HU-164c}} (repeated misdirection to file a grade appeal that was already open, including for the later SAP issue), {{HU|HU-164d}} (a drop delayed past the refund window, reportedly because drops route through academic advising, resulting in a double tuition charge with no refund for a class she passed), and {{HU|HU-164e}} (a GPA reportedly not updated after the appeal was approved, placing her on Satisfactory Academic Progress status, with the fix again deferred to the advisor). See each sub-issue for the reporter's statements and the standards raised for review.

'''Evidence.''' Source Group: Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted]; provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' All statements are attributed to the reporter (Student I) and are unverified; institutional records (the advising email chain she references, the appeal timeline, the billing and refund records, and the SAP determination) would be needed to confirm. The reporter states the re-enrolled class was not a prerequisite or corequisite. The reporter states the appeal was ultimately approved and that she passed the class. Added 2026-06-06 at the top of the date-added section (newest first). Parts: {{HU|HU-164a}}, {{HU|HU-164b}}, {{HU|HU-164c}}, {{HU|HU-164d}}, {{HU|HU-164e}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-073}} (reported high-GPA withdrawals and financial loss), {{HU|HU-090}} (documented institutional non-response pattern), {{HU|HU-132}} (reported advising-related failures).


=== HU-164a: Reported automatic re-enrollment in a class while a grade appeal was open, which the reporter states was unnecessary (not a prerequisite or corequisite) and created exposure to being charged twice for the same class ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Automatic Re-enrollment During an Open Appeal (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Advising / Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that, with a grade appeal open for a class, she was automatically re-enrolled in that same class for Term B. She states she raised a concern about being charged twice for the class if the appeal took longer than expected, and that her advisor agreed to look into backing her out while telling her not to engage in the class. She states the class was not a prerequisite or corequisite, so the immediate re-enrollment was unnecessary.

'''Evidence.''' Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing automatic re-enrollment for Term B during an open appeal and her stated concern about a double charge.

'''Reported statement.''' Reporter Student I stated that she had an open grade appeal for a class and was automatically re-enrolled in the same class for Term B, and that she raised concern about being charged twice for the class if the appeal took longer than expected.

'''Standards.''' Raises a concern under the institution's enrollment, registration, and tuition policies and under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14): automatically re-enrolling a student in a course that is the subject of an open appeal, where the course is not a prerequisite or corequisite, can expose the student to duplicate tuition charges. Recorded for review, not as a finding. Lead: {{HU|HU-164}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the automatic re-enrollment set up the double-charge exposure that the reporter says later materialized.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-164}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.


=== HU-164b: Reported repeated failure by the advisor to recall or act on the reporter's documented situation, including telling her not to engage in the class while promising to back her out and then not doing so, despite an email chain documenting their discussions ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Advisor Non-Recall / Failure to Act on Documented Requests (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Advising
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that her advisor repeatedly did not recall what they had discussed, telling her on multiple occasions that he had no idea what she was talking about, even though there was an email chain documenting everything. She states the advisor told her not to engage in the class while he worked on backing her out, then by Week 2 had no word on the appeal or the backing-out, told her he was still working on it, and later again had no recollection of the matter. She attributes the additional 3,000 dollar cost of her final semester to the advisor being unable to read his own notes about their discussions.

'''Evidence.''' Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing multiple instances across Weeks 2 to 4 in which the advisor did not recall the situation despite an email chain, and her statement that he told her not to engage in the class and then did not back her out.

'''Reported statement.''' Reporter Student I stated that the additional 3,000 dollars in cost for her final semester resulted from her advisor being unable to recall their prior discussions, and that when she called again he had no idea what she was talking about despite an email chain documenting everything they had discussed.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14) and HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including reliable and responsive student services). Repeated failure to recall or act on a documented student request, where the student relied on the advisor's instruction not to participate, is recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-164}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the advisor's repeated non-recall left the reporter relying on instructions that were not carried out, exposing her to failing a class she had been told not to engage in and to the financial harm that followed.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-164}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.


=== HU-164d: Reported drop delayed past the refund window, which the reporter attributes to drops routing through academic advising and to her advisor's inaction, resulting in a double tuition charge with no refund for a class she passed ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Drop Delayed Past Refund Window / Double Tuition Charge (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Advising / Registrar / Student Accounts
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that when she tried to drop the re-enrolled class herself by calling registration, it did not happen because drops go first through academic advising. She states that after repeated unsuccessful attempts to get her advisor to act, registration ultimately dropped the class for her once she explained her frustration, but by then the refund window had passed and the tuition was not refunded. Because the appeal was approved and she had passed the class, she states she paid twice for the same class.

'''Evidence.''' Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing that drops route first through academic advising, that her self-initiated drop did not process, and that the eventual drop came too late for a tuition refund, leaving her paying twice for a class she passed.

'''Reported statement.''' Reporter Student I stated that when she called registration to drop the class herself, it did not happen because drops route first through academic advising, and that by the time the class was finally dropped the refund window had passed, leaving her paying twice for a class she passed after her appeal was approved.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under the institution's tuition refund and drop or withdrawal policies and under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14), as well as HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in financial practices). Routing all drops through advising, such that a student cannot drop directly even when the advisor is unresponsive, can cause a refund-eligible drop to miss the refund window. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-164}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the reporter incurred a duplicate tuition charge (a stated additional 3,000 dollars for the semester) for a class she passed, attributable to the drop delay rather than her own choices.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-164}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.


=== HU-165e: Reported financial impact: the reporter pays for school out of pocket as a single mother and now faces additional tuition to repeat a course and an intensive she did not fail through her own performance ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Tuition Harm from Scheduling-Driven Course Repeat (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Student Accounts / Financial Aid
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states she pays for school out of pocket as a single mother and is trying to determine what will happen with her tuition payments as a result of being required to repeat NSG 122 and the intensive. The financial burden is directly linked to the course failure and mandatory repeat that the reporter attributes to the scheduling and resource failure at the intensive, not to her academic performance.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group; provided by the reporting student, stating she pays out of pocket as a single mother and is seeking clarification on her tuition situation.

'''Reported statement.''' An anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443) stated that she pays for school out of pocket as a single mother and was trying to determine what would happen with her tuition payments as a result of being required to repeat the course and intensive.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under the institution's tuition and refund policies and administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14). Where a course repeat is imposed for a scheduling-driven non-completion rather than a performance failure, the accompanying financial burden on a self-paying student is a fairness and consumer-protection concern. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-165}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the reporter faces a significant additional out-of-pocket tuition cost for a repeat that she describes as unwarranted.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-165}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations

2026-09-15T16:38:00Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern how complaints, EthicsPoint reports, and CARES cases were investigated and closed. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers six tracker entries: one lead record ({{HU|HU-157}}) with two lettered sub-issues ({{HU|HU-157a}}, {{HU|HU-157b}}), two standalone EthicsPoint entries ({{HU|HU-067}}, {{HU|HU-068}}), and one sub-issue of the {{HU|HU-167}} lead ({{HU|HU-167d}}). One entry is rated High severity ({{HU|HU-067}}); the remaining five are rated Medium. All six are CONFIRMED.

The entries span two distinct complaint channels. {{HU|HU-067}} and {{HU|HU-068}} concern EthicsPoint investigations opened in September and December 2025 and closed within seven and five days respectively, both added to the tracker on 2026-05-05. {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-157a}}, and {{HU|HU-157b}} concern a CARES case closed on 2026-06-05 in the same email that denied a final exam retake, declined proctoring supports, and acknowledged a student's legal-hold request. {{HU|HU-167d}} concerns a June 13, 2026 accommodation failure during which two of the six institutional contacts the reporting student emailed were simultaneously out of office.

The recurring owners across this topic are EthicsPoint Administration, the Provost's office, and the Senior Director of Academic Operations for the EthicsPoint entries, and Dr. Nicole Franklin together with Dr. Danielle Laban for the CARES-related entries. Dr. Stephanie Black also appears as a contact in {{HU|HU-167d}}. The recurring pattern across the topic is speed of closure relative to the volume of evidence and the number of distinct concerns raised, and closures that bundle unrelated or unresolved items (a retake denial, a proctoring decision, and a legal-hold acknowledgment) into a single communication.

== Issues ==

=== HU-067: EthicsPoint investigation of September 2025 academic integrity complaint completed in 7 days with generic closure despite 5 categories of violations, 14 evidence files, and inability to access primary evidence repository ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inadequate Investigation and Resolution
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | EthicsPoint Administration / Compliance / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' The EthicsPoint report filed September 18, 2025 documented at least five distinct categories of alleged violations: (1) unauthorized distribution of exam answers via Notion workspace; (2) distribution of copyrighted textbook content; (3) unauthorized recording of faculty lectures; (4) harassment and retaliation against the reporter; (5) unprofessional conduct including sharing medical images of a minor. The investigation was closed September 25, 2025, seven calendar days after filing, with a single generic statement that did not specifically address any individual category, finding, or protective measure.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (Sept 18, 2025): 14 uploaded evidence files. Reporter follow-up (Sept 22, 12:48 PM): the reporting student stated that the uploaded material was only a fraction of what had been posted, and that there was much more content, questions, and answers involved. Organization (Sept 22, 12:28 PM) stated it was unable to access the Notion URL and requested screenshots instead. Organization closure (Sept 25, 10:47 AM) is quoted below. Source Group: EthicsPoint Reports: Sept 18, 2025 (Report #1); Dec 3, 2025 (Report #2).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Our investigation has been completed. We were able to meet with the other party involved and address the concerns shared here. We have investigated concerns related to recording lectures and information sharing and have addressed them accordingly. While we do not anticipate further issues, please let us know if you continue to have concerns.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 requires institutions to maintain and enforce academic integrity policies. The Herzing Student Code of Conduct's progressive discipline model (reprimand, suspension, dismissal) requires documented findings and proportionate sanctions. 34 CFR 668.46 (Clery Act) requires institutions to address reported misconduct with adequate investigative processes. The generic closure language does not indicate whether the Notion workspace was reviewed, whether copyright infringement was referred to legal, whether the harassment and stalking allegations were investigated separately, or whether protective measures were implemented for the reporter.

'''Impact.''' A seven-day investigation of a multi-category complaint with 14 or more evidence files, where the investigating body could not access the primary evidence repository, raises questions about investigative thoroughness. Combined with the documented absence of disciplinary sanctions against the accused student ({{HU|HU-026}}: student remained eligible for student council), the pattern suggests the investigation may have been procedurally deficient. The failure to separately address the harassment, retaliation, and stalking allegations ({{HU|HU-066}}) in the closure response suggests these concerns may not have been independently investigated.

'''Notes.''' Timeline: filed September 18, then the organization asked for screenshots on September 22 after stating it could not access the Notion workspace, the reporter uploaded evidence on September 22, and the organization closed the investigation on September 25. The organization attempted to call the reporter on September 23 but could not reach him and noted his voicemail was full. Despite this communication gap, the investigation was closed two days later. The reporter's formal request for "Protections for Reporting Students" and a request that the Academic Integrity Committee formally investigate were not addressed in the closure. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-026}} (no disciplinary action), {{HU|HU-065}} (unauthorized recording), {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation and stalking).


=== HU-068: EthicsPoint investigation of December 2025 AI cheating complaint closed in 5 days without individual enforcement; university acknowledged systemic AI use but responded only with general education initiative ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inadequate Investigation and Enforcement
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | EthicsPoint Administration / Senior Director Academic Operations / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student filed an EthicsPoint report on December 3, 2025 documenting AI use in student discussion posts with specific forensic evidence: ChatGPT tracking parameters in citation URLs and hallucinated or dead-link citations. Thirteen screenshots were uploaded as evidence. The university acknowledged the evidence and admitted AI use is systemic and "intensifying," but closed the investigation in five days with no individual enforcement actions. The sole remedial response was a general AI ethics education initiative.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (Dec 3, 2025): 13 screenshots showing ChatGPT tracking parameters and hallucinated citations. Organization (Dec 4, 2025) asked for a specific course and section. Organization closure (Dec 8, 2025) acknowledged the evidence as questionable citations submitted in various courses over the past several months and admitted that AI use is intensifying and that not every case gets caught. Source Group: EthicsPoint Reports: Sept 18, 2025 (Report #1); Dec 3, 2025 (Report #2).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Faculty address the use of AI individually with students when it is recognized, though it is acknowledged not every case gets caught. AI use is intensifying, and the University has taken steps to help students learn how to use it ethically and responsibly. For example, we have developed and deployed assignments in all of our general education courses designed to teach students what AI is, how it can be used, how it cannot be used, and the consequences of violating the University's policy on AI.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' The Herzing AI Policy (Handbook p.12) and ACEN Standard 4.6 require that academic integrity policies be enforced consistently, not merely promulgated. The university's response implicitly acknowledges a gap between policy (AI use prohibited or restricted) and enforcement, since not every case gets caught. Providing educational materials about AI ethics without investigating specific documented instances of AI use constitutes a failure to enforce the policy. 34 CFR 602.16(a)(1)(ix) treats an acknowledgment of systemic non-enforcement while claiming compliance as an accreditation risk.

'''Impact.''' The university's response confirms three concerning facts: AI use in student work is systemic and intensifying, enforcement is acknowledged to be incomplete, and the institutional response is educational rather than disciplinary. For a nursing program, AI-generated discussion posts mean students are not engaging with clinical concepts at the depth required for patient safety competency. The pattern of non-enforcement mirrors {{HU|HU-026}} (exam answer posting) and {{HU|HU-067}} (generic investigation closure), suggesting a systemic institutional pattern.

'''Notes.''' The university's acknowledgment that AI use is intensifying and that not every case gets caught is itself a significant admission. Combined with the reporter's 13 screenshots of specific forensic evidence and the fact that no individual enforcement actions were taken, this suggests the university is aware of a program-level academic integrity failure but has chosen educational outreach over disciplinary enforcement. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-027}} (original ChatGPT concern), {{HU|HU-037}} and {{HU|HU-051}} (broader academic integrity patterns).


=== HU-157: Lead: the CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, and that acknowledged the student's legal-hold request; see HU-157a, HU-157b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (CARES closure with unresolved items; legal-hold acknowledgment)
! Date added
| 2026-06-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP)
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for the June 5, 2026 closure of the reporting student's CARES case by Dr. Nicole Franklin, following up on a May 13 meeting. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-157a}} (the case was closed in the same email that denied the Fundamentals final retake, {{HU|HU-155}}, and declined the proctoring supports, {{HU|HU-156}}, with the four summarized items largely answered not approved, not available, or a workaround) and {{HU|HU-157b}} (the same email acknowledged the student's legal-hold request, with the closure occurring contemporaneously with that litigation-preservation request). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Email: Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban), subject CARES Case: Follow-up, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM; provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-158}}). Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-157}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-157a}}, {{HU|HU-157b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-155}} (retake denied), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring), {{HU|HU-158}}.


=== HU-157a: The CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, with the listed items largely unresolved ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| CARES Case Closed With Denied or Unresolved Items
! Date added
| 2026-06-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin / Dr. Danielle Laban
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin closed the reporting student's CARES case in the same June 5, 2026 email that conveyed the denied Fundamentals final retake and the declined proctoring supports. The four summarized items (computer funds from Financial Aid, an assigned proctor, the exam retake, and a ProctorU pre-test) were largely answered with not approved, not available, or a student-side workaround, yet the case was closed.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026) provided updates on the May 13 meeting items, with the assigned proctor not an available option, the exam retake not approved, and the ProctorU pre-test not a viable option, followed by closing the CARES case. Source Group: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES follow-up, June 5, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>With this email, I will be closing your CARES case.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity) holds that a student-complaint or CARES process should resolve or clearly route the issues raised before closure, and closure should not foreclose remaining avenues. Closing the case while the retake was denied without a stated reason ({{HU|HU-155}}) and proctoring support was reduced to a workaround ({{HU|HU-156}}) is a process concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-157}}. See {{HU|HU-155}}, {{HU|HU-156}}.

'''Impact.''' With the case closed, the reporting student may lose a centralized channel for the unresolved items and may have to re-escalate separately.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-157}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. No conclusion is drawn; the documented facts are the closure and the denied or reduced items.


=== HU-157b: The closure email acknowledged the student's legal-hold (litigation-preservation) request, with the CARES closure occurring contemporaneously with that request ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Legal Hold Acknowledged Contemporaneously With Case Closure
! Date added
| 2026-06-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin / Dr. Danielle Laban
|}
'''Finding.''' In the same June 5, 2026 email, Dr. Nicole Franklin stated that the institution had notified the appropriate parties regarding the reporting student's legal-hold request. The CARES closure thus occurred contemporaneously with a litigation-preservation request; closing the CARES case does not extinguish the institution's preservation obligations.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026) stated that the institution had notified the appropriate parties regarding the legal-hold request, in the same email closing the CARES case. Source Group: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES follow-up, June 5, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Additionally, we have notified the appropriate parties regarding your legal hold request.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' A litigation-hold (legal-hold) request triggers duties to preserve potentially relevant records; administrative closure of a complaint case does not extinguish those preservation obligations. Documented as a factual record of the acknowledgment and timing. Lead: {{HU|HU-157}}.

'''Impact.''' The contemporaneous timing of the CARES closure and the legal-hold acknowledgment is a documented fact relevant to records preservation; the institution remains obligated to preserve relevant records notwithstanding the closure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-157}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. No conclusion is drawn beyond the documented acknowledgment and timing.


=== HU-167d: Nicole Franklin and Stephanie Black, two of the six institutional contacts the reporting student emailed during the active accommodation failure, were simultaneously out of office: Franklin supporting the Birmingham Campus during a transition period and Black on PTO ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Key Escalation Contacts Simultaneously Out of Office During Active Accommodation Failure
! Date added
| 2026-06-13
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Dr. Stephanie Black (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' When the reporting student emailed six institutional contacts at approximately 3:39 PM on Saturday June 13, 2026 to report an active accommodation failure, at least two of the six contacts were unavailable and had auto-replies enabled. Dr. Nicole Franklin's auto-reply stated she was currently supporting the Birmingham Campus during a period of transition. Dr. Stephanie Black's auto-reply stated she was out of the office on PTO and would respond as soon as possible. Both are senior institutional figures who would normally be expected to provide oversight or intervention in a student-accommodation crisis. Their simultaneous absence during a weekend accommodation failure left the student without real-time institutional recourse from at least two of his escalation contacts.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot of the reporting student's Herzing inbox (June 13, 2026, 3:39 PM) showed auto-reply emails from Nicole Franklin and Stephanie Black visible in the open draft compose window. Source Group: seven ProctorU chat and screen screenshots (Saturday June 13, 2026, 3:27 PM to 3:44 PM CDT); email from the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Nicole Franklin, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, David Steele, Dr. Stephanie Black, and Dr. Tanetshia Brown (sent approximately 3:39 PM, June 13, 2026); a follow-up email from the reporting student confirming the exam was completed after a delay of over one hour and fifteen minutes; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Franklin auto-reply:] I am currently supporting the Birmingham Campus during a period of transition. [Black auto-reply:] I will respond to your message as soon as... [PTO notice visible].</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 3.D requires student support services that are adequate, accessible, and appropriately staffed. 34 CFR 668.14 addresses administrative capability, including accessible student services. Two senior institutional contacts being simultaneously unavailable on a weekend during an active accommodation failure raises an institutional-coverage and student-support concern. Recorded as a staffing-availability and escalation-path concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-167}}.

'''Impact.''' The simultaneous absence of two senior contacts reduced the student's realistic escalation paths during a time-sensitive accommodation failure on a Saturday.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-167}} (lead). CONFIRMED from inbox screenshots showing auto-replies. Documented 2026-06-13.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement

2026-09-15T16:37:59Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern clinical placement. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article collects 60 tracker entries concerning clinical placement, added between 2026-04-30 and 2026-08-11, though several entries document underlying events reaching back to the 2023-2024 academic year and December 2024. The severity mix skews heavy: seven entries are rated Critical ({{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}}, {{HU|HU-133a}}, {{HU|HU-141}}, {{HU|HU-141a}}, {{HU|HU-141c}}), the majority are High, several are Medium, and two are Low ({{HU|HU-181}}, {{HU|HU-196}}, the latter a resolved example). Nearly all entries are CONFIRMED from first-party emails, Canvas messages, screenshots, or institutional documents; a smaller set is marked POSSIBLE where the account is secondhand or unverified, including {{HU|HU-042}}, {{HU|HU-063}}, parts of {{HU|HU-132}}, {{HU|HU-178}}, {{HU|HU-190}}, {{HU|HU-190a}}, and part of {{HU|HU-191}}.

Several recurring threads run through the collection. The largest is placement never arranged, arranged late, or arranged at excessive distance, documented for individual students ({{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-136}}, {{HU|HU-137}}) and for entire cohorts ({{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-109}}, {{HU|HU-110}}). A second thread concerns clinical hour counting: mid-semester changes to required hours, credential-type mismatches, and instructor-driven reductions appear in {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, the {{HU|HU-141}} cluster, {{HU|HU-144}}, and {{HU|HU-191}}. A third thread concerns the marketing and reality of placement responsibility for graduate nurse practitioner students, where a "Clinical Placement Pledge" is contrasted with students sourcing their own preceptors ({{HU|HU-058}}, {{HU|HU-063}}, {{HU|HU-190}}, {{HU|HU-190a}}). A fourth thread documents administrative and records failures inside the placement system itself: missing student names on outreach documentation ({{HU|HU-072}}), duplicate and erroneous Clinician Nexus entries ({{HU|HU-133}} cluster), and inconsistent preceptor-agreement requirements across terms ({{HU|HU-170}} cluster). A fifth thread traces personnel turnover and fragmented accountability across regional coordinators, including Christina Kennedy's transition ({{HU|HU-121}}), the regional split that kept three online students from meeting together ({{HU|HU-132}}), Dr. Rachel Powell's response naming four additional administrators ({{HU|HU-134}}), and a misdirected welcome email from a new coordinator ({{HU|HU-181}}).

Recurring owners include Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online), Christina Kennedy, Kate Powell (South Region), Starr Williams-Headen, Ann Zientara, Heather Klanderman, and program chairs Dr. Raywattie Prashad and Dr. Stacey Gombar, alongside clinical faculty Troy Frazier and Heather Gregg. The pattern is not confined to one region or program level: it spans prelicensure and graduate tracks, the National Online, South Region, and Florida/Tennessee placement structures, and recurs across at least three enrollment periods (Spring 2025, Summer 2026, and Fall 2026 planning). One entry, {{HU|HU-196}}, documents the placement office responding promptly and effectively when given advance notice of an external risk, and is retained for contrast with the entries describing unresolved or slow-resolved failures.

== Issues ==


=== HU-007: Spring 2026 clinical placement not arranged during semester; pushed to summer with late notice ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement Specialist / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Spring 2026 clinical placement was not arranged during the semester and was pushed to summer with late notice.

'''Evidence.''' A student email dated 2026-04-25 states that clinicals were scheduled for the following week as a result of the university not being able to find a placement during the semester. A Clinical Placement email dated 2026-04-29 confirmed Ascension Via Christi, Wichita, Kansas for the summer.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I have scheduled the exam for the earliest possible time which is 8 AM on Tuesday. Next week I have clinicals as a result of them not being able to find me a placement during the semester.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5.1 requires that clinical learning opportunities be adequate and appropriate. Handbook page 26 requires timely clinical placement. Late placement disrupts curriculum sequencing and may compromise program integrity.

'''Impact.''' Clinical hours were delayed beyond the scheduled semester, and the exam retake date conflicted with the clinical start. This may affect the graduation timeline and financial aid progression.

'''Notes.''' Christina Kennedy confirmed placement on 2026-04-29 for summer, but the official CORE notice was still pending. This is at least the second placement location; the first was four hours away (see {{HU|HU-024}}).


=== HU-008: Handbook states clinical site dismissal decisions are not subject to appeal through Herzing processes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Policy Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Legal Counsel
|}
'''Finding.''' The Prelicensure Student Handbook states that clinical site dismissal decisions are not subject to appeal through Herzing's appeal processes.

'''Evidence.''' Handbook page 16. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Herzing has no control over these decisions, and such decisions of the clinical sites are not subject to appeal through the Herzing appeal processes.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Due process principles in higher education and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. Institutions retain responsibility for ensuring students have recourse when facing adverse academic consequences; clinical dismissal leads to course failure and potential program dismissal, consequences of a magnitude that require some form of institutional review.

'''Impact.''' A student dismissed from clinical by a facility has no appeal rights at Herzing. Clinical dismissal leads to course failure and potential program dismissal with zero institutional review, a due process gap for a consequential adverse action.

'''Notes.''' This is a policy text finding from the handbook, not specific to the reporting student, but highly relevant to any student in the program.


=== HU-032: In-person clinical hours changed mid-semester without notice (approximately 45-50 hours told by Dr. Fabry in October 2025 versus 84 hours actually required) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Policy Change Without Notice
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' In-person clinical hours changed mid-semester without notice, from approximately 45 to 50 hours as told by Dr. Fabry in October 2025 to 84 in-person hours actually required, causing multiple students to face semester-end hour shortfalls.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe. Student CN, on January 5, 2026, said Student CN had asked Fabry about it back in October and was told 45 to 50, state dependent, and that something must have changed since then. Student Y, on December 4, 2025, said the change was bullshit and that they changed it like half way through the semester.

'''Reported statement.''' A student pseudonym known as Student CN paraphrased that Student CN had confirmed the 45 to 50 hour figure with Dr. Fabry in October and believed something had since changed. Another student pseudonym, Student Y, described the mid-semester change as unacceptable.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 requires that program requirements be published and consistently communicated. Handbook policy requires students to complete clinical hours as assigned; a mid-semester change leaves students who planned around the original requirement unable to meet the new one without additional institutional support.

'''Impact.''' Students who planned around the original 45 to 50 hour estimate could not acquire an additional 34 to 39 hours on short notice. Multiple students ended the semester with incompletes or withdrawal grades.

'''Notes.''' Multiple students also reported confusion about whether virtual hours counted toward a combined total or were separate from in-person hours. See {{HU|HU-033}} for related conflicting published totals.


=== HU-035: Student (Student BC, Florida) received only 36 of 84 required in-person clinical hours because university failed to arrange placement; university attempted to issue W grade ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Placement Failure / Wrongful Withdrawal
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' A student, identified as Student BC in Florida, received only 36 of 84 required in-person clinical hours because the university failed to arrange placement for the remaining specialties, and the university attempted to issue a W grade rather than an institutional incomplete.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (April 3 to 4, 2026). Student BC reported being told she would receive a W for Clinical III because the university could not arrange OB and pediatrics placements. A clinical instructor was willing to let her complete all hours in med-surg. The university initially refused an incomplete. Source Group: MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (Sept 2025 to May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BC, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that the university did not even know she was there getting her Clinical III hours, that they were going to withdraw her in a way that would push her back, and that her clinical instructor was willing to let her finish all of the hours in med-surg, but the university would not give her an incomplete.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5.1 requires clinical learning opportunities be adequate and timely. Handbook page 26 addresses clinical placement policies. A W grade for a clinical course failure caused entirely by the institution's failure to arrange placement constitutes an institutional harm. Two W grades equal one failed attempt under Handbook page 20.

'''Impact.''' Issuance of a W grade for an institutionally caused placement failure pushes the student's graduation date back, triggers additional tuition costs, and creates a permanent academic record entry for a failure that was not the student's fault.

'''Notes.''' Multiple other students also reported placement issues in the same semester. See also {{HU|HU-007}}.


=== HU-038: Student (Student E) explicitly confirmed by placement coordinator that 36 hours was total in-person requirement; completed 36 hours; discovered at semester end he was 48 hours short ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Staff Misinformation / Accommodation Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' A student, identified as Student E, was explicitly confirmed by a placement coordinator that 36 hours was his total in-person clinical requirement, completed 36 hours, and discovered at semester end he was actually 48 hours short of the required 84.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe, April 15 to 16, 2026. Student E described calling and asking, mind you, whether he only needed 4 days total, since something did not make sense when the system says 84 hours are needed. He said he was told that whatever was put in his core ELMS was correct, that he asked again to be sure and was told the same thing again, and then boom, the coordinator had been wrong the whole time. The placement coordinator later tried to make everything his fault.

'''Reported statement.''' Student E, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that he had called twice to confirm the requirement, was told each time the number in his records was correct, and later learned the coordinator had been wrong the entire time; he added that the coordinator then tried to place blame on him.

'''Standards.''' Promissory estoppel and reliance doctrine hold that a student who confirms a program requirement with an institutional representative and acts in good faith reliance on that confirmation cannot be held responsible for the institutional error. ACEN Standard 4 and 34 CFR 668.14 are also implicated.

'''Impact.''' The student completed the semester 48 hours short of the clinical requirement through no fault of his own, received an incomplete, and faced delayed program completion, all based on confirmed staff misinformation.

'''Notes.''' The placement coordinator reportedly called the student and tried to make the situation his fault, a response inconsistent with the documented facts. See also {{HU|HU-035}} and {{HU|HU-032}}.


=== HU-042: Hospital administrator reportedly informed Herzing student that hospital no longer accepts Herzing students due to prior practice of sending students to preceptorship without any prior clinical experience ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Readiness / Accreditation Risk
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Clinical Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, a hospital administrator reportedly informed a Herzing student that the hospital no longer accepts Herzing students because Herzing previously sent students to senior-year preceptorship without any prior clinical experience.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe, September 27, 2025. Student E relayed talking with the nurse lead at Student E's hospital, who was telling Student E why the hospital does not allow Herzing students there anymore, saying there was a time when Herzing sent students to preceptorship without having a single clinical experience at all, and that those students were sent into patient rooms with no clinical experience at all.

'''Reported statement.''' Student E, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that the nurse lead at Student E's hospital said Herzing once sent students to preceptorship without any clinical experience at all, placing them in patient rooms unsupervised in what is meant to be the senior-year unsupervised phase.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5.1 requires clinical experiences be adequate, appropriate, and sequenced to build competence. State Board of Nursing regulations typically require progressive supervised clinical experience before unsupervised preceptorship. Sending students into patient care settings without prior supervised experience raises patient safety concerns and potential state nursing board violations.

'''Impact.''' If confirmed, sending students to unsupervised preceptorship without prior clinical experience would represent a patient safety failure, a nursing board violation, and grounds for accreditation concern. The loss of hospital clinical partnership sites due to prior conduct directly harms current students needing placement.

'''Notes.''' This is a secondhand account requiring verification. The loss of clinical placement sites is directly corroborated by documented difficulty placing students throughout 2025 and 2026 (see {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}).


=== HU-049: Clinical placement distances systematically excessive; documented cases include 2+ hour one-way drives; no reasonable distance standard appears to be applied ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Systemic Distance / Accommodation Gap
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / ADA Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Clinical placement distances are systematically excessive, with documented cases including a Fort Myers to St. Pete assignment (over two hours one way), an HCA Osceola assignment (a three-hour drive), and other Florida students placed two to four hours from home. No reasonable distance standard appears to be applied.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe. Student B (Fort Myers, Florida) reported placement at Orlando Health Bayfront Hospital in St. Pete, over two hours one way, and knew classmates from Naples (placed in St. Pete) and Ocala (commuting to Tampa). A student named Kristin reported potentially being placed at HCA Osceola, a three-hour drive.

'''Reported statement.''' Student B, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that Student B drives two hours one way for clinicals, calling it inconvenient though manageable, and attributed the pattern to the campuses being concentrated in Tampa and Orlando, where existing agreements already exist rather than local sites for students elsewhere.

'''Standards.''' Handbook page 26 requires clinical placements be within a reasonable distance from the campus or the student's address on file. A one-way two to four hour drive does not constitute reasonable distance. ADA and Section 504 concerns arise for students with documented disabilities (see {{HU|HU-024}}). ACEN Standard 5.1 is also implicated.

'''Impact.''' Students required to drive two to four hours each way for twelve-hour clinical shifts face extreme fatigue, increased accident risk, and significant financial costs. Students with disabilities or health conditions are disproportionately harmed.

'''Notes.''' Student B's observation that clinical partnerships are concentrated near Tampa and Orlando campuses regardless of student home location suggests the online program uses campus-based placement infrastructure without developing online-student-centered relationships. See also {{HU|HU-024}}, {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-035}}.


=== HU-058: The "Clinical Placement Pledge" marketed to graduate NP students appears materially misleading; multiple students confirm they are responsible for finding their own preceptors; some pay $1,000 or more ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Misrepresentation, Clinical Placement Pledge
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Dean of Graduate Nursing / Admissions
|}
'''Finding.''' The "Clinical Placement Pledge" marketed to prospective graduate NP students appears materially misleading. Multiple current and former Herzing FNP, PMHNP, and AGACNP students across at least five states confirm they are largely or entirely responsible for finding their own clinical preceptors, with many cold-calling over 100 sites independently. Some students pay $1,000 or more out of pocket for preceptor matching services, and sites with existing Herzing affiliation agreements have refused to accept students.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook posts, March to April 2026: (1) Student BU (April 24, 2026), to whom a Herzing alumna, Student BV, replied that a student is mostly on their own finding a preceptor. (2) Student BW (March 10, 2026), an FNP student in Nashville, who contacted over 100 possible sites in the past couple of months. (3) Student CI (February 15, 2026), an MSN-FNP student in Baltimore, who is currently in a MSN-FNP program at Herzing University where students are required to find their own clinical placements. (4) Student CJ (February 20, 2026), a PMHNP student in North Carolina, who stated that even places with existing affiliation agreements have stated they will not accept students. (5) Handle 7 (March 13, 2026), who stated they had to pay the majority of their preceptor cost. Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BU, Student BV, Student BW, Student CI, Student CJ, and Handle 7, all student pseudonyms or anonymous handles, collectively described being largely on their own to find a preceptor, contacting well over 100 sites in a couple of months, being required to find their own clinical placements despite the pledge, having affiliated sites decline them anyway, and paying out of pocket, in one case the majority of the cost, for a preceptor.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (misrepresentation) is implicated: marketing a Clinical Placement Pledge while providing no meaningful placement assistance constitutes a potential misrepresentation of a material program characteristic. ACEN Standard 5.1 requires that the curriculum include planned clinical practice experiences adequate in number and type to prepare graduates for the nursing role. CCNE Standard III-E requires the program ensure adequate preceptor availability. FTC Act Section 5 applies to deceptive advertising of educational program features.

'''Impact.''' Graduate NP students across multiple states spend dozens to hundreds of hours cold-calling clinical sites. Students are paying $1,000 or more out of pocket for commercial preceptor matching services. Sites with existing Herzing affiliation agreements are still turning students away, making the pledge functionally empty.

'''Notes.''' The Clinical Placement Pledge language appears in Herzing's NP program marketing. The contrast between the pledge and the documented reality constitutes a textbook misrepresentation under 34 CFR 668.71. This issue is distinct from {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, and {{HU|HU-049}}, which address prelicensure clinical placement failures; this issue specifically concerns the graduate NP programs.


=== HU-063: Herzing NP students directed toward urgent care as acceptable clinical placement; at least one student's urgent care application rejected by Herzing because "they don't offer primary care visits" ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Site Guidance Inconsistency, Urgent Care
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Graduate Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, Herzing NP students are directed toward urgent care settings as acceptable clinical placement options, but at least one student's application to an urgent care site was rejected by Herzing because the site does not offer primary care visits, creating a guidance inconsistency that wastes student placement effort and may delay program completion.

'''Evidence.''' A Facebook comment by Student CP, a mid-program Herzing FNP student, dated April 16, 2026. Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student CP, a student pseudonym, paraphrased a warning to classmates to be careful with the urgent care option, stating she had an application for urgent care declined by Herzing because urgent care does not offer primary care visits.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 requires that program requirements be clearly and accurately communicated. 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (Misrepresentation) is implicated: if urgent care is presented as an acceptable placement option during enrollment advising but then rejected during the clinical phase, this constitutes a material misrepresentation. CCNE Standard III requires that graduate nursing programs ensure clinical placement criteria are clearly defined and consistently applied.

'''Impact.''' NP students who spend weeks or months pursuing urgent care placement and then have their application rejected have lost significant time, effort, and opportunity cost. Given the documented preceptor scarcity and deadline pressure (see {{HU|HU-058}}), a false lead from institutional guidance creates direct risk of delayed graduation.

'''Notes.''' This reinforces {{HU|HU-058}} (Clinical Placement Pledge misrepresentation). The commenter did not indicate whether the rejection was communicated before or after the student secured the urgent care agreement; if after, the harm is compounded. Urgent care is generally a primary care setting, so the distinction Herzing is apparently drawing requires clarification and consistent communication before students begin placement searches.


=== HU-071: Spring 2025 cohort: 75% of class without clinical placement two weeks before semester start (5/5/2025); institution responded by substituting 50 of 135 clinical hours with five 10-hour Zoom "virtual clinical" classes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mass Placement Failure / Virtual Substitution of In-Person Clinical Hours
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Dean of Prelicensure Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' In April 2025, two weeks before the Spring 2025 clinical rotation semester began on May 5, 2025, 75 percent of the cohort had no clinical assignment. The institution responded by emailing students that 50 of the 135 required clinical hours for the next semester would be obtained through five 10-hour Zoom "virtual clinical" classes, a 37 percent substitution of in-person hours with synchronous virtual sessions due to the institution's failure to secure placements.

'''Evidence.''' A Facebook post by Student D, a Spring 2025 cohort student, dated April 26, 2025, listing three key issues. First, the newly implemented Sherpath LMS system, which Student D said simply does not work, with constant issues transferring grades to Canvas, grades transferring incorrectly, etc, and course grades frequently changed with no explanation, and several people in the cohort indicating they failed a class due to this issue and trying to appeal. Second, instructors provide no instruction, so students had to be ready to do it on their own. Third, the institution being unable to place everyone for clinicals: the cohort was supposed to start clinical rotations on 5/5 and 75 percent of the class did not have a clinical assignment, and it was so bad that an email went out about two weeks earlier stating that 50 of the 135 clinical hours for next semester would have to be obtained in five 10-hour virtual classes going forward. Student D added that there were so many more things like this, and that while any one of the items might seem insignificant, the continual litany of issues, misrepresentations, and chaos adds up. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that the institution is unable to place everyone for clinicals, that the cohort was supposed to start rotations on 5/5 with 75 percent of the class lacking a clinical assignment, that an email sent about two weeks earlier said 50 of the 135 clinical hours for next semester would have to come from five 10-hour virtual classes, and asked rhetorically whether anyone could imagine sitting in a Zoom call for 10 hours.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5.1 requires that the curriculum include planned clinical practice experiences adequate in number and type to prepare graduates for the nursing role. Substituting 37 percent of in-person clinical hours with 10-hour Zoom sessions does not constitute adequate clinical practice for the development of psychomotor nursing skills. Virginia's Board of Nursing, and several other state boards of nursing, cap simulation hours at 25 percent of total clinical hours; substituting Zoom sessions for in-person clinical hours likely violates these state caps for affected students (see {{HU|HU-070}}). Handbook page 26 (clinical placement standards) and 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (misrepresentation) are implicated, since students who enrolled with the understanding of in-person clinical experience are receiving a materially different educational experience. NCSBN nursing simulation guidelines state that virtual simulation is not equivalent to in-person clinical experience for skill acquisition.

'''Impact.''' Seventy-five percent of a cohort lacking clinical placement two weeks before the semester represents a systemic placement infrastructure failure. The institution's solution, 10-hour Zoom "virtual clinical" sessions, is pedagogically inappropriate for nursing skill development and likely violates state board of nursing simulation caps for students in regulated states. Spring 2025 cohort graduates may face NCLEX licensure ineligibility in states with strict simulation hour caps. The educational quality of an all-day Zoom "clinical" is not equivalent to in-person clinical practice; students cannot perform vital signs, medication administration, IV insertion, or patient assessment via Zoom.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, {{HU|HU-049}} (placement deficiencies) and {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia BON 25 percent simulation cap). The substitution of in-person hours with Zoom sessions is a particularly significant escalation: prior placement failures resulted in W grades or delayed graduation, while this systemic substitution affects 75 percent of an entire cohort and dilutes the quality of clinical education program-wide. A cohort member identified as Student B, described as a faculty advisor, partially refuted the timing in the comments, stating that they did not get their clinical assignment at the start of the semester, that it was about two to three weeks into the semester, and that other students might still get placed somewhere, which acknowledges the late-placement pattern rather than refutes it. Multiple students in the Spring 2025 cohort indicated they failed classes due to the related Sherpath grade transfer failures (see {{HU|HU-075}}).


=== HU-072: Clinical placement documentation sent to affiliated hospitals without student name, causing hospitals to not respond; institution then blamed hospitals for non-response rather than acknowledging the documentation error ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Misrepresentation about Clinical Outreach Efforts
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Compliance
|}
'''Finding.''' Multiple students reported that Herzing's clinical placement office told them affiliated hospitals did not respond to placement requests, when in fact Herzing had sent placement documentation without the student's name listed, preventing hospitals from identifying or responding to the request. When students contacted hospitals directly, hospital staff confirmed they never received an identifiable student request, because Herzing had been unable to include the student's name in what it sent. The institution shifted blame to the hospitals rather than acknowledging the documentation error.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student N, August 13, 2024: Baptist has an active affiliation with Herzing, and even that did not stop the institution from sending Student N far away; the school said Baptist did not respond, but another student described in the post as a girl said the documentation was sent with no student name at her hospital of choice, so the hospital did not respond; Student N wondered whether the same explained Student N's own case and said Student N was trying to fight it for the next semester, adding that Student N loves this site. Corroborating post by Student F, May 25, 2024: clinical placement is not reliable, and the office seems to have a standard of telling students it reached out to hospitals, when contacting the hospital directly reveals the hospital never received an email. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student N, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that Baptist has an active affiliation with Herzing but that did not prevent a distant placement, that the school claimed Baptist did not respond, and that another student, described as a girl, learned documentation sent with no student name explained a hospital's non-response, leaving Student N wondering whether the same happened in Student N's own case and stating Student N was trying to fight it for next semester. Student F, a separate student pseudonym, paraphrased that clinical placement is not reliable and follows a pattern of claiming outreach was made to hospitals when, once a student contacts the hospital directly, the hospital says it never received an email.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (misrepresentation) provides that institutions may not make substantial misrepresentations to students about the nature of services they provide. Telling a student that an affiliated hospital did not respond, when in fact the institution sent inadequate documentation, constitutes a misrepresentation about the institution's clinical outreach efforts. ACEN Standard 5.1 treats clinical placement as an institutional responsibility, and misrepresenting placement efforts harms student academic progression. The Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5 (deceptive practices) requires that institutional statements to enrolled students about placement efforts be truthful and substantiated.

'''Impact.''' Students relied on the institution's representation that hospitals did not respond and accepted distant placements as the only option. Had they known the actual cause was inadequate institutional documentation, they could have demanded the placement be re-attempted with proper documentation. The pattern wastes student time, forces unnecessary travel costs (see {{HU|HU-024}}, {{HU|HU-049}}), and shifts institutional responsibility for placement failures onto affiliated hospitals. Multiple students in the same cohort identifying this same pattern across different placement attempts indicates a systemic institutional documentation practice rather than an isolated error.

'''Notes.''' This issue substantially expands {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, and {{HU|HU-049}} by identifying a specific institutional practice, incomplete documentation, that may be the root cause of many reported placement failures. It also intersects with {{HU|HU-042}} (hospital reportedly refusing Herzing students). Recommended verification should include: an audit of placement requests sent to affiliated hospitals to determine whether student names were consistently included; an interview of the clinical placement coordinator about documentation practices; and hospital partner interviews about communications received from Herzing. The Student F corroboration, from a different student in a different cohort, strengthens the finding: the practice is documented across multiple cohorts.


=== HU-080: Mid-rotation clinical requirement changes documented across multiple semesters: mental health hours retroactively required to be with social worker or mental health nurse despite prior alternative (for example, AA meetings) being acceptable ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Rotation Requirement Changes
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair / Mental Health Course Director
|}
'''Finding.''' Students reported that clinical requirements have been changed mid-rotation, requiring them to redo or supplement work already completed under original guidance. A documented case describes a student halfway through her mental health clinical hours being told the hours must be done with a social worker or mental health nurse, after she had already completed hours under prior guidance that AA meeting attendance also satisfied the requirement.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student F, December 30, 2023. Student F said this was, so to say, a perfect example of a lack of communication in clinicals: while halfway done with her mental health hours, her clinical instructor said the hours had to be done with a social worker or a mental health nurse, even though sitting in an AA meeting had also met the requirement. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student F, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that a lack of communication in clinicals was exemplified by being told halfway through her mental health hours that they had to be completed with a social worker or mental health nurse, despite AA meeting attendance previously meeting the requirement.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 requires that program requirements be clearly and consistently communicated. Promissory reliance and good-faith reliance doctrine hold that students who completed clinical hours in good-faith reliance on stated requirements cannot fairly be required to redo those hours when requirements change mid-rotation. Handbook page 26 addresses clinical requirements. The pattern is consistent with {{HU|HU-032}} (mid-semester in-person hour changes) and {{HU|HU-033}} (conflicting published clinical hour totals).

'''Impact.''' Students who completed mental health clinical hours under the original guidance lose either the time invested or face additional clinical hour requirements they did not anticipate. Mental health clinical placements are particularly difficult to secure, per Handbook page 26, which states that for mental health a student has to find their own site, so requiring last-minute additional placement adds significant burden. This pattern continues to support the broader finding that clinical requirements change without adequate advance notice.

'''Notes.''' This is a documented historical instance from the 2023 to 2024 academic year, but the underlying pattern, mid-rotation clinical requirement changes, continues into 2025 (see {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-033}}, {{HU|HU-071}}). Recommended verification is a review of mental health clinical syllabi from multiple semesters to determine whether the requirement was formally changed or whether it represented inconsistent enforcement by individual clinical instructors.


=== HU-093: Mass clinical placement crisis email December 2024, institution had 5 months advance knowledge of Spring 2025 crisis; Detroit contracts lost; Student AL forced to compress 135 hours into 2.5 months ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Advance Knowledge / Crisis Management Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement Team / Dean of Nursing / Amanda Howell / Karl Bayly
|}
'''Finding.''' In December 2024, Herzing sent an email to students in clinical-track semesters disclosing significant clinical placement difficulties, including loss of Detroit-area contracts and inadequate placement availability for Spring 2025. This email documents that the institution had at least five months of advance knowledge of the placement crisis that became {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025, 75 percent without placement two weeks before semester start). Karl Bayly and Amanda Howell were identified in the thread as the primary contacts for placement. Student AL documented being required to compress all 135 clinical hours into approximately 2.5 months because placement was not secured in advance, a workload intensity that is clinically and professionally unreasonable. The Detroit contract losses were attributed in part to poor student behavior at those sites, adding a reputational harm dimension. Students confirmed through the Facebook thread that institutional communication about the crisis was minimal and that the December email was the primary formal disclosure.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook discussion thread referencing the mass clinical placement crisis email of December 2024. A Karl Bayly email is referenced by multiple students as the primary placement contact. Student AL is documented in the thread as having been forced to compress 135 hours into approximately 2.5 months due to delayed placement. The loss of Detroit clinical contracts is attributed to poor student behavior at affiliated sites. Amanda Howell is identified as the secondary clinical placement contact. The thread cross-references {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025, 75 percent without clinical placement two weeks before semester start): the December 2024 email demonstrates institutional advance knowledge of the crisis that {{HU|HU-071}} documents. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' The December 2024 institutional email disclosed placement difficulties and the loss of Detroit-area contracts, identified Karl Bayly and Amanda Howell as contacts, and cited poor student behavior as the cause of the contract losses.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that institutions ensure adequate clinical placement availability before students begin clinical semesters. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to maintain the administrative capacity to fulfill their educational obligations. Having advance knowledge of five or more months of a clinical placement crisis and failing to resolve it before the semester start, while only minimally communicating with affected students, constitutes an administrative capability failure. If Detroit contracts were lost due to poor student behavior, the institution bears responsibility for not providing adequate clinical supervision that would have prevented the conduct issues (see {{HU|HU-081}} preceptor communication failures).

'''Impact.''' Students forced to compress 135 clinical hours into 2.5 months face unreasonable physical and professional demands. Clinical learning quality is degraded by compressed timelines. Students who could not accommodate a compressed schedule faced graduation delays. The contract losses create a shrinking placement network for future cohorts, compounding an already documented shortage. The attribution of contract losses to poor student behavior, without institutional self-examination of whether inadequate preceptor orientation contributed (see {{HU|HU-081}}), represents a blame-shift to students.

'''Notes.''' This issue directly bridges {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis) and {{HU|HU-072}} (documentation sent without student names). The December 2024 email establishes that {{HU|HU-071}}'s crisis was foreseeable and known, making the institution's failure to resolve it before the semester start a deliberate or negligent institutional choice rather than an unexpected event. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-007}} (Spring 2026 placement not arranged during semester), {{HU|HU-024}} (excessive placement distances), {{HU|HU-049}} (systemic placement distance failures).


=== HU-109: Clinical affiliation agreement requests from students routinely denied; Student H tried many times with no success; one successful case took months; students cannot expand clinical network to address placement shortages ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Affiliation Agreement Non-Responsiveness
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Compliance / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' Student H, on October 3, 2024, documented that student requests for Herzing to establish new clinical affiliation agreements with additional sites are routinely denied. He said he tried many times with no success, and that the only person he knows of who succeeded was one girl, whom Herzing took months to make legit with a new site. This means students facing clinical placement shortages ({{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}) cannot resolve their own placement crisis by identifying willing clinical sites, because the institution will not execute the necessary affiliation agreement. Students who find their own willing preceptors, as documented in Student D's Clinical II experience, face an institutional bottleneck that prevents them from obtaining placement even when they have done the work of finding it.

'''Evidence.''' Student H, October 3, 2024, paraphrased description: a student can try to request that Herzing obtain an affiliation agreement, but Student H tried many times with no success, and knew of one girl who did get Herzing to sign on with a new site, though that process took months. Student D, May 28, 2025, paraphrased description: Student D found their own site and Herzing got a contract in place, but finding the site was easy while getting Herzing to make it legit was a bit more challenging. The contrast between Student H's repeated failures and Student D's eventual success, achieved only with significant difficulty, documents inconsistent institutional responsiveness to affiliation agreement requests. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student H, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that requesting an affiliation agreement rarely succeeds despite repeated attempts, and that the one classmate who succeeded waited months. Student D, a separate student pseudonym, paraphrased that finding the site independently was easy but getting Herzing to make it official was more challenging.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that institutions ensure sufficient clinical placement infrastructure to support student learning. If the institution is simultaneously experiencing clinical placement shortages ({{HU|HU-071}}: 75 percent without placement two weeks before semester start) and routinely denying student-initiated affiliation agreement requests, the institution is both failing to provide placements and blocking students from self-resolving the deficit. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to maintain the administrative capacity to process clinical affiliation agreements in a timely manner. A process that takes months and succeeds only rarely is not functioning adequately given the documented urgency of placement shortages.

'''Impact.''' Students facing clinical placement shortages have no effective self-help mechanism: they cannot find and formalize their own placements without institutional cooperation, and that cooperation is routinely withheld. Students who identified willing preceptors and sites were blocked from using them, while simultaneously being told their placement delay was due to limited available sites. The combination of institutional placement failure ({{HU|HU-071}}) and institutional refusal to process student-sourced affiliations compounds the harm and extends placement delays.

'''Notes.''' This issue directly compounds {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis), {{HU|HU-072}} (documentation errors in placement), {{HU|HU-093}} (mass placement crisis December 2024 email), and {{HU|HU-024}} (excessive placement distances). Students who could resolve their own placement crisis are blocked by institutional inaction on affiliation agreements. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-007}} (Spring 2026 placement not arranged), {{HU|HU-084}} (library volunteering for OB/Peds hours, students accepting inadequate placements because proper affiliations were not available).


=== HU-110: Alabama clinical network: single preceptor for entire state as of December 2024; that preceptor considering leaving; single point of failure threatening all Alabama students' clinical placement simultaneously ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Single Point of Failure / Preceptor Network Inadequacy
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / State Relations
|}
'''Finding.''' Student AF, on December 30, 2024, documented that as of December 2024, the entire state of Alabama had only one clinical preceptor available for Herzing MSN-DE students, and that the preceptor had stated she might not continue on. This creates a catastrophic single point of failure: if that one preceptor leaves, all Alabama students requiring clinical placement simultaneously lose access to any placement in their state. This finding predates and helps explain the Alabama BON enforcement action documented in {{HU|HU-085}} (April 2026), where Alabama students were unable to sit for NCLEX due to insufficient in-person clinical hours. If the state had only one preceptor, students who could not access that preceptor may have been forced into virtual-only hours, exactly the situation the Alabama BON later enforced against.

'''Evidence.''' Student AF, December 30, 2024, stated the single-preceptor situation in the context of students discussing clinical placement availability in Alabama. The statement was not challenged or corrected by other Alabama students in the thread, suggesting it was accepted as accurate. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AF, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that there was only one preceptor in Alabama and that she had indicated she might not continue on.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires institutions to maintain sufficient clinical infrastructure to support student learning without creating single points of failure. A state with a significant student population relying on a single preceptor who is considering leaving constitutes an administrative capability failure under 34 CFR 668.14. NCSBN guidelines require that adequate clinical supervision include sufficient preceptor availability across all student locations; a single preceptor serving an entire state cannot provide adequate supervision for the volume of students enrolled. Business continuity principles hold that if the institution knew the sole Alabama preceptor was considering leaving and took no action to identify backup preceptors, this constitutes negligent management of clinical infrastructure.

'''Impact.''' If the single Alabama preceptor left, all Alabama students requiring clinical placement, potentially dozens across multiple semesters, would face simultaneous placement loss with no state-based alternative. Students who could not obtain placement would face graduation delays, loan accrual without progress toward degree completion, and potential program dismissal if clinical hours could not be completed. The December 2024 timing, the same month as the mass placement crisis email ({{HU|HU-093}}), suggests Alabama's precarious preceptor situation was part of the broader institutional clinical capacity crisis.

'''Notes.''' This finding connects the December 2024 mass placement crisis email ({{HU|HU-093}}), the Alabama BON enforcement action ({{HU|HU-085}}), and the Student AH 90-plus day ATT delay ({{HU|HU-094}}): a state with one preceptor leads to students being pushed to virtual hours, which leads to BON enforcement of insufficient in-person hours, which leads to NCLEX ineligibility and a 90-plus day ATT delay. The chain of events was predictable from the December 2024 single-preceptor disclosure. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-085}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-094}}, {{HU|HU-109}}.


=== HU-121: Lead: Christina Kennedy's May 7, 2026 email disclosed two distinct problems (no onsite clinical faculty finalized at Week 1, and the placement specialist transitioning out); see HU-121a, HU-121b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two disclosures)
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Christina Kennedy (transitioning) / Faculty Clinical Coordinator / Jeff Ramsey / Rachel Powell / nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for two distinct problems disclosed in Christina Kennedy's May 7, 2026 4:16 PM email to the reporting student: {{HU|HU-121a}} (no onsite Clinical Faculty Member finalized at the start of Week 1) and {{HU|HU-121b}} (the Clinical Placement Specialist transitioning out of her role, with future questions routed to a generic inbox). Both are tracked separately. The email was copied to Jeff Ramsey, Rachel Powell, and nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-121}} entry on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-121}} resolve to this lead. Summer break was confirmed as June 27 to July 5, 2026, with no clinicals. Parts: {{HU|HU-121a}}, {{HU|HU-121b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-103}}, {{HU|HU-117}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-161}}.


=== HU-121a: No onsite Clinical Faculty Member finalized at the start of Week 1 for the reporting student; supervisory gap ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Faculty Not Assigned at Semester Start / Supervisory Gap
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty Clinical Coordinator / Rachel Powell / nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu
|}
'''Finding.''' As of Week 1 (May 7, 2026), clinical placement was secured for the reporting student, but no onsite Clinical Faculty Member had been finalized; the Faculty Clinical Coordinator was still working on it with no confirmed dates, times, or assignment.

'''Evidence.''' Christina Kennedy's email, May 7, 2026, 4:16 PM, stating the team was working to secure an onsite Clinical Faculty Member but had not finalized it.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>We are currently working to secure a Clinical Faculty Member to be onsite with you, but that has not been finalized yet.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires qualified clinical faculty supervision confirmed before rotations begin, and 34 CFR 668.14 requires administrative capability. Beginning clinical without a confirmed onsite supervisor is a supervisory gap affecting patient safety and competency evaluation. Lead: {{HU|HU-121}}. Compare {{HU|HU-117}} (Pfaff resignation), {{HU|HU-128}} (no placement Week 3), {{HU|HU-138}}, {{HU|HU-161}} (faculty continuity).

'''Impact.''' The student had no identified person to contact for clinical guidance, safety concerns, or grade disputes at rotation start.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-121}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-121b: Clinical Placement Specialist (Christina Kennedy) transitioning out mid-process; future questions routed to a generic inbox ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Placement Staff Transition / Loss of Named Point of Contact
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Christina Kennedy (transitioning) / Jeff Ramsey / nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu
|}
'''Finding.''' In the same email, the Clinical Placement Specialist Christina Kennedy disclosed she was transitioning out of her role and directed future questions to a generic inbox, nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu, removing a named point of contact during an active placement process. This compounds other Week 1 personnel departures, including Celia Pfaff's classroom resignation ({{HU|HU-117}}).

'''Evidence.''' Christina Kennedy's email, May 7, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I do want to let you know that I am transitioning out of this role. If you have additional questions in the coming weeks, you can reach nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu for assistance.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and continuity) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. Loss of a named placement contact mid-process, alongside other Week 1 departures, reflects administrative instability. Lead: {{HU|HU-121}}. Compare {{HU|HU-103}} (faculty turnover), {{HU|HU-117}} (Pfaff resignation), {{HU|HU-161}} (faculty continuity).

'''Impact.''' Future placement questions are routed to a generic inbox rather than an identified individual during an unresolved clinical setup.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-121}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-123: Initial Preceptor Meeting assignment due Week 1 but no clinical site has been assigned; students cannot complete a meeting with a preceptor they have not been given; institutional deadline imposed before institutional obligation fulfilled ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Assignment Due Before Clinical Site Assigned / Institutional Sequencing Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Heather Gregg / Clinical Placement Team / Christina Kennedy (transitioning)
|}
'''Finding.''' The Unit 1 Initial Preceptor Meeting assignment, a required graded assignment worth 0 pts but mandatory for clinical progression, was shown as due in Week 1 (May 10, 2026), but the reporting student had not yet been assigned a clinical site or preceptor. Christina Kennedy's email ({{HU|HU-121}}) confirmed that as of May 7, 2026, no Clinical Faculty Member had been finalized. A student cannot complete an Initial Preceptor Meeting if the institution has not yet assigned a preceptor or clinical site. The institution is imposing a Week 1 deadline for an activity that depends entirely on the institution completing its own prior obligation of assigning the clinical site and preceptor.

'''Evidence.''' Email from the reporting student to Dr. Gombar and Dr. Gregg (May 2026), stating that the initial preceptor meeting is showing due this week but he had not yet been assigned a clinical site. NSG621 Canvas assignment screenshot ({{HU|HU-116}} evidence) showing "Unit 1: Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement," due May 10, 0 pts. Christina Kennedy's May 7, 2026 email to the reporting student ({{HU|HU-121}}), confirming the team was currently working to secure a Clinical Faculty Member to be onsite with him and that it had not yet been finalized. Source Group: Email, the reporting student to Dr. Gombar / Dr. Gregg, May 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>The initial preceptor meeting is showing due this week, but I have not yet been assigned a clinical site.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical supervision be arranged by the institution before clinical activities begin. Imposing a Week 1 deadline for a preceptor meeting when the institution has not yet assigned a preceptor inverts the proper sequence: the institution must fulfill its obligation first, by assigning the preceptor and site, before the student can fulfill theirs, by completing the initial meeting. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical and academic schedules so that academic requirements can actually be fulfilled. The Unit 1 Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement being due May 10 while the preceptor was not yet assigned as of May 7 gave the student only a three-day window to complete an assignment that depends on an institutional action that had not yet occurred.

'''Impact.''' If the Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement was not submitted by May 10, the reporting student faced a missed assignment, even though the failure to complete it is directly attributable to the institution's failure to assign a preceptor. This is a structural harm: the student is penalized for institutional non-performance. The assignment is listed as worth 0 points but required, meaning it may be a prerequisite for clinical progression; failure to submit it on time may affect clinical standing regardless of points. This connects directly to {{HU|HU-121}} (Kennedy email confirming no Clinical Faculty Member assigned) and {{HU|HU-117}} (Celia Pfaff resigned without replacement).

'''Notes.''' This issue illustrates the compounding effect of the Week 1 institutional failures: the professor resigned ({{HU|HU-117}}), the clinical placement specialist was transitioning out ({{HU|HU-121}}), clinical faculty had not yet been assigned ({{HU|HU-121}}), and now a graded clinical prerequisite assignment was due before the institution had arranged the clinical relationship it requires. Dr. Gombar's email did not address this concern specifically; she acknowledged the duplicate assignments and the empty content assignments but made no mention of the preceptor meeting sequencing issue. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-121}} (clinical faculty not assigned, Kennedy transitioning), {{HU|HU-117}} (Celia Pfaff resignation), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis), {{HU|HU-109}} (affiliation agreement requests denied).


=== HU-128: Week 3 of semester: the reporting student has no clinical placement for 96 required hours; Rachel Powell confirms team still onboarding clinical faculty with no timeframe; cannot approve virtual options; Dr. Prashad states she cannot provide accommodations for one student not provided to all; 27 virtual hours already in course for all students confirmed ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Week 3 No Clinical Placement / Accommodation Denied for One-Student Basis
! Date added
| 2026-05-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Rachel Powell (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Danielle Laban / Emilie Thompson
|}
'''Finding.''' Going into Week 3 of the May 2026 semester, the reporting student has no clinical placement secured for the 96 required clinical hours of the term. The escalation chain is fully documented. Christina Kennedy, transitioning out of her role ({{HU|HU-121}}), referred the reporting student to nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu. Rachel Powell responded that the team is still onboarding the clinical faculty for this clinical rotation, that unfortunately this does take time because the team is at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule, and that unfortunately she does not have an exact timeframe and is not able to approve virtual options, which would need to come from the program chair. The reporting student then escalated to Dr. Prashad, who responded that she needs some additional information since she cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students, asked whether she was understanding correctly that the reporting student was reaching out because he had approved accommodations based on conditions reviewed by accommodations to do what is allowable by his state, asked that this be forwarded to her as the first step, stated that since the course already has 27 virtual hours for all students she would need to connect with several stakeholders about state requirements, and asked whether Rachel Powell is his clinical coordinator. The reporting student then escalated to disability services, Danielle Laban and Emilie Thompson. Dr. Prashad's statement that she cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students is legally significant: disability accommodations under the ADA and Section 504 are precisely designed to provide individualized modifications that may not be provided to all other students. Treating an accommodation request as a general equity problem fundamentally misunderstands disability law.

'''Evidence.''' Weekly Report, week ending May 17, 2026. Rachel Powell email: our team is still onboarding the clinical faculty for this clinical rotation, unfortunately this does take time, as we are at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule. Rachel Powell: unfortunately, I do not have an exact timeframe, I am not able to approve virtual options, that would need to come from the program chair. Dr. Prashad email: I cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students, am I understanding correctly that you are reaching out because you have approved accommodations based on conditions reviewed by accommodations to do what is allowable by your state, since we already have 27 virtual hours for this course for all students I will need to connect with several stakeholders about state requirements, Rachel Powell, are you his clinical coordinator? Source Group: Weekly Report week ending May 17, 2026; Email chain: the reporting student to Rachel Powell, Dr. Prashad, Danielle Laban, Emilie Thompson, May 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Our team is still onboarding the clinical faculty for this clinical rotation. Unfortunately, this does take time, as we are at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule. [Rachel Powell:] I do not have an exact timeframe. I am not able to approve virtual options. [Dr. Prashad:] I cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students. Since we already have 27 virtual hours for this course for all students, I will need to connect with several stakeholders about state requirements.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' The Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12132) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794): disability accommodations are by definition individualized modifications that may differ from what is provided to other students. Dr. Prashad's statement that she cannot provide something for one student not provided to all others directly contradicts the legal framework of disability accommodations. ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be secured before students are required to fulfill clinical hours. Week 3 without a placement means the reporting student cannot complete clinical hours that are accumulating as missed. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical and academic schedules so requirements can be fulfilled. Rachel Powell's confirmation that the team is at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule, with no exact timeframe, documents institutional incapacity to fulfill its clinical placement obligation. The 27 virtual hours statement by Dr. Prashad is also significant: it confirms virtual hours exist in the course structure, which intersects with the Alabama BON enforcement action ({{HU|HU-085}}) regarding virtual hour limits.

'''Impact.''' Week 3 with no clinical placement means the reporting student is accruing missed clinical hours with no timeline for resolution. The total requirement is 96 hours for the term; with no placement in Weeks 1 through 3, he faces a compressed or impossible catch-up schedule. Dr. Prashad's framing of his accommodation as something requiring connecting with several stakeholders about state requirements suggests a lengthy bureaucratic process rather than timely accommodation. Rachel Powell's inability to approve virtual options, requiring program chair authorization, adds another approval layer that further delays resolution. The escalation to Laban and Thompson, disability services, documents that standard faculty and clinical coordinator channels have been exhausted without resolution.

'''Notes.''' Rachel Powell is confirmed as the reporting student's clinical coordinator, based on Dr. Prashad's question, "Rachel Powell, are you his clinical coordinator?" and the email context. The 27 virtual hours figure from Dr. Prashad is important cross-reference data: if all students in NSG621 already have 27 virtual hours, and Alabama's BON is enforcing limits on virtual hours ({{HU|HU-085}}), this raises a question of whether the virtual hour component of NSG621 has been disclosed to all relevant state boards of nursing. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-121}} (Kennedy transitioning, clinical faculty not assigned), {{HU|HU-123}} (preceptor meeting due without clinical site), {{HU|HU-125}} (accommodation blocked pending Prashad), {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama BON virtual hour enforcement), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis).


=== HU-132: Lead: three online MSN-DE students with parallel clinical-placement problems were split across regions so they could not meet collectively with the Director of Clinical Placement; the situation produced documented student distress, and the reporter referenced advisor disrespect and prior clinical-site harassment; see HU-132a through HU-132d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED (regional fragmentation, student distress); POSSIBLE (advisor misconduct, prior harassment), the latter attributed to the reporter pending verification
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (regional fragmentation; student distress; reported advisor misconduct; referenced prior harassment)
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell DNP RN (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) / Program Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for an email chain dated May 26 to 27, 2026 documenting several concurrent issues, tracked separately as {{HU|HU-132a}} (Dr. Powell declined to include Student A and Student AA in a group meeting because they are not in her region, fragmenting three online students with the same problem into parallel conversations with different administrators), {{HU|HU-132b}} (the reporter documented that affected students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school, establishing mental-health harm), {{HU|HU-132c}} (a reported instance of an advisor being disrespectful to one of the other students by phone), and {{HU|HU-132d}} (a referenced prior-term harassment of the reporter by the Director of Nursing at his clinical hospital). The reporter also stated that students lose points or fail for late work while the university does not reciprocate with timely placement. A meeting with Dr. Powell was scheduled for May 28, 2026. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Student A and Student AA are identified students with parallel clinical-placement issues. The advisor disrespect ({{HU|HU-132c}}) and prior clinical-site harassment ({{HU|HU-132d}}) are the reporter's accounts, documented as POSSIBLE pending verification. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-132}} resolve here. Source Group: Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Rachel Powell / Student A / Student AA, May 26 to 27, 2026 (Re: Meeting). Parts: {{HU|HU-132a}}, {{HU|HU-132b}}, {{HU|HU-132c}}, {{HU|HU-132d}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-109}}, {{HU|HU-121}}, {{HU|HU-125}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}} (Student A placement error), {{HU|HU-134}} (Powell's response).


=== HU-132a: Three online MSN-DE students with parallel clinical-placement problems were split across regions, so they could not meet collectively with the Director of Clinical Placement ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Regional Fragmentation of Online Students
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell DNP RN (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online)
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student attempted to arrange a group meeting with Dr. Rachel Powell to address parallel clinical-placement concerns affecting himself, Student A, and Student AA, all enrolled in the same online MSN-DE program. Dr. Powell declined to include Student A and Student AA, stating they do not reside in a state within the National (Online) region and must meet with their respective directors. The reporting student responded that it makes little sense for online students not to be in the National (Online) region and that the split breaks continuity, forcing three students with the same institutional problem into parallel conversations with different administrators.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Powell, May 27, 2026, 10:04 AM, stated she would meet with the reporting student since he resides in a state within her region, but that neither Student A nor Student AA resides in a state within the National (Online) region, so they must meet with their respective directors. The reporting student's reply, May 27, 2026, 10:10 AM, stated it does not make sense for them not to be in the National (Online) region since they are both online students, and that the split breaks down continuity. Source Group: Email chain, May 26 to 27, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I will meet with you, the reporting student, as you reside in a state within my region. However, neither Student A nor Student AA resides in a state within the National (online) region.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires consistent clinical infrastructure and support for all students in a program regardless of location. HLC Criterion 2.C requires clear, consistent processes for student concerns. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) is also implicated. Fragmenting an online program's students across regions for clinical oversight means the same complaint is processed through multiple parallel channels rather than at the program level. Lead: {{HU|HU-132}}.

'''Impact.''' Student A and Student AA, experiencing the same problems as the reporting student, could not participate in the same conversation with the same administrator, producing several parallel conversations instead of one institutional response to a systemic problem.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-132}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-132b: The reporter documented that the affected students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school as a result of the clinical-placement situation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Documented Student Distress / Mental-Health Harm
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Program Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student documented that the affected students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school as a result of the institutional response to the clinical-placement issues.

'''Evidence.''' Statement by the reporting student, May 27, 2026: the students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school as a result. Source Group: Email chain, May 26 to 27, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>we are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 and the ADA are implicated where students with documented disabilities experience panic attacks as a result of institutional failures in clinical placement and accommodation implementation: the emotional harm compounds the accommodation-compliance concerns already documented in {{HU|HU-125}}. Lead: {{HU|HU-132}}.

'''Impact.''' The documented distress establishes concrete mental-health harm attributable to the cumulative institutional failures across {{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-121}}, {{HU|HU-123}}, {{HU|HU-125}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, and {{HU|HU-129}}, beyond mere administrative inconvenience.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-132}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Documented as the reporter's account of the students' distress.


=== HU-132c: The reporter reported that an advisor was disrespectful to one of the other students by phone on the morning of May 26 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE, attributed to the reporter, pending verification
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Advisor Misconduct (POSSIBLE)
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Leadership / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student reported that an advisor was disrespectful to one of the other students, either Student A or Student AA, on the phone on the morning of May 26. The advisor is unnamed and the specific conduct is not detailed; the item is preserved as the reporter's account pending verification.

'''Evidence.''' Statement by the reporting student, May 26, 2026, 12:39 PM: one of the advisors was disrespectful to her that morning on the phone. Source Group: Email chain, May 26, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>One of the advisors was disrespectful to her this morning on the phone.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing's Student Code of Conduct and professional-conduct expectations for staff apply. The characterization is the reporter's; documented as POSSIBLE pending identification of the advisor and the specific conduct. Lead: {{HU|HU-132}}.

'''Impact.''' If substantiated, disrespectful conduct by an advisor toward a student in distress would compound the documented harm; the item requires verification before any conclusion.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-132}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Allegation by the reporting party; not an adjudicated finding.


=== HU-132d: The reporter referenced a prior-term harassment of him by the Director of Nursing at his clinical hospital ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE, attributed to the reporter, pending verification
|-
! Issue type
| Referenced Prior Clinical-Site Harassment (POSSIBLE)
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordination / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student referenced that in a prior term the Director of Nursing at his clinical hospital was harassing him, framing it to Dr. Powell as something she already knew about, suggesting it was previously reported. The item is preserved as the reporter's account pending verification.

'''Evidence.''' Statement by the reporting student, May 26, 2026, 12:39 PM: as Dr. Powell knows, last term the Director of Nursing at the hospital was harassing him, and this needs to stop. Source Group: Email chain, May 26, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>as you know last term the Director of Nursing at the hospital was harassing me. This needs to stop.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Title IX and the Herzing Annual Security Report harassment prohibitions apply, along with clinical-site conduct expectations. The characterization is the reporter's; documented as POSSIBLE pending verification and identification of the prior report. Lead: {{HU|HU-132}}.

'''Impact.''' If substantiated, prior harassment by a clinical-site supervisor is a serious safety concern bearing on clinical placement decisions.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-132}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Allegation by the reporting party referencing a prior term; not an adjudicated finding.


=== HU-133: Lead: Student A was left in an incorrect clinical rotation group days before her clinical start, with duplicate Clinician Nexus entries, documented priority-placement accommodations violated, and a coordinator removal entry with an inaccurate reason applied to the wrong course; see HU-133a through HU-133d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (incorrect rotation; duplicate records; accommodation violation; erroneous removal entry)
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) / Clinical Coordinator / Starr Williams-Headen (Clinician Nexus)
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for Student A's clinical-rotation assignment problems documented May 25 to 26, 2026, tracked separately as {{HU|HU-133a}} (remained incorrectly assigned to Group K despite a confirmed Group H assignment, uncorrected since May 12, with clinical beginning May 28 and no facility, supervisor, location, or onboarding information), {{HU|HU-133b}} (Clinician Nexus showed three simultaneous NSG 525 entries, including a duplicate Group K with no supervisor, while IT confirmed the fix takes under a minute), {{HU|HU-133c}} (documented medical accommodations for priority clinical placement, structured communication, and advance notice violated by the uncorrected error, tracked under ADA and Disability Accommodations), and {{HU|HU-133d}} (a coordinator, Starr Williams-Headen, entered a removal with the reason that the student no longer needs placement due to a summer schedule change, applied to NSG 223 rather than NSG 525, risking an eliminated rather than corrected placement). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Group H (correct): Professor Joanna Hogan, Monarch Maplewood Care Center, Fridays 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. Group K (incorrect): Vicki K, Mercy Hospital (Allina), Wednesdays 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. The accommodation letter (Allina Health) documents anxiety and mood concerns; the health information is referenced only as relevant to the documented accommodation violations. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-133}} resolve here. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain: Student A, Urgent: Clinical Rotation Assignment Still Incorrect (May 25 to 26, 2026); Clinician Nexus screenshots; medical accommodation letter (Allina Health); provided by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-133a}}, {{HU|HU-133b}}, {{HU|HU-133c}}, {{HU|HU-133d}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-132}} (Student A identified, parallel issues), {{HU|HU-125}} (the reporting student accommodation blocked), {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement), {{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-109}}, {{HU|HU-121}}.


=== HU-133a: Student A remained incorrectly assigned to Group K despite a confirmed Group H assignment, uncorrected since May 12, with her clinical beginning May 28 and no facility, supervisor, location, or onboarding information ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Incorrect Rotation Assignment / Imminent Start Without Details
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' Student A was informed she should be in Group H but remained incorrectly assigned to Group K, uncorrected despite communication since May 12, 2026. Her clinical began May 28, 2026, yet she lacked facility assignment details, site supervisor and contact information, meeting location and time, and onboarding and rotation information.

'''Evidence.''' Student A's email, "Urgent: Clinical Rotation Assignment Still Incorrect," May 25, 2026, 6:21 AM. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Student A email, May 25 to 26, 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that her clinical began on 5/28/26, and despite communicating since 5/12, she had not been added to the correct group rotation, remaining incorrectly in Group K when she should be in Group H; she requested confirmation by May 26 at noon.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires clinical placements be accurately assigned and confirmed before students begin rotations. 34 CFR 668.14 requires accurate clinical-placement records. Lead: {{HU|HU-133}}.

'''Impact.''' Student A began clinical with no confirmed facility, supervisor, location, or onboarding information, and risked presenting at the wrong site or being absent from her correct Group H records.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-133}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-133b: The Clinician Nexus rotation schedule showed three simultaneous NSG 525 entries, including a duplicate Group K with no supervisor, while IT confirmed the correction takes under a minute ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Duplicate Placement Records / Administrative (Not Technical) Barrier
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Starr Williams-Headen (Clinician Nexus)
|}
'''Finding.''' The Clinician Nexus rotation schedule showed three NSG 525 Clinical II entries simultaneously: Group H at Monarch Maplewood (correct), Group K at Mercy Hospital/Allina (incorrect), and a duplicate Group K entry at Mercy/Allina with no supervisor listed. Clinician Nexus IT confirmed that updating the rotation assignment takes under a minute and that coordinators are responsible, establishing the barrier as administrative rather than technical.

'''Evidence.''' Clinician Nexus rotation-schedule screenshot; Student A's email, May 25, 2026, relaying the IT confirmation from a contact named Peter. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Clinician Nexus screenshots; Student A email, May 25, 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that IT confirmed the fix takes under a minute once the coordinator makes the change.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and accurate records) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. The IT confirmation establishes that the barrier is administrative rather than technical. Lead: {{HU|HU-133}}.

'''Impact.''' Duplicate and conflicting records create ambiguity about Student A's actual placement and risk her presenting at the wrong site; a sub-minute fix left undone reflects an administrative failure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-133}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-133d: A coordinator entered a removal with an inaccurate reason applied to the wrong course (NSG 223 rather than NSG 525), risking an eliminated rather than corrected placement ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Erroneous Removal Entry / Inaccurate Reason / Wrong Course
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinician Nexus coordinator) / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Clinician Nexus records show that Starr Williams-Headen proposed and accepted a change removing Student A from the NSG 223 Group K rotation with a note that the student no longer needs placement due to a summer schedule change. This appears erroneous: it was applied to NSG 223 (Clinical I) rather than NSG 525, and the stated reason does not describe Student A's situation, raising the risk that a placement was eliminated without substituting the correct one.

'''Evidence.''' Clinician Nexus notification screenshot documenting the proposed and accepted change. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Clinician Nexus notification screenshot.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>proposed changes from Starr Williams-Headen: Student no longer needs placement due to schedule change for Summer.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (accurate administrative records) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. A removal entered against the wrong course with an inaccurate reason can eliminate a placement record rather than correct it. Lead: {{HU|HU-133}}.

'''Impact.''' The removal with an inaccurate reason may eliminate Student A's clinical record entirely rather than transfer her to Group H, creating a gap in her clinical documentation.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-133}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-134: Lead: Dr. Powell's May 27 response to the HU-132 escalation fragmented accountability across additional leadership layers and put institutional admissions on the record (a 48-business-hour response policy, and that the regional model replaced a prior centralized model); see HU-134a, HU-134b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (accountability fragmentation; institutional admissions)
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell DNP RN (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online)
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for Dr. Rachel Powell's May 27, 2026 response to the reporting student's {{HU|HU-132}} escalation, tracked separately as {{HU|HU-134a}} (Powell stated many placement determinations are outside her direct control and directed higher-level concerns to additional leadership layers, identifying four administrators across two regions and adding escalation steps) and {{HU|HU-134b}} (institutional admissions on the record, including confirmation of a 48-business-hour response policy and that the current regional model replaced a prior centralized model, with Powell disagreeing that the regional model disrupts continuity). The May 28, 2026 meeting was confirmed. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' New clinical-placement leadership identified: Jessica Ferra (Midwest), reporting to Jeff Hill (Regional VP, Midwest); Jolanda Smith (Florida), reporting to LeShawn Roberts (Regional VP, Florida). Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-134}} resolve here. Source Group: Email: Dr. Rachel Powell (rapowell@herzing.edu) to the reporting student, May 27, 2026 (RE: Meeting). Parts: {{HU|HU-134a}}, {{HU|HU-134b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-132}} (regional fragmentation), {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement, prior Powell responses), {{HU|HU-133}} (placement error, accommodation).


=== HU-134a: Powell stated many placement determinations are outside her direct control and directed higher-level concerns to additional leadership layers, fragmenting accountability ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accountability Fragmentation / Additional Escalation Layers
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Jessica Ferra (Midwest) / Jeff Hill (Midwest VP) / Jolanda Smith (Florida) / LeShawn Roberts (Florida VP)
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Powell stated that many placement determinations are outside her direct control and asked that concerns about delays or higher-level placement decisions be directed to the appropriate leadership, identifying four additional administrators across two regions.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Rachel Powell's email to the reporting student, "RE: Meeting," May 27, 2026, asking that concerns about delays or higher-level placement decisions be directed to the appropriate leadership as many determinations are outside her direct control, and identifying the Midwest and Florida directors and their regional vice presidents. Source Group: Dr. Rachel Powell email to the reporting student, May 27, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I would respectfully ask that concerns about delays or higher-level placement decisions be directed to the appropriate leadership overseeing those processes, as many of these determinations are outside my direct control.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) is implicated: clinical placement decisions requiring escalation through multiple institutional layers add structural complexity that delays resolution. Lead: {{HU|HU-134}}. See {{HU|HU-132}}, {{HU|HU-128}}.

'''Impact.''' Students in the Midwest and Florida who cannot resolve issues with their regional directors must escalate to vice presidents, adding steps and delays, while higher-level decisions are deflected elsewhere, fragmenting accountability.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-134}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-134b: Institutional admissions on the record: a 48-business-hour response policy is confirmed, and the current regional model replaced a prior centralized model, while Powell disagrees the regional model disrupts continuity ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Admissions and Position on the Record
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' Powell's response put several institutional facts on the record: that teams have 48 business hours for response, confirming the baseline in Student A's accommodation letter ({{HU|HU-133}}), and that the institution previously adopted a centralized model and replaced it with the current regional model because the regional model was found to better benefit prelicensure students. Powell stated she disagrees that the regional model disrupts continuity.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Rachel Powell's email to the reporting student, May 27, 2026, stating the teams have 48 business hours for response, that the institution previously adopted a centralized model and found the regional model better benefits pre-licensure students, and defending the regional model. Source Group: Dr. Rachel Powell email to the reporting student, May 27, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Our teams do have 48 business hours for response. [And:] we previously adopted a centralized model and have already found that the regional model better benefits our pre-licensure nursing students.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) is implicated. The 48-business-hour confirmation is the institutional baseline against which documented response delays ({{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-121}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}}) can be measured; the admission that the regional model replaced a centralized model confirms the structure was a choice. Lead: {{HU|HU-134}}. See {{HU|HU-133}} (48-hour accommodation request), {{HU|HU-132}} (continuity concern).

'''Impact.''' The 48-business-hour confirmation, set against documented response delays, establishes a gap between stated policy and actual practice; the admission that the structure was a deliberate change documents that it can also be reversed.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-134}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Documented as institutional admissions and position; no separate deficiency is asserted beyond the policy-versus-practice gap noted.


=== HU-136: Student K: Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vascular/General Surgery clinical rotation postponed June 1, 2026 because remaining items necessary for placement approval were not completed before scheduled start; students carrying a previous term incomplete hours affected; cross-regional pattern with National Online placement failures; Kate Powell (South Region Clinical Coordinator) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Rotation Start Date Postponed / Placement Approval Items Incomplete at Start
! Date added
| 2026-06-02
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Kate Powell (Clinical Coordinator, South Region) / South Region Clinical Team / Elizabeth Mazzo
|}
'''Finding.''' On June 1, 2026, Kate Powell, Clinical Coordinator for the South Region, emailed students assigned to the Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vascular/General Surgery clinical rotation to notify them that the rotation would not begin as originally scheduled and that the start date had to be postponed. The stated reason was circumstances outside of the team's control and remaining items necessary for placement approval that had not been completed. The email confirms that the institution had not finalized placement approval requirements before the scheduled start date, mirroring placement readiness failures documented for other students and regions ({{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}}, {{HU|HU-135}}). The email also references students whose rotation includes hours needed to satisfy a previous term's incomplete, confirming that some students carrying incomplete clinical hours from prior terms are affected by this postponement, compounding the delay for students already behind through no fault of their own. The email was sent to multiple students, and this issue is attributed to student Student K among the affected students. The pattern is consistent with systemic clinical placement readiness failures across multiple regions and terms: National Online ({{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}}, {{HU|HU-135}}) and now South Region ({{HU|HU-136}}).

'''Evidence.''' Email from Kate Powell, Clinical Coordinator (South Region), subject associated with Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vasc/Gen Surgery, June 1, 2026, 12:17 PM. Powell wrote that due to circumstances outside of the team's control, the upcoming clinical rotation would not begin as originally scheduled, that the start date would need to be postponed while the team worked through the remaining items necessary for placement approval, and that for students whose rotation includes hours needed to satisfy a previous term's incomplete, the team would plan accordingly to ensure all required hours are properly accounted for and completed. Powell directed recipients to contact the South Region Clinical Team or Clinical Coordinator, Kate Powell. Recipients included Kate Powell, Elizabeth Mazzo, and at least one additional student (attributed: Student K). Student: Student K. Source Group: Email, Kate Powell (Clinical Coordinator, South Region) to students re Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vasc/Gen Surgery clinical rotation, June 1, 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>due to circumstances outside of our team's control, your upcoming clinical rotation will not begin as originally scheduled. At this time, the start date will need to be postponed while we work through the remaining items necessary for placement approval. [And:] For students whose rotation includes hours needed to satisfy a previous term's incomplete, please be assured that we will plan accordingly to ensure all required hours are properly accounted for and completed.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be secured and approved before students are scheduled to begin. A rotation that cannot begin because remaining items necessary for placement approval are incomplete documents that the institution did not finalize placement readiness before the start date. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires that institutions coordinate clinical placement logistics so students can fulfill required hours on the published schedule. The reference to students carrying a previous term's incomplete hours indicates the postponement affects students already behind, increasing the risk they cannot complete required hours within program timelines. The phrase circumstances outside of the team's control echoes language used by the National Online clinical placement team ({{HU|HU-128}}: at the mercy of the clinical site; {{HU|HU-134}}: many of these determinations are outside my direct control), establishing a cross-regional pattern of attributing placement failures to external factors.

'''Impact.''' Students assigned to the Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vascular/General Surgery rotation, including Student K, cannot begin clinical on the originally scheduled date. Students carrying incomplete hours from a previous term face compounded delay. The postponement with no confirmed new start date creates uncertainty regarding when students can begin accruing required clinical hours. This South Region postponement, occurring contemporaneously with National Online placement issues ({{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}}, {{HU|HU-135}}), demonstrates that clinical placement readiness failures are not isolated to one region or coordinator but appear across multiple regions in the same enrollment period.

'''Notes.''' New personnel identified: Kate Powell, Clinical Coordinator, South Region, distinct from Dr. Rachel Powell, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online. These are two different people sharing a surname. Elizabeth Mazzo is identified as a co-recipient. Clinical site: Ascension Saint Thomas West, 5D Vascular/General Surgery unit. Attributed to student Student K. The cross-regional pattern is significant: the same enrollment period shows placement readiness failures in both the National Online region (the reporting student, Student A) and the South Region (Student K), suggesting a systemic rather than regional problem. Corroborating data point, from a different, unnamed student: a separate cohort member, identified in the Nursing 2027 GroupMe only by [phone redacted], reported receiving the same type of not-cleared-to-start email for the Clarksville-Vanderbilt clinical location, stating it was supposed to start on the 6th. This is a distinct student from Student K at a different site, Clarksville-Vanderbilt, Tennessee, versus Ascension Saint Thomas West, included here to document that the placement-readiness failure pattern extended to multiple sites in the same period. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement), {{HU|HU-133}} (Student A placement error), {{HU|HU-134}} (Powell organizational structure), {{HU|HU-135}} (8-hour accommodation), {{HU|HU-137}} (Student R, Palmetto General), {{HU|HU-138}} (Janel Rizo not-cleared email), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis), {{HU|HU-109}} (affiliation agreements).


=== HU-137: Student R: clinical scheduled at Palmetto General Hospital (Hialeah, FL) with no approval confirmation; last email said not yet approved but would update asap, no follow-up came; I'm so lost, I'm worried; part of multi-site cohort pattern across Florida and Tennessee; Ann Zientara identified as Florida coordinator ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Placement Not Approved / No Follow-Up Communication / Multi-Site Cohort Pattern
! Date added
| 2026-06-02
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Ann Zientara (Florida Clinical Coordinator) / Florida Clinical Placement Team / South Region Clinical Team
|}
'''Finding.''' Student R, a student in the Nursing 2027 cohort, reported in the GroupMe that she had clinical scheduled at Palmetto General Hospital in Hialeah, Florida, but had not received confirmation the site was approved to begin. She wrote asking whether anyone else was set to do clinical tomorrow at Palmetto General, noting that the last email she had received the prior week stated they weren't yet approved to begin but would be updated asap, and that she still haven't heard back, adding that she felt so lost, and separately that she was worried. The last communication she received stated the site was not yet approved but that an update would come soon; no update followed. The GroupMe thread documents that this was not an isolated incident but part of a multi-site pattern across Florida and Tennessee: Student R at Palmetto General; a student, Student BE, whose clinical was in Stuart, Florida, who did not go, emailed, and was then started the following week; an unnamed student who received a not-cleared email for the Clarksville-Vanderbilt location, supposed to start on the 6th; and a student with clinical scheduled in Tennessee who had not received any email and had been emailing for weeks about not having enough information to know where to go. Peers advised each other to email the Florida clinical placement contact, identified as Ann Zientara, and, in some cases, to simply not go and email stating they had received no update. The pattern documents that students across multiple Florida and Tennessee clinical sites were left without confirmed placement approval immediately before scheduled start dates.

'''Evidence.''' Nursing 2027 GroupMe, June 2026. Student R asked whether anyone else was set to do clinical tomorrow at Palmetto General Hospital in Hialeah, Florida, stating that the last email received the prior week said the site weren't yet approved but would be updated asap, and that she still haven't heard back, adding that she felt so lost. Student R separately said she was worried. A cohort member identified as Student BE told her to just dont go and send an email saying she didnt get an update, reasoning that if no update was received she wouldnt know, and said she think Student R would be fine, since that approach worked for Student BE the prior week when Student BE was fine and was started that week; Student BE also advised emailing the Florida clinical placement email, adding that Student BE's own clinical was in Stuart that week. Student R asked whether the coordinator was Ann Zientara, saying she's the one who has been coordinating. An unidentified student, shown only by [phone redacted], stated they received the exact same email for the Clarksville-Vanderbilt location, which was supposed to start on the 6th. Another unidentified student, in Tennessee, stated they had clinical scheduled for tomorrow in Tennessee and hadn't got an email at all, and that today the email finally arrived after weeks of emailing about not having enough information to know where to go. Student: Student R. Source Group: Nursing 2027 GroupMe, Student R and cohort members re Palmetto General Hospital (Hialeah, FL) and multiple Florida/Tennessee clinical sites, June 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' Student R, a student pseudonym, paraphrased asking whether anyone else had clinical the next day at Palmetto General, noting the last email said she was not yet approved but would be updated soon and that no update had come, and expressing that she felt lost and, separately, that she was worried. Other students, including Student BE and unnamed cohort members, described similar not-cleared or no-information situations at Stuart, Florida; the Clarksville-Vanderbilt location in Tennessee; and other Tennessee sites, and advised each other to email the Florida placement coordinator, identified as Ann Zientara, or simply not attend and email that no update had been received.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be approved and confirmed before students are scheduled to begin. A student scheduled for clinical the next day at Palmetto General Hospital who has received no approval confirmation, after being told an update would come as soon as possible, documents that the institution did not finalize placement approval before the scheduled start. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical placement logistics and communicate approval status to students in time for them to plan. The multi-site nature of the failure, Palmetto General, Stuart, Clarksville-Vanderbilt, and other Tennessee sites, indicates a systemic coordination breakdown rather than an isolated site issue. The fact that students resorted to advising each other to simply not go reflects a breakdown in authoritative institutional guidance.

'''Impact.''' Student R and other cohort members could not determine whether to report to clinical, having received no confirmation that their sites were approved. Students faced the choice of either traveling to a site that might not be ready or not attending and risking attendance consequences. The lack of follow-up after being promised an update as soon as possible left students, in Student R's words, so lost and worried. The cohort-wide, multi-site nature of the failure, Florida and Tennessee sites simultaneously, demonstrates that the placement readiness problem documented for individual students ({{HU|HU-136}} Student K, {{HU|HU-133}} Student A) is a broad systemic failure affecting many students across the program in the same enrollment period.

'''Notes.''' Attributed to student Student R (Palmetto General Hospital, Hialeah, FL). Ann Zientara is identified as the Florida clinical placement coordinator, per Student R's statement that she has been coordinating. Other cohort members referenced: Student BE (Stuart, FL); an unnamed student at [phone redacted] (Clarksville-Vanderbilt, also referenced in the {{HU|HU-136}} notes); and an unnamed student with a Tennessee clinical. This issue documents the cohort-wide pattern; the Janel Rizo not-cleared email is documented separately as {{HU|HU-138}}. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-136}} (Student K, Ascension Saint Thomas West), {{HU|HU-138}} (Janel Rizo not-cleared email), {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement, National Online), {{HU|HU-133}} (Student A), {{HU|HU-134}} (Powell organizational structure), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis), {{HU|HU-109}} (affiliation agreements).


=== HU-138: Janel Rizo BSN RN (Adjunct Clinical Faculty) emailed students at 10:33 PM stating "Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start" with casual sign-off "Hope to see you all next week"; faculty uncertainty and late-night casual tone for a significant placement failure; recipients included Doreen Palmer and Ann Zientara ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Late-Night Clinical Faculty Notification of Placement Not Cleared / Casual Tone for Significant Failure
! Date added
| 2026-06-02
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Janel Rizo BSN RN (Adjunct Clinical Faculty) / Ann Zientara (Florida Clinical Coordinator) / Doreen Palmer
|}
'''Finding.''' Adjunct Clinical Faculty member Janel Rizo BSN RN (jrizo@herzing.edu) emailed students at 10:33 PM to notify them that their clinical rotation was not cleared to start. The full message read: Hi students, Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start. Hope to see you all next week! The email was sent to multiple recipients including Doreen Palmer and Ann Zientara plus four additional recipients. Two concerns are documented. First, timing and tone: a notification that a clinical rotation is not cleared to start was sent at 10:33 PM with a casual sign-off, "Hope to see you all next week!", and qualified, secondhand language, "Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start," which does not convey the certainty or seriousness students need to plan around a placement that is not proceeding. Second, faculty uncertainty: the phrase "Last I heard it seems" indicates the clinical faculty member herself did not have definitive information about whether the placement was cleared, reflecting the same information breakdown documented elsewhere in the clinical placement process. This email corroborates the multi-site placement readiness failures documented in {{HU|HU-136}} (Student K, Ascension Saint Thomas West) and {{HU|HU-137}} (Student R, Palmetto General).

'''Evidence.''' Email from Janel Rizo BSN RN, Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online (jrizo@herzing.edu, www.herzing.edu), sent 10:33 PM to Palmer, Doreen; Zientara, Ann; plus four recipients. Full text: Hi students, Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start. Hope to see you all next week! Janel Rizo, BSN, RN, Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online. Shared via the Nursing 2027 GroupMe by a student, Student R, who remarked, "Look what I just got at this hour."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Hi students, Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start. Hope to see you all next week! Janel Rizo, BSN, RN, Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be confirmed and communicated to students through reliable, authoritative channels. A clinical faculty member communicating that a placement is not cleared to start using qualified secondhand language, "Last I heard it seems," indicates the faculty member lacks definitive placement information, which is itself a communication and coordination failure. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to maintain functional administrative processes for clinical placement confirmation and student notification. A 10:33 PM notification with a casual tone for a significant placement failure does not meet the standard of clear, timely, professional communication students need to manage their academic obligations. The student receiving the email noted the late hour, remarking, "Look what I just got at this hour."

'''Impact.''' Students who received this 10:33 PM email learned only the night before, or shortly before, their scheduled clinical that the placement was not cleared, and even then through uncertain language, "Last I heard it seems." Students could not reliably plan whether to report to clinical, arrange travel, or coordinate work and family obligations. The casual "Hope to see you all next week!" provided no confirmed alternative start date. The faculty member's own uncertainty signals that the information breakdown extends to the clinical instructors responsible for supervising students, not just the placement coordinators.

'''Notes.''' New personnel identified: Janel Rizo BSN RN (jrizo@herzing.edu), Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online. Ann Zientara is identified as a recipient and, per the Nursing 2027 GroupMe, the coordinator who has been coordinating Florida clinical placements, based on a student's statement that she is the one who has been coordinating. Doreen Palmer is identified as a recipient, likely a student or co-faculty member. This email was shared in the Nursing 2027 GroupMe by Student R (see {{HU|HU-137}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-136}} (Student K, Ascension Saint Thomas West postponed), {{HU|HU-137}} (Student R, Palmetto General not approved), {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis).


=== HU-141: Lead: Student A's prolonged clinical-placement struggle (May 5 to 22, 2026), including an 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout, a credential-type hours mismatch, 9-hour shifts and carryover-hours confusion, an onboarding squeeze with childcare and work disruption, and a placement target that changed mid-correspondence; see HU-141a through HU-141f ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (lockout; hours mismatch; scheduling; onboarding squeeze; moving target)
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator, Online Pre-Licensure) / Kate Powell (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, South Region) / Dr. Prashad / Dr. Black / Jessica Ferra
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for the prolonged correspondence (May 5 to 22, 2026) underlying the {{HU|HU-133}} snapshot, tracked separately as {{HU|HU-141a}} (an 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout despite being told she was added, with Nexus support confirming she was never actually added to the Group H rotation), {{HU|HU-141b}} (repeated failed fix attempts and a records-integrity failure, with the coordinator stating records showed she was added by two people while she remained locked out), {{HU|HU-141c}} (a credential-type hours mismatch, 90 Med-Surg hours scheduled when NSG 525 requires 60 Med-Surg and 48 mental health hours, combining pending program-chair approval), {{HU|HU-141d}} (9-hour shifts and an hours shortfall, plus 24 carryover incomplete hours from Clinical 1 with an August 26 deadline), {{HU|HU-141e}} (a Memorial Day onboarding squeeze with childcare and work disruption and a raised prospect of being penalized through no fault of her own), and {{HU|HU-141f}} (a placement target that changed mid-correspondence and a regional-overlap inconsistency). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' New personnel: Kate Powell (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, South Region) and Starr Williams-Headen BSHM MHRM (Clinical Coordinator, Online Pre-Licensure, cwilliamsheaden@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]). The correct Group H rotation in this chain: RN 261402, MCY 4W Neuro Med/Surg, Thursdays 6 a.m. to 3 p.m., May 28 to August 20 (skip July 2), twelve 9-hour shifts totaling 108 hours. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-141}} resolve here. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain (15 pages): Student A with Kate Powell, Starr Williams-Headen, Dr. Prashad, Dr. Gombar, Jessica Ferra, Rachel Powell, Susan Schlueter, May 5 to 22, 2026; provided by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-141a}}, {{HU|HU-141b}}, {{HU|HU-141c}}, {{HU|HU-141d}}, {{HU|HU-141e}}, {{HU|HU-141f}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-133}} (Student A rotation error snapshot), {{HU|HU-132}} (regional fragmentation), {{HU|HU-134}} (organizational structure), {{HU|HU-135}} (8-hour and 9-hour scheduling), {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement), {{HU|HU-071}}.


=== HU-141a: An 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout, despite being told she was added, with Nexus support confirming she was never actually added to the Group H rotation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Prolonged Clinical-System Permission Lockout
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Clinician Nexus
|}
'''Finding.''' From May 14 through May 22, 2026, Student A repeatedly received permission-denied errors at Clinician Nexus, even after being told she had been added to the Group H rotation. Clinician Nexus support told her that Starr Williams-Headen had not actually added her to the Group H rotation, which is why she received the error.

'''Evidence.''' Student A, May 14, 2026: she saw she was added to the Neuro Med Surg rotation in Nexus, but it showed permission denied and was not reflecting in Core ELMs. Student A, May 21, 2026, on her third attempt: each time she accessed it, it said permission denied, with only one week left to do all of her onboarding. Student A, May 22, 2026: Nexus said Starr had not added her to the Group H rotation, which is why she got the error. A Clinician Nexus error screen was also provided. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 14 to 22, 2026; Clinician Nexus error screen.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that each time she accessed the system it showed permission denied, that she had only one week left to do all of her onboarding, and that Nexus support said the issue was that she had never actually been added to the Group H rotation, "you do not have permission to perform this action, please contact an administrator."

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (functional clinical-placement systems and accurate records) and ACEN Standard 5 (placements must be functional before students begin) are implicated. An 8-plus-day lockout after the student was told she was added documents a placement-configuration failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}.

'''Impact.''' Locked out for over a week, Student A could not complete onboarding or confirm her placement as her clinical start approached.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-141b: Repeated failed fix attempts and a records-integrity failure: the coordinator stated records showed she was added by two people while she remained locked out, and a sub-minute fix was left undone ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Records-Integrity Failure / Repeated Failed Fixes
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator)
|}
'''Finding.''' On May 22, Starr Williams-Headen stated that records showed Student A had been added by both herself and the site coordinator, yet acknowledged it did not seem to have gone through and requested it be done again. The add was attempted on May 12 and again on May 22, while the Nexus IT contact, Peter, said the change takes only a few minutes once the student is added to the rotation and schedule, documenting that the institution could not reliably execute a quick change and that its records did not match reality.

'''Evidence.''' Starr Williams-Headen's statement, May 22, 2026; Student A's email relaying the Nexus IT contact's confirmation. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 12 to 22, 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that IT confirmed the fix only takes a few minutes once she is properly added to the rotation and schedule, and that the underlying issue was she had never actually been added to the Group H rotation.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and records integrity) is implicated: records showing the student was added while she remained locked out reflect a records-integrity failure, and repeated failed attempts at a sub-minute change reflect an administrative-execution failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}.

'''Impact.''' The institution's records did not reflect the student's actual access, so even internal verification could not be relied upon, prolonging the lockout.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-141c: A credential-type hours mismatch: 90 Med-Surg hours scheduled when NSG 525 requires 60 Med-Surg and 48 mental health hours, with combining pending program-chair approval ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Hours Allocation / Credential-Type Mismatch
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Kate Powell (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, South Region) / Dr. Prashad / Dr. Black
|}
'''Finding.''' Kate Powell scheduled Student A for a Group K rotation of 90 hours on a Med-Surg unit, but NSG 525 (Clinical 2) requires 60 Med-Surg hours and 48 mental health hours, which cannot be satisfied entirely on a Med-Surg unit. Kate Powell stated the hours could be combined under Minnesota Board of Nursing guidelines if Dr. Prashad and Dr. Black approved, an approval that was still pending.

'''Evidence.''' Kate Powell's email, May 6, 2026: NSG 525 requires 60 Med-Surg hours and 48 mental health hours, but under MN BON guidelines they can be combined if Dr. Prashad and Dr. Black approve. Student A repeatedly asked how 90 Med-Surg hours would satisfy a requirement that includes 48 mental health hours. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 5 to 6, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>NSG 525 requires 60 MedSurg hours and 48 mental health hours but due to the MN BON guidelines we can combine them if Dr. Prashad and Dr. Black approve.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires placements include the correct required clinical-experience types. Minnesota Board of Nursing clinical-hour requirements govern the 60 Med-Surg and 48 mental health split, and any combining must comply with MN BON rules and be properly approved. Scheduling 90 Med-Surg hours against a 60 Med-Surg plus 48 mental health requirement, with approval pending, is a credential-type allocation error. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}.

'''Impact.''' Even if Student A completed the Med-Surg rotation, she risked not satisfying the mental health hour requirement for NSG 525 unless the combining was properly approved.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-141d: 9-hour shifts and an hours shortfall, plus 24 carryover incomplete hours from Clinical 1 with an August 26 deadline ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Shift Length / Hours Shortfall / Carryover-Hours Tracking
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Kate Powell / Starr Williams-Headen / Dr. Prashad
|}
'''Finding.''' The Group K schedule used 9-hour shifts (2 p.m. to 11 p.m.), and Student A calculated that this did not give her the 108 hours needed for Clinical 2. Separately, she was told 24 incomplete hours from Clinical 1 (NSG 522) would be added onto her Clinical 2 schedule with an August 26, 2026 deadline, with ongoing confusion about where those hours would be completed.

'''Evidence.''' Student A's emails, May 5 to 12, 2026: the Wednesday 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. 9-hour shifts do not give her enough hours (108 needed for Clinical 2), and she was told the 24 incomplete Clinical 1 hours would be added onto Clinical 2; the corrected Group H rotation was described as twelve 9-hour shifts totaling 108 hours. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 5 to 12, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Doing the math that does not give me enough hours (108 that I need for Clinical 2).</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires accurate hours configuration; the carryover of 24 incomplete Clinical 1 hours must be tracked against the August 26, 2026 deadline. The 9-hour shift scheduling and resulting hours math mirror concerns in {{HU|HU-135}}. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}.

'''Impact.''' Miscalculated shift hours and untracked carryover hours create a risk that Student A does not complete required hours on schedule or is confused about where to complete them.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-141e: A Memorial Day onboarding squeeze with childcare and work disruption, and a raised prospect of being penalized for not attending through no fault of her own ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Onboarding Squeeze / Childcare and Work Disruption / Penalty Risk
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen / Clinical Coordinator / Dr. Prashad
|}
'''Finding.''' Locked out until the last minute, Student A noted that with the Memorial Day long weekend she would have only two business days to complete onboarding if accepted by May 28 at 8 AM, and could not arrange childcare or time off work without locked clinical dates. She asked whether she would be penalized for not showing up through no fault of her own.

'''Evidence.''' Student A, May 22, 2026: with the Memorial Day long weekend she would have two business days to onboard if accepted by May 28 at 8 AM, and asked whether she would be penalized for not showing up Thursday because she had no proper communication about her clinical site; Student A repeatedly emphasized she needed locked clinical dates to arrange childcare and time off work. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 21 to 22, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>If I don't show up on Thursday because I haven't had any proper communication about my clinical site, will I be penalized for this?</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 and 34 CFR 668.14 require functional, timely placement so students can prepare. Penalizing a student for nonattendance caused by the institution's own placement and communication failures would be an unfair-grading concern, paralleling the accountability asymmetry documented in {{HU|HU-132}}. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}.

'''Impact.''' Student A faced a real risk of missing her clinical start, and of an academic penalty, because of institutional delays she did not cause, and could not plan childcare or work around unlocked dates.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-141f: The placement target changed mid-correspondence, and a South Region coordinator handled a National Online student, a regional-overlap inconsistency ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Shifting Placement Target / Regional-Overlap Inconsistency
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Kate Powell (South Region) / Starr Williams-Headen / Clinical Coordination
|}
'''Finding.''' The correct Group H placement itself changed over the correspondence: the {{HU|HU-133}} snapshot referenced NSG 525 Group H with Professor Joanna Hogan at Monarch Maplewood, while this chain shows a different correct placement, Group H at MCY 4W Neuro Med/Surg with RN 261402. In addition, Kate Powell, the Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator for the South Region, handled Student A's placement even though Student A is in the National Online region, a regional-overlap inconsistency relevant to the regional-fragmentation concerns in {{HU|HU-132}} and {{HU|HU-134}}.

'''Evidence.''' Comparison of {{HU|HU-133}} evidence with the May 5 to 22 email chain: {{HU|HU-133}} referenced Group H at Monarch Maplewood (Joanna Hogan); this May 5 to 22 chain shows the correct Group H as MCY 4W Neuro Med/Surg (RN 261402, Thursdays 6a to 3p); Kate Powell (South Region) corresponded on the placement for a National Online student. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 5 to 22, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Starr, you can move her to Regions with Professor Tesfay with the NSG 123 Group E or Group G with Professor Beh-Grear.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and consistency) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. A correct-placement target that shifts mid-correspondence, and cross-region handling of an online student, compound the confusion and connect to the regional-fragmentation concerns. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}. See {{HU|HU-132}}, {{HU|HU-134}}.

'''Impact.''' A moving placement target makes it harder for the student and the institution to confirm the correct rotation, and cross-region handling adds ambiguity about who owns the placement.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-144: Student A and Student Q: Group K clinical rotation (Vicki K, MCY 5E) cut from 10 days/90 hours to 6 days/54 hours after instructor canceled four clinical days mid-rotation; 36-hour shortfall and compliance risk; instructor directed students to escalate to Starr and Dr. Prashad for a make-up plan; compounds Student A hours problems in HU-141 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Hours Reduced 40 Percent by Instructor Mid-Rotation (90 to 54 Hours) / Compliance Risk
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Vicki K (Clinical Instructor, Group K)
|}
'''Finding.''' Student A and Student Q, both in the Group K clinical rotation (Vicki K, MCY 5E Ortho/Spine/Med-Surg), reported to Starr Williams-Headen and Dr. Prashad that their clinical hours have been reduced by 40 percent due to clinical days being canceled by the instructor mid-rotation. The rotation was originally scheduled for ten clinical days from June 3 through August 5, meeting Wednesdays 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM at 9 hours per day, totaling 90 clinical hours. The clinical instructor, Vicki K, informed the group that they would not meet during the weeks of July 1 or July 8 and that the final clinical day would be July 22, which also eliminates the previously scheduled July 29 and August 5 dates. This removes four scheduled clinical days, reducing the rotation from 10 days (90 hours) to 6 days (54 hours), a loss of 36 clinical hours. Student Q independently identified the same concern. The clinical instructor herself, Vicki K, recommended that the students contact Starr and Dr. Prashad for clarification on how the lost hours would be addressed. The students asked four specific questions: how the missing hours will be made up; whether additional clinical dates are being scheduled; how the program will ensure Group K meets required clinical hour requirements; and whether students need to take any action to remain in compliance. This compounds the clinical hours problems already documented for Student A in {{HU|HU-141}}, where the Group K 90-hour Med-Surg schedule was already in tension with the NSG 525 requirement of 60 Med-Surg plus 48 mental health hours.

'''Evidence.''' Email: Student A and Student Q to Starr Williams-Headen and Dr. Prashad, June 2026, stating that they were reaching out regarding a significant concern about their current Group K clinical rotation with Vicki K on MCY 5E Ortho/Spine/Med-Surg. According to the schedule provided, the rotation was originally scheduled for ten clinical days from June 3 through August 5, meeting Wednesdays from 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM; at 9 hours per clinical day, this would have provided a total of 90 clinical hours. However, yesterday evening, the clinical instructor, Vicki K, informed them the group would not be meeting during the weeks of July 1 or July 8 and that the final clinical day would be July 22, also eliminating the previously scheduled July 29 and August 5 dates. As a result, four scheduled clinical days were removed from the rotation (10 days times 9 hours equals 90; 6 days times 9 hours equals 54). Another student in the same rotation, Student Q, independently identified the same concern. After discussing the issue with them, Vicki recommended they contact Starr and Dr. Prashad as soon as possible for clarification regarding how the lost clinical hours would be addressed. Student: Student A ([email redacted]) and Student Q. Source Group: Email, Student A and Student Q to Starr Williams-Headen and Dr. Prashad re Group K clinical rotation hours reduction, June 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A and Student Q, student pseudonyms, jointly described the schedule reduction, noting the rotation originally provided 90 clinical hours over ten Wednesday shifts at 9 hours per day, and that four canceled days left the group with only 54 clinical hours instead of the 90 originally scheduled. They asked how the missing hours would be made up, whether additional clinical dates were being scheduled, how the program would ensure the group met required clinical hour requirements, and whether they needed to take any action to remain in compliance.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical experiences provide sufficient hours and learning opportunities to meet course and program outcomes; a 40 percent reduction in scheduled clinical hours, from 90 to 54, mid-rotation jeopardizes the program's ability to deliver required clinical experience. State Board of Nursing clinical hour requirements require nursing programs to ensure students complete the minimum clinical hours required for licensure eligibility; a unilateral reduction of 36 hours by a clinical instructor, without a documented make-up plan, places students at risk of not meeting those requirements. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical scheduling so that students can complete required hours; the fact that the clinical instructor canceled four days and directed students to contact the program for a solution indicates the reduction was not planned or coordinated with the program. The students appropriately requested written clarification on the make-up plan and their compliance obligations, and the institution's response and any make-up scheduling should be tracked.

'''Impact.''' Student A and Student Q face a 36-hour shortfall in clinical hours for the Group K rotation, which could prevent them from meeting course and licensure clinical hour requirements if not remedied. Without a documented make-up plan, the students cannot plan their schedules, including work and childcare, or confirm they remain on track. For Student A, this stacks on top of the hours-allocation and credential-type problems already documented in {{HU|HU-141}} (90 Med-Surg hours versus a 60 Med-Surg plus 48 mental health requirement, plus 24 carryover hours from Clinical 1); the further loss of 36 hours deepens an already precarious hours situation. That two students independently identified the same problem, and that the clinical instructor herself directed them to escalate, indicates this is a real scheduling and hours deficiency rather than a misunderstanding. If Group K students do not receive make-up hours, they risk course failure or delayed progression through no fault of their own.

'''Notes.''' New personnel identified: Student Q (student in Group K clinical rotation). Clinical instructor Vicki K (Group K, MCY 5E Ortho/Spine/Med-Surg, Wednesdays 2 p.m. to 11 p.m.) confirmed the cancellations and directed students to the program. Canceled dates: weeks of July 1 and July 8, with the rotation ending July 22, eliminating July 29 and August 5, four clinical days, 36 hours. This issue connects directly to {{HU|HU-141}} (Student A Group K hours allocation and credential-type mismatch) and the broader clinical placement failures. Note the recurring theme of the 9-hour clinical day in Group K (2 p.m. to 11 p.m.), which also bears on the 8-hour accommodation concerns documented for the reporting student in {{HU|HU-135}}. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-141}} (Student A clinical placement, Group K hours), {{HU|HU-133}} (Student A rotation error), {{HU|HU-128}} (no placement), {{HU|HU-071}} (placement crisis pattern), {{HU|HU-135}} (9-hour shift, accommodation). Possible follow-up: the program's response on make-up hours and whether Group K students are brought back to the required hour total.


=== HU-148: Clinical schedule changed four times in one week before clinicals even began (June 4, 2026 meeting account; expands HU-135) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Schedule Instability / Repeated Last-Minute Changes Before Clinical Start
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Dr. Rachel Powell / Clinical Placement
|}
'''Finding.''' In the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student described that his clinical schedule changed four times in a single week before clinicals had even started. He recounted the times shifting from 7:30 to 6:00 (about ten and a half hours), to 7:30 with a potential debrief afterward, to 6:45 to 2:30, all within one week, and stated that his schedule had changed four times that week alone and he had not even started clinicals yet. He attributed the instability primarily to the professor, Troy Frazier, a new faculty member, rather than to the clinical site, noting the site had indicated there was flexibility. This expands the schedule-instability and over-eight-hours concerns already documented in {{HU|HU-135}} with the specific account of four changes in one week and the new proposed time blocks.

'''Evidence.''' Recorded meeting (audio and transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student stated that his schedule had changed four times that week alone and he had not even started clinicals yet; that at one point it was 7:30 to 6, which is way over the eight hours; then 7:30, but potentially after for debrief; and that it had changed again to 6:45 to 2:30, all within the span of a week; that the clinical site had said there is flexibility; and that what he needs is consistency and effective communication. He added that Frazier first had him on a 10-hour schedule, and he pushed back. Student: The reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>my schedule has changed four times this week alone, and I have not even started clinicals yet. At one point it was 7:30 to 6, which is way over the eight hours. Then 7:30, but potentially after for debrief. Now he has changed it again to 6:45 to 2:30, and this has all happened in the span of a week. The clinical site has said there is flexibility... what I need is consistency and communication that is effective. First, he had me on a 10-hour schedule, then I pushed back.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical scheduling be communicated clearly and consistently to students. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical logistics so students can plan. The repeated last-minute changes, combined with an initial schedule exceeding the approved eight-hour accommodation, reflect a coordination and communication failure. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-135}} (same clinical, same accommodation), {{HU|HU-149}} (no meeting point), {{HU|HU-150}} (insufficient notice).

'''Impact.''' The repeated schedule changes prevented the reporting student from arranging a dog sitter, coordinating his sleep schedule (relevant to narcolepsy), and planning medication and meals (relevant to diabetes and the GI medication). The instability compounded the difficulty of starting clinicals with adequate planning.

'''Notes.''' Expands {{HU|HU-135}} with the specific four-changes-in-one-week account. Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC (trofrazier@herzing.edu) is identified in {{HU|HU-135}}. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-149}}, {{HU|HU-150}}. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).


=== HU-149: No clinical location or meeting point provided less than 24 hours before the clinical start (June 4, 2026 meeting) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| No Meeting Point / Reporting Location Confirmed Less Than 24 Hours Before Start
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Clinical Placement
|}
'''Finding.''' During the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student stated that, with clinicals starting the next day, less than 24 hours away, he still did not know where to report. Dr. Danielle Laban messaged Dr. Rachel Powell during the meeting and relayed that the reporting student had the location but not the meeting point, and that Powell would direct the faculty member, Troy, to message the reporting student the meeting point that day. The reporting student had emailed Dr. Rachel Powell the night before asking for the location and confirmation of times and had not received it. This documents that the specific reporting location and meeting point were not confirmed to the student until the institution scrambled to provide it during a meeting held the day before the clinical start.

'''Evidence.''' Recorded meeting (audio and transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student stated he still did not have a location, did not even know where he was going the next day, and that was less than 24 hours away; he stated he had emailed Rachel Powell asking her to please get back to him with the location and confirm the times. Dr. Danielle Laban stated she was messaging Rachel on the side, that Rachel said the reporting student has the location, just not the meeting point, and that she was going to ask Troy, the faculty member, to message him about that, since the meeting point is the piece that needs to be communicated, and she was directing Troy to make sure he sends that today. Student: The reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I still do not have a location. I do not even know where I am going tomorrow at this point, and that is less than 24 hours away. I emailed Rachel Powell and said, can you please get back to me with the location and confirm these times.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that students be informed of clinical placement details, including reporting location, in advance of the start. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate placements so students have the information they need to attend. Not providing a confirmed meeting point until the day before the clinical start reflects a placement-readiness and communication failure consistent with the broader pattern ({{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-136}}, {{HU|HU-137}}). Cross-reference {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-148}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student could not plan travel or confirm logistics for a clinical starting in under 24 hours because he did not have a confirmed meeting point. This is the same placement-readiness failure documented for other students and adds to the stress and uncertainty around his clinical start.

'''Notes.''' Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-148}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-136}}, {{HU|HU-137}}, {{HU|HU-141}} (placement-readiness pattern). Dr. Rachel Powell (rapowell@herzing.edu); Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).


=== HU-150: Less than one week notice to begin clinicals (June 4, 2026 meeting account) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Insufficient Advance Notice of Clinical Start
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' In the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student stated that he was given less than a week to plan for his clinical start. He found out the prior Thursday that he would begin clinicals that week, and contrasted this with his experience at a prior nursing school where students were typically told three to four weeks in advance and had time to plan. He noted that the short notice, combined with the repeated schedule changes ({{HU|HU-148}}), made it very difficult to arrange the logistics tied to his accommodations (dog sitter, sleep schedule, medication, meals).

'''Evidence.''' Recorded meeting (audio and transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student stated he was given less than a week's notice to plan all of this out; that he found out on Thursday that he was going to start clinicals that week; that he attended a nursing school prior to coming to Herzing, and students there are usually told three to four weeks in advance and have time to plan; and that he was told less than a week. Student: The reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I was given less than a week's notice to plan all of this out. I found out on Thursday that I was going to start clinicals this week. I was at a nursing school prior to coming to Herzing, and students are usually told three, four weeks in advance and have time to plan. I was told less than a week.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical assignments be communicated with adequate lead time for students to prepare. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate placements so students can plan. Less than a week's notice for a clinical start is inconsistent with reasonable advance-notice practice and compounds the accommodation-related planning burden. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-148}} (schedule instability), {{HU|HU-149}} (no meeting point), {{HU|HU-135}}.

'''Impact.''' The short notice gave the reporting student minimal time to arrange care for his service dog, adjust his sleep schedule (narcolepsy), and plan medication and meals (diabetes, GI medication), increasing the burden of an already difficult clinical start and contributing to the overall sense of being overwhelmed he described.

'''Notes.''' Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-148}} (schedule instability), {{HU|HU-149}} (no meeting point), {{HU|HU-135}}. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).


=== HU-154: Lead: the evening before clinical, two officials gave conflicting start times four minutes apart, and the correction was not sent reply-all, leaving team records unreconciled; see HU-154a, HU-154b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (conflicting start times; non-reply-all correction)
! Date added
| 2026-06-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC (Adjunct Clinical Instructor)
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for a clinical-scheduling communication failure on June 4, 2026, hours after the meeting held to align everyone on the reporting student's schedule ({{HU|HU-153}}), tracked separately as {{HU|HU-154a}} (two officials gave conflicting clinical start times four minutes apart, Dr. Powell stating 6:45 am at 4:49 PM and Professor Frazier stating 6:30 am at 4:53 PM) and {{HU|HU-154b}} (Frazier's differing time was sent only to the reporting student, not reply-all, so the ADA office and other staff may still have the 6:45 start on record). In fairness, Frazier's schedule otherwise concludes at 2:30 PM, within the eight-hour and 4:30 PM limits. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' A possible reconciliation, a 6:30 brief preceding a 6:45 floor start, is not stated by either email and is documented as a possibility, not a fact. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-154}} resolve here. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Two emails dated June 4, 2026: Dr. Rachel Powell (4:49 PM) to the reporting student, Thompson, Laban, ADA, Frazier, cc Prashad and nationalprelclinical; Troy Frazier (4:53 PM) to the reporting student only; provided by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-154a}}, {{HU|HU-154b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-153}} (alignment meeting), {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-148}}, {{HU|HU-149}}, {{HU|HU-151}}.


=== HU-154a: Two officials gave conflicting clinical start times four minutes apart the evening before clinical (Dr. Powell 6:45 am at 4:49 PM; Professor Frazier 6:30 am at 4:53 PM) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Conflicting Clinical Start Times From Two Officials
! Date added
| 2026-06-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC
|}
'''Finding.''' Hours after the alignment meeting, two officials sent conflicting clinical start times four minutes apart. At 4:49 PM, Dr. Rachel Powell wrote that Professor Frazier would meet the reporting student in the front lobby for a clinical start time of 6:45 am. At 4:53 PM, Professor Troy Frazier wrote that clinic would begin at 6:30 am, with a fifteen-minute brief, hospital shift change beginning at 6:50, an eight-hour shift concluding at 2:30 PM, and a debrief before the end of the shift. Neither email reconciled the difference, leaving the reporting student with two arrival times the evening before clinical.

'''Evidence.''' Email 1, Dr. Rachel Powell (DNP, RN, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online), June 4, 2026, 4:49 PM. Email 2, Troy Frazier (Adjunct Clinical Instructor), June 4, 2026, 4:53 PM. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Emails June 4, 2026: Dr. Rachel Powell (4:49 PM) and Troy Frazier (4:53 PM).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Powell, 4:49 PM] Professor Fraizer will meet you in the front lobby for your clinical start time of 6:45 am. [Frazier, 4:53 PM] We will begin clinic at 6:30am... Since this is an 8-hour shift, We will conclude at 2:30pm.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability: clear, consistent communication about academic obligations) and ACEN Standard 5 (clinical scheduling details must be accurate and consistent) are implicated. Two officials issuing different start times within four minutes, the evening before the start and immediately after a meeting convened to align everyone, reflects a coordination failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-154}}. See {{HU|HU-153}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student was left with two arrival times the night before clinical, affecting accommodation-related planning, including medication timing, dog sitter, and sleep schedule for narcolepsy; following the 6:45 instruction risked missing the 6:30 brief.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-154}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Frazier's schedule otherwise respects the eight-hour and 4:30 PM limits; the documented issue is the conflicting start times.


=== HU-154b: The corrected start time was sent only to the reporting student, not reply-all, leaving the ADA office and other staff with the 6:45 start on record and the team's records unreconciled ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Correction Not Sent Reply-All / Records Unreconciled
! Date added
| 2026-06-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Powell's 6:45 am email went to the full group, including Emilie Thompson, Danielle Laban, the ADA mailbox, Frazier, Dr. Prashad, and the national prelicensure clinical alias, but Frazier's differing 6:30 am time was sent only to the reporting student, leaving other staff and the ADA office with the earlier time on record.

'''Evidence.''' Email 1 recipients (Powell, 4:49 PM): the reporting student, Thompson, Laban, ADA, Frazier, cc Prashad and the national pre-clinical alias. Email 2 (Frazier, 4:53 PM): to the reporting student only. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Emails June 4, 2026 (distribution lists).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Frazier, 4:53 PM, to the reporting student only] We will begin clinic at 6:30am.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and recordkeeping consistency) is implicated. A correction not shared with staff holding the original creates inconsistent institutional records. Lead: {{HU|HU-154}}.

'''Impact.''' Because the correction was not sent reply-all, the ADA office and other staff may hold a different start time than the instructor, increasing the chance of further miscommunication about attendance and timing.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-154}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-170: Lead: Professor Heather Gregg blocked approval of the reporting student's clinical hour submissions for at least two weeks pending a preceptor agreement form that Dr. Rachel Powell later clarified was not required in the form Gregg demanded, Professor Frazier is the only individual who should be listed on the log; this is inconsistent with last term's waiver; preceptors are assigned the morning of each shift making a pre-signed list structurally impossible; and Dr. Gregg's communications were described by the reporting student as blaming him and disregarding the faculty member's circumstances; see HU-170a through HU-170d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (clinical hours blocked pending incorrect preceptor requirement; inconsistent policy across terms; structurally impossible same-day preceptor list requirement; faculty conduct concern)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online) / Herzing Clinical Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for a cluster of clinical documentation and policy-consistency issues arising from the NSG525 Clinical II course. On June 15, 2026, Dr. Heather Gregg, course professor, communicated via Canvas that she was not permitted to approve the reporting student's clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form was uploaded and completed. The reporting student's email to Professor Troy Frazier, on-site clinical faculty of record in ELMS, and Dr. Rachel Powell, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, documented that Gregg had been blocking hour submissions for at least the prior two weeks. Dr. Powell responded clarifying that Professor Frazier is the clinical faculty member on site and is the only individual who should be listed on the Clinical Hours Report Log, as he is the one verifying hours in ELMS. This directly contradicts how Gregg had communicated the requirement, a signed preceptor agreement listing individual nurses. The reporting student noted that last term the requirement had been waived by Rachel Powell, then clinical lead, for students who had on-site clinical faculty. The reporting student also noted that preceptors are typically assigned the morning of each clinical shift, making a comprehensive pre-signed list impossible to produce in advance. The reporting student additionally described Dr. Gregg's communications as implying he was being irresponsible, stating she did not care that the faculty member was traveling and had a lot going on, and as disrespectful. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-170a}} (clinical hours blocked for two-plus weeks pending an incorrectly applied requirement), {{HU|HU-170b}} (inconsistent requirements between current and prior term), {{HU|HU-170c}} (preceptors assigned same day, structurally impossible pre-condition), and {{HU|HU-170d}} (faculty communication conduct concern).

'''Notes.''' Course: NSG525-7E Clinical II, 2262C16, confirmed from the Canvas dashboard. Clinical faculty of record in ELMS: Professor Troy Frazier (Adjunct Clinical Instructor). Course professor applying the requirement: Dr. Heather Gregg. Dr. Rachel Powell's email title: Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National (Online). The reporting student referenced a contact named Tiffany who may be able to provide the preceptor list; this person is not further identified in the evidence. Powell clarified Frazier should be the only individual listed on the log; the reporting student noted Frazier precepts him two days a week and was described by Gregg as traveling four hours away. Added 2026-06-15. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-170a}}, {{HU|HU-170b}}, {{HU|HU-170c}}, {{HU|HU-170d}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-133}} (clinical placement fragmentation and inconsistent process), {{HU|HU-134}} (Student A clinical placement error), {{HU|HU-135}} (8-hour clinical accommodation, clinical scheduling at same site), {{HU|HU-141}} (Clinician Nexus/ELMS clinical documentation system issues).


=== HU-170a: Professor Heather Gregg blocked approval of the reporting student's clinical hour submissions for at least two weeks pending a preceptor agreement form; Dr. Rachel Powell later clarified that Professor Frazier, as the on-site clinical faculty member of record in ELMS, is the only individual who should be listed on the Clinical Hours Report Log ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Hour Approval Blocked Pending Incorrectly Applied Preceptor Requirement
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Heather Gregg communicated via Canvas on June 15, 2026 that she was not permitted to approve the reporting student's clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form was uploaded and completed. The reporting student's email to Frazier and Powell documented that Gregg had been blocking hour submissions for the prior two or more weeks, holding up clinical logs he had already submitted. Dr. Rachel Powell responded, clarifying that Professor Frazier, as the on-site clinical faculty member who verifies hours in ELMS, is the only individual who should be listed on the Clinical Hours Report Log. Powell's clarification is directly inconsistent with Gregg's stated requirement, which was for a preceptor agreement listing and signed by the nurses the reporting student works alongside, a different document from the faculty-signed log.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM): "I am not permitted to approve these clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form has been uploaded and completed." The reporting student's email: "She is holding up all of my clinical logs from this point (last two weeks) forward." Dr. Rachel Powell's email: "Professor Frazier should be the only individual listed on your Clinical Hours Report Log, as he is the individual verifying your clinical hours in ELMS." Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Gregg:] I am not permitted to approve these clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form has been uploaded and completed. [Powell:] Professor Frazier should be the only individual listed on your Clinical Hours Report Log, as he is the individual verifying your clinical hours in ELMS.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including consistent and accurate clinical-hour tracking), HLC Criterion 2.A (clear, fair, and consistently applied processes), and ACEN Standard 4 (clinical evaluation methodologies) are implicated. Blocking clinical hour approval for two or more weeks based on a requirement that the institutional Director of Clinical Placement later clarifies was not the correct requirement is a process-consistency and academic-progress concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-170}}.

'''Impact.''' At least two weeks of clinical hours remained unlogged and unapproved while the dispute was pending, potentially affecting hour count, course standing, and progression.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-170}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party Canvas message and email thread. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-170b: The preceptor agreement requirement as applied by Professor Gregg this term is inconsistent with the practice last term, when Dr. Rachel Powell (then clinical lead) waived the preceptor agreement for students who had on-site clinical faculty supervising both the student and the preceptor ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inconsistent Clinical Documentation Requirements Across Terms
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance) / Herzing Clinical Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student states that last term, when he had on-site clinical faculty, Dr. Rachel Powell, now Director of Clinical Placement but then the clinical lead, waived the preceptor agreement requirement for students with faculty oversight, because the faculty member was supervising both the student and the preceptor. This term, Professor Gregg applied a different standard, requiring the preceptor agreement to be completed and uploaded before approving any clinical hours, even though Professor Frazier is again the on-site faculty of record. The inconsistency means a student who complied fully with last term's documented process is now being held to a different and more burdensome standard without documented notification of the change.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student's email: "Last semester if we had a clinical faculty, this requirement was waived. I had @Powell, Rachel who is now the lead on the clinical team and she simply waived the preceptor agreement for those who had faculty since the faculty was overseeing the student and preceptor." Dr. Rachel Powell's clarification email confirming that faculty-level oversight, Frazier on ELMS, is the correct process. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Last semester if we had a clinical faculty, this requirement was waived. I had @Powell, Rachel who is now the lead on the clinical team and she simply waived the preceptor agreement for those who had faculty since the faculty was overseeing the student and preceptor.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear and consistently applied policies for all students) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) are implicated. Applying a more stringent documentation requirement this term without documented policy change notification, when the same scenario was handled differently last term by the individual now responsible for clinical placement policy, is a policy-consistency and fair-process concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-170}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student followed the process as applied last term and was penalized this term for doing the same thing, with no documented notice the requirement had changed.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-170}} (lead). The reporting student describes this as trying to hit a moving post, different requirements than explained and applied in prior terms. CONFIRMED from first-party email. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-170c: Clinical preceptors at the reporting student's facility are typically assigned the morning of each shift, making it structurally impossible to provide a comprehensive signed preceptor list in advance as a pre-condition for clinical hour approval ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Structurally Impossible Pre-Condition for Clinical Hour Approval
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Herzing Clinical Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student states that preceptors at his clinical facility are typically assigned the morning he starts each assignment, not in advance. Requiring a pre-signed preceptor agreement listing all preceptors before approving clinical hours therefore creates a requirement that cannot actually be met at the time of submission for any given shift, because the preceptor's identity is not known until that morning. Dr. Powell's clarification, that only the faculty member, Frazier, needs to be listed on the log, resolves this for the log itself, but the underlying design of requiring a pre-signed preceptor list is noted as impractical in the context of how clinical assignments are structured.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student's email: "It's so unfortunate that the university is requiring us to get a list of all of my preceptors even though they're typically assigned the morning that I start the assignment. I'm not really sure how to proceed. I'm kind of at a loss for words." Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>It's so unfortunate that the university is requiring us to get a list of all of my preceptors even though they're typically assigned the morning that I start the assignment. I'm not really sure how to proceed. I'm kind of at a loss for words.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including reasonable and workable clinical documentation requirements), HLC Criterion 2.A (fair process), and ACEN Standard 4 (clinical evaluation methodologies should reflect the realities of practice) are implicated. A documentation requirement that is structurally impossible to fulfill based on how clinical assignments are organized at the placement site is an administrative design concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-170}}.

'''Impact.''' If the preceptor agreement list were strictly enforced as a blocking condition in the future, the reporting student would have no practical path to having his clinical hours approved, since the preceptor's identity is not known until the day of the shift.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-170}} (lead). Powell's clarification resolves the immediate issue by directing that only Frazier be listed; the broader structural concern is noted for the record. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-170d: The reporting student describes communications from Professor Heather Gregg as implying he was irresponsible, stating she did not care that the faculty member was traveling and had significant obligations, and as disrespectful, a faculty conduct and communication concern ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Disrespectful Faculty Communication; Attribution of Blame to Student (faculty conduct concern)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty)
|}
'''Finding.''' In his email to Powell, Frazier, and others, the reporting student describes communications from Professor Gregg that he found disrespectful and that attributed fault to him rather than to the university's changing policies. He states Gregg said or implied she did not care that the faculty member was traveling four hours away and had a lot going on during the week, given that Frazier precepts him only two days a week. He states she did not acknowledge the institutional role in the situation and instead placed the burden on the reporting student. He describes her email as very disrespectful. The Canvas message from Dr. Gregg in evidence (June 15, 10:01 AM) is itself professional in tone; the characterizations relate to a different Gregg communication that is described but not directly in evidence as a document.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student's email: "She also said or implied at least that she didn't care that the faculty member was far away and had a lot going on during the week as he only precepts me two days a week that she was going to not approve this or wave it and now she's going to withhold approval of my clinical hours. ... I found her email to be very disrespectful towards me. I'm not the one who continues to have a moving post with regards to requirements for clinicals." Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I found her email to be very disrespectful towards me. I'm not the one who continues to have a moving post with regards to requirements for clinicals.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in faculty-student interactions) and institutional professional conduct expectations are implicated. Communication that attributes fault to a student for institutional policy inconsistencies, and that disregards the practical constraints of the student's clinical placement arrangement, raises a faculty conduct and student-welfare concern. This is CONFIRMED that the reporting student made this characterization in writing; the underlying Gregg communications are described but not directly in the evidence provided. Lead: {{HU|HU-170}}.

'''Impact.''' Faculty communications perceived as disrespectful and that misattribute responsibility may chill a student's willingness to raise legitimate concerns and add to the burden of navigating institutional processes.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-170}} (lead). CONFIRMED at the level of the reporting student's documented characterization. The specific Gregg emails being described are referenced as attached to the reporting student's emails but not directly in the materials provided. Documented 2026-06-15.


=== HU-178: An unidentified, unsaved-contact cohort member in the Nursing '27 group chat reported that her clinical instructor was fired and all of her remaining scheduled clinical sessions to complete required medical surgical nursing hours were cancelled ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE, secondhand and unverified as to the stated cause (termination) and the claim that all remaining clinical sessions were cancelled; the existence of cohort-wide concern and sympathetic responses is directly shown in the screenshot
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Instructor Termination Cancels Scheduled Clinical Sessions Needed to Complete Required Hours; Unverified Secondhand Cohort Report
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Nursing '27 cohort clinical leadership; Program Chair; Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, in the Nursing '27 group chat, an unidentified cohort member, shown only as an unsaved contact ending 9923, wrote that her clinical instructor got fired and that all of her scheduled clinical sessions with that instructor to finish out her medical surgical nursing hours were cancelled. Several cohort members reacted with concern, including messages reading "WHAT" and "That's crazyyyy," along with distressed emoji reactions. A student identified in the chat as Student A responded with sympathy. A second cohort member, shown with the initials CB and identified in the chat as Student AB, separately reported the same post with a distressed emoji reaction, suggesting the concern was shared by more than one cohort member. A student identified as Student CT responded with encouragement, noting the cohort has three semesters remaining. No institutional communication, remediation plan, or makeup clinical scheduling was shown in the visible portion of the thread. This report has not been independently verified and the identity of the original poster is not established beyond an unsaved phone number; it is logged as a possible instance of a pattern already partly documented in this tracker, where an NSG 523 medical surgical nursing instructor and an NSG 525 Clinical II instructor both stepped away from the same cohort during the 2026 Summer C16 term. Unlike that earlier entry, this report specifically claims a termination rather than a voluntary step away, and specifically claims cancellation of clinical sessions needed to complete required hours rather than only a change in course coverage; whether this is a new development in the same underlying situation or a separate instance has not been confirmed and should be verified directly with the reporting student or with clinical leadership before this entry is treated as confirmed.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot of the Nursing '27 iMessage group chat, provided by the reporting student. Message from an unsaved contact, [phone redacted]: a report that her clinical instructor was fired and her remaining med surg clinical sessions with that instructor were cancelled. Cohort responses include messages from unsaved contacts reading "WHAT" and "That's crazyyyy," a distressed emoji reaction, a message from Student A expressing sympathy, a separate distressed emoji reaction from a cohort member identified as Student AB (shown with initials CB), and an encouraging message from a cohort member identified as Student CT noting three semesters remain. Student: The reporting student is the documenting and observing student; the underlying report concerns an unidentified cohort member in the Nursing '27 group chat, identified in the chat only by an unsaved phone contact ending 9923. Source Group: Screenshot of the Nursing '27 iMessage group chat, message from an unsaved contact ([phone redacted]), posted the day before the screenshot was captured at 7:37 PM, with cohort responses through the following afternoon; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' The unidentified cohort member, an anonymous handle, paraphrased that her clinical instructor had been fired and that all of her remaining scheduled clinical sessions to finish her med-surg hours were cancelled.

'''Standards.''' The Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026, Clinical Placement and Clinical Onboarding sections, describes clinical rotations as scheduled by the institution and subject to facility and program requirements, without a stated contingency for abrupt loss of an assigned instructor mid-term. Faculty sufficiency and continuity are addressed by accreditation standards requiring sufficient qualified faculty to achieve program outcomes and to maintain continuity of instruction (Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, 2023; confirm exact standard number against the current ACEN Standards and Criteria). HLC Criterion 3.C (the institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs) and HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in communications) are also potentially relevant if clinical hours are lost without a timely institutional remediation plan. This comparison is preliminary and should be revisited once the underlying facts are confirmed.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the loss of scheduled clinical sessions needed to complete required medical surgical nursing hours could delay a student's progression or graduation, consistent with the hours shortfall pattern already documented elsewhere in this tracker for other clinical placement disruptions. Because the report is secondhand and the reporter is unidentified beyond a phone number, this risk is not yet established as fact and should be verified before being relied upon for any formal filing.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student's identity is not established beyond an unsaved phone number ending 9923; the claim that the instructor was fired, as opposed to resigning or stepping away, is unverified; and whether this report describes a new development in the previously documented NSG 523 or NSG 525 staffing situation, or a separate instance involving a different student or course, has not been confirmed. Recommend following up directly with the reporting student, if identity can be established, and with clinical leadership, before elevating this entry to CONFIRMED. Cross-references: the earlier tracker entry documenting the NSG 523 medical surgical nursing instructor and NSG 525 Clinical II instructor both stepping away from the same Nursing '27 cohort during 2026 Summer C16, and the earlier tracker entry documenting a different clinical course adjunct professor's resignation without institutional notice, are both potentially related patterns and should be compared directly against this report once the reporting student's identity and the specific facts are confirmed.


=== HU-181: A newly assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator sent a welcome email to students outside her assigned population and retracted it the same day, apologizing for the distribution error ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Low
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Misdirected Mass Email Regarding Clinical Placement Coordinator Assignment; Self-Corrected Distribution List Error
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Heather Klanderman (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, IL Online MSNDE)
|}
'''Finding.''' Heather Klanderman introduced herself as the new Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator for the MSN-DE program, stating she was reviewing Fall clinical site approvals and rostering and reminding students to keep Complio compliance requirements current. A second email from the same sender followed the same day, stating the prior message had been sent in error, that she is responsible for supporting Illinois students specifically, and that the message had been inadvertently distributed to students outside her assigned population. She apologized for any confusion or added stress and directed recipients to continue working with their own assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator. The retraction indicates the reporting student received a welcome message from a coordinator who was not in fact assigned to his population, and does not identify who his correct assigned coordinator is. This is a minor, self-corrected distribution error, but it adds to an already documented pattern in this tracker of unclear or shifting points of contact within the clinical placement structure, including multiple named regional coordinators and inconsistent contact routing for disability and placement matters.

'''Evidence.''' Email, Heather Klanderman to nursing students, subject "Welcome from Your New Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator," July 2, 2026, 9:00 AM: self-introduction as the new IL Online MSNDE Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, review of Fall clinical site approvals and rostering, and a reminder to keep Complio compliance current. Email, Heather Klanderman to the same recipients, same day: a statement that the prior message was sent in error, that she supports Illinois students specifically, and that it was inadvertently distributed to students outside her assigned population, with an apology and a direction to continue working with each student's own assigned coordinator. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Email, Heather Klanderman (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, IL Online MSNDE) to nursing students, subject Welcome from Your New Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, Thu Jul 2, 2026, 9:00 AM; followed by a retraction email from the same sender the same day; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I recently joined the Clinical Placement team and am responsible for supporting Illinois (IL) students. Unfortunately, the message was inadvertently distributed to students outside of my assigned population.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including clear and accurate communications to students) is implicated. This is a minor operational item rather than a violation; it is logged primarily as pattern evidence of unclear points of contact within the clinical placement structure, consistent with the regional coordinator confusion already documented elsewhere in this tracker and the earlier documented routing of disability-related contact through a general admissions address.

'''Impact.''' Limited direct impact, since the error was corrected the same day with an apology. The episode does not by itself establish who the reporting student's correct assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator is, which remains useful to confirm given the broader pattern of shifting or unclear regional coordinator assignments already documented in this tracker.

'''Notes.''' Recommend confirming, in writing, the name and contact information of the reporting student's actual assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, since the retraction email establishes that Heather Klanderman is not that person for his population. Cross-references: the earlier tracker entries documenting multiple named regional clinical placement coordinators and a regional model replacing a prior centralized model, and the earlier tracker entry documenting disability services contact routed through a general admissions address, both reflect the same underlying pattern of unclear points of contact within clinical placement and disability support functions.


=== HU-190: For the Fall 2026 family nursing clinical rotation, a Herzing clinical coordinator directed a student to secure her own placement through her employer rather than through the program, and the student reported that placement communication had been thin and asked the program to secure a compliant placement ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE. This is a third party report concerning another student, drawn from screenshots rather than from the underlying email records. The content of the two quoted messages is legible and is treated as reliably captured, but the dates, the full recipient list, whether the program subsequently secured a placement, and Student A's authorization for this matter to be documented in this tracker have not been confirmed
|-
! Issue type
| Placement Responsibility Shifted to Student; Employer Based Placement Proposed in Lieu of Program Secured Placement; Placement Communication Gap
! Date added
| 2026-08-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, this is a third party report concerning Student A, drawn from screenshots rather than from the underlying email records. In an email thread titled "Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning," Starr Williams-Headen wrote to Student A that at this point in her program she is able to work directly with a preceptor to complete her clinical hours, asked whether she would be interested in doing that with her current employer if possible, and offered that if so, Student A should provide her employer information so that Herzing could assist in pursuing a clinical rotation with them. Student A replied declining the employer based route for two stated reasons. First, she stated that her role is in acute geriatric home based urgent response care, so the setting is limited to older adults and would not provide the lifespan and population breadth that the family nursing clinical requires. Second, she stated that an employer based placement only works if coordination between the program and the site is timely and reliable, that communication on placement had been thin on her end, and that she was not comfortable putting her working relationship with her employer on the line for an arrangement she could not count on to run smoothly. She closed by stating she was counting on the program to secure a placement meeting the course requirements, and asked for the expected timeline and what the program needed from her to keep it moving. The exchange documents an instance in which the institution proposed that the student source her own clinical placement through her employer, and in which the student identified both a curricular mismatch and a program communication reliability concern as reasons that route was not viable. It also documents that, as of her reply, the student did not have a confirmed program secured placement for the Fall 2026 family nursing rotation. The content of the two quoted messages is legible and is treated as reliably captured, but the dates, the full recipient list, whether the program subsequently secured a placement, and Student A's authorization for this matter to be documented in this tracker have not been confirmed.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot one: Starr Williams-Headen to Student A, subject "Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning," timestamped 1:59 PM, stating that at this point in her program the student is able to work directly with a preceptor to complete her clinical hours, asking whether she would be interested in doing so with her current employer, and requesting employer information so Herzing could assist in pursuing a rotation. Screenshot two: Student A's reply in the same thread, stating that her acute geriatric home based urgent response role would not provide the lifespan and population breadth the family nursing clinical requires, that placement communication had been thin on her end, that she was unwilling to risk her employment relationship on an arrangement she could not rely on, that she was counting on the program to secure a compliant placement, and asking for the expected timeline and what the program needed from her. Student: Student A is the reporting student and the subject of this entry. The reporting student is the documenting student who provided the screenshots to this tracker; he is not a party to the exchange. Source Group: Two screenshots of an Outlook email thread titled Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning, provided by the reporting student. First screenshot: message from Starr Williams-Headen to Student A, copied to recipients shown only as Ferra, Jessica, Hill, and Jeff, timestamped 1:59 PM, date not visible in the capture. Second screenshot: Student A's reply to Starr Williams-Headen, date and time not visible in the capture beyond a device clock reading 6:01. Neither screenshot shows the full recipient list, message dates, or any subsequent reply.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Starr Williams-Headen:] At this point in your program, you are able to work directly with a preceptor to complete your clinical hours. Would this be something you would be interested in doing with your current employer if possible?</blockquote>
Student A, a student pseudonym, replied that her acute geriatric home based urgent response role would not provide the lifespan and population breadth the family nursing clinical requires, that communication on placement had been thin on her end, that she was not comfortable putting her employer relationship at risk for an arrangement she could not count on, and that she was counting on the program to secure a compliant placement.

'''Standards.''' Compare against the Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, and the Prelicensure Student Handbook provisions describing how clinical placements are arranged, and against any representations made to students at enrollment regarding whether the institution secures clinical placements. HLC Criterion 3.D (student support) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) are potentially relevant if required clinical experiences are in practice sourced by students rather than by the institution. Programmatic nursing accreditation standards regarding adequacy of clinical learning resources and clinical site sufficiency are also potentially engaged; the applicable standard number should be confirmed against the current standards of the accreditor for this specific program before being cited in any filing. This entry is logged as a discrepancy and a pattern data point, not as an asserted finding that Herzing failed to meet any standard, and it does not establish that a placement was ultimately unavailable.

'''Impact.''' If required clinical placements are in practice sourced through students' own employers, students without a clinically suitable employer, or whose employer setting does not match the course population requirements, face a barrier to progression that is unrelated to academic performance. Student A additionally identified a reliability concern about program to site coordination that made her unwilling to expose her employment relationship to the arrangement. The entry also documents a student who, at the time of writing, lacked a confirmed placement for a Fall 2026 required rotation.

'''Notes.''' The screenshots do not show message dates, the full recipient list, or any subsequent reply, so the timeline and outcome are unestablished. Recommend obtaining the underlying email records with headers if this entry is to be relied upon in any filing. Because this concerns another student's individual circumstances, confirm that Student A is aware her correspondence is being documented in this tracker and consents to its use in any external filing, and consider whether her name should be redacted in filings where her individual situation is offered only as pattern evidence. This entry is most useful as corroboration that the student sourced placement pattern previously documented for graduate NP students also appears in the Fall 2026 family nursing rotation, which strengthens it as systemic rather than program specific evidence for an accreditor complaint. Cross-reference: the existing {{HU|HU-081}} cluster documenting the Clinical Placement Pledge and reports that students across multiple states are responsible for sourcing their own preceptors; the existing {{HU|HU-133}} cluster documenting Student A's incorrect Group K rotation assignment and the related communication failures involving Starr Williams-Headen; the existing {{HU|HU-144}} entry documenting the Group K rotation hours reduction reported by Student A and Student Q; the earlier entry recording Student H's account that family nursing OB and pediatrics hours were student sourced and observation only.


=== HU-190a: Student A's Fall 2026 planning email to Starr Williams-Headen requesting schedule stability, level appropriate clinical placement, and advance notice to clinical sites, reporting that Summer 2026 involved repeated last minute changes and that instructors were unaware of her arrival until the day she appeared ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE. Third party account relayed through a second channel. The text is treated as accurately relayed, but the message date, recipients, and any response from Starr Williams-Headen are unestablished, and the underlying email record has not been reviewed. Student A's authorization for this correspondence to be documented in this tracker has not been confirmed
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Clinical Schedule Instability; Level Inappropriate Clinical Placement; Clinical Site Not Notified of Student Assignment in Advance
! Date added
| 2026-08-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that, following the Fall 2026 Intensive registration announcement, Student A wrote to Starr Williams-Headen raising four matters. First, she asked when Fall 2026 clinical schedules and placements would be finalized, referencing the challenges experienced during Summer 2026 with multiple schedule changes, and asked that the repeated last minute changes that occurred that summer be avoided, stating that those unexpected adjustments created significant challenges for planning and that she needed to coordinate her intensive, clinical schedule, work obligations, and childcare well in advance. Second, she requested placement in a clinical environment aligned with her current level of education, reporting that during a recent clinical experience she was paired with Fundamentals students whose clinical objectives were different from hers, and that the experience focused largely on therapeutic communication, which limited opportunities to practice the more advanced nursing skills expected at her stage of the program. Third, she asked that the clinical site and assigned clinical instructors be notified of her placement before her arrival, reporting that on previous rotations the instructors were unaware she was coming until the day she arrived, which she described as creating an awkward situation for everyone involved. Fourth, she asked again when students could expect Fall clinical schedules and placements to be available. This entry corroborates and extends the placement communication concern Student A raised in {{HU|HU-190}}, and supplies three specific operational failures she attributes to prior rotations: schedule instability, mismatch between placement level and student progression, and clinical sites not being informed of an assigned student in advance. This is a third party account relayed through a second channel; the message date, recipients, and any response from Starr Williams-Headen are unestablished, and the underlying email record has not been reviewed, nor has Student A's authorization for this correspondence to be documented in this tracker.

'''Evidence.''' Text of Student A's email to Starr Williams-Headen as relayed by Student A to the reporting student by text message and provided by him to this tracker: a request for a finalized Fall 2026 clinical schedule and placement timeline; a reference to multiple Summer 2026 schedule changes and a request to avoid repeated last minute changes; a statement of the need to coordinate her intensive, clinical schedule, work obligations, and childcare in advance; a report of being paired with Fundamentals students during a recent clinical experience with an emphasis on therapeutic communication that limited advanced skill practice; a request for a placement aligned with her level of education; a report that on previous rotations clinical instructors were unaware of her arrival until the day she arrived; and a request that sites and instructors be notified in advance. Student: Student A is the author and subject of this entry. The reporting student is the documenting student; he received the text of this email from Student A by text message and provided it to this tracker. He is not a party to the email. Source Group: Text of an email from Student A to Starr Williams-Headen, relayed to the reporting student by text message and provided by him to this tracker. The email date, time, exact subject line, and full recipient list are not established, and the message was received as relayed text rather than as an email record with headers.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased her requests: avoid the repeated last minute schedule changes of Summer 2026 given the need to coordinate her intensive, clinical schedule, work, and childcare in advance; provide a placement matching her level of education rather than pairing her with Fundamentals students focused on therapeutic communication; and ensure clinical sites and instructors are notified of her arrival in advance, since on previous rotations instructors did not know she was coming until the day she arrived.

'''Standards.''' Compare against the Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, and the Prelicensure Student Handbook provisions governing clinical scheduling, placement assignment, and clinical site coordination. HLC Criterion 3.D (student support) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) are potentially relevant. Programmatic nursing accreditation standards regarding clinical learning experiences appropriate to the level of the curriculum and adequacy of clinical site coordination are also potentially engaged; the applicable standard number should be confirmed against the current standards of the accreditor for this specific program before being cited in any filing. The report that a clinical site and its instructors were not informed of an assigned student until the student arrived is the most concrete operational failure described here and is the item most readily verifiable against Herzing's own placement records. This entry is logged as a reported concern and a pattern data point, not as an asserted finding.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, three distinct risks are described. Schedule instability impairs students' ability to coordinate required intensives, employment, and dependent care, which affects progression for reasons unrelated to academic performance. Placement of an advanced student alongside Fundamentals students, with instruction focused on therapeutic communication, may not deliver the clinical competencies the student's stage of the curriculum requires, which bears on the adequacy of clinical learning experiences. A clinical site and instructors who are unaware a student is arriving cannot have prepared a supervised learning assignment, which raises both an educational quality and a patient care supervision concern.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-190}}. The relayed text does not establish the email's date, recipients, or whether Starr Williams-Headen responded. Recommend obtaining the underlying email with headers, and Starr Williams-Headen's reply if one exists, before relying on this entry in any filing. Because this documents another student's individual circumstances and was relayed through a second channel, confirm that Student A consents to its documentation and to any external use, and consider redacting her name where her situation is offered only as pattern evidence. The report that clinical instructors were unaware of an assigned student until arrival is independently verifiable against Herzing's placement notification records and is the item most worth pursuing. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-190}} (lead issue, the Fall 2026 employer based preceptor proposal and Student A's reply); the existing {{HU|HU-133}} cluster documenting Student A's incorrect Group K rotation assignment, missing facility and supervisor details, and onboarding failures; the existing {{HU|HU-144}} entry documenting the Group K rotation hours reduction reported by Student A and Student Q; the existing {{HU|HU-081}} cluster on student sourced placements; and the existing entries documenting short notice clinical scheduling affecting the reporting student.


=== HU-191: The reporting student is recorded as one clinical hour short for NSG525 Clinical II, and his clinical instructor told him verbally on the last clinical day that he cleared the shortfall with Dr. Rachel Powell and that it would not be a problem, but no written confirmation from Dr. Powell or Herzing exists ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE as to whether the shortfall has in fact been cleared with Dr. Powell and will not affect the reporting student's standing; CONFIRMED only as to the fact that the instructor made this verbal statement to the reporting student and that the reporting student is recorded as one hour short, both of which rest on the reporting student's own account since no written record exists
|-
! Issue type
| Unwritten Verbal Assurance of Compliance from Faculty, No Institutional Confirmation of Record
! Date added
| 2026-08-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | The reporting student's NSG525 Clinical II clinical instructor (name to be confirmed); Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, the reporting student is recorded as being one clinical hour short of the total required for NSG525 Clinical II. On his last clinical day, his clinical instructor told him verbally that the instructor had cleared the shortfall with Dr. Rachel Powell, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, and that it would not be a problem. No email, Canvas message, or other written communication documents either the instructor's outreach to Dr. Powell or any confirmation from Dr. Powell that the shortfall is excused or otherwise resolved. This entry is added against the backdrop of an August 3, 2026 Canvas notice for the same course instructing students to confirm their logged hours include both live clinical and V-Sim simulation hours, and the broader pattern already documented in this tracker of clinical hour miscounts, disputed hour requirements, and unwritten assurances from clinical placement staff in other students' cases. The claim that the instructor's outreach and Dr. Powell's confirmation occurred rests entirely on the reporting student's own account, since no written record exists.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student's own account of the clinical instructor's verbal statement on his last clinical day. Canvas notification, "Important Notice: Clinical Hours, Clinical II (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16," sent August 3, 2026, instructing students to review their clinical hour log for both live and V-Sim hours to successfully complete the course. No corroborating written communication from the instructor or from Dr. Powell has been located or produced. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Verbal statement made to the reporting student by his NSG525 Clinical II clinical instructor on his last clinical day, reported by the reporting student; Canvas notification, Important Notice: Clinical Hours, Clinical II (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16, August 3, 2026, 16:54 UTC, instructing students to review their clinical hour log and ensure it includes both live clinical hours and simulation (V-Sim) hours; no email, message, or other written record of the instructor's statement or of any confirmation from Dr. Rachel Powell exists as of the date this entry was added.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>He cleared it with Rachel Powell and it would not be a problem.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Compare against the Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, and the Prelicensure Student Handbook provisions governing required clinical hours and any procedure for waiving or excusing a shortfall. HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in institutional decision making and record keeping) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable internal communication supporting accurate academic records) are potentially relevant, particularly given the pattern already documented in this tracker of undocumented grade and hour related decisions, including the unexplained NSG521 grade change addressed in {{HU|HU-159}}. An unwritten verbal assurance from a clinical instructor, even if made in good faith, does not by itself constitute an institutional record that the requirement has been satisfied or waived, and leaves the reporting student without documentation if the matter is later disputed or if his account is later graded, audited, or reviewed for licensure eligibility purposes.

'''Impact.''' If the shortfall is not in fact resolved in Herzing's own records, the reporting student risks a last minute discovery of a clinical hour deficiency with no documentation to support the instructor's assurance that it had been cleared. Clinical hour totals bear directly on course completion and, ultimately, on licensure eligibility, so an undocumented one hour gap is a small number with a disproportionately large potential consequence if it surfaces later without support.

'''Notes.''' Recommend that the reporting student request written confirmation from Dr. Rachel Powell, in his own name, that the one hour shortfall has been reviewed and will not affect his grade, progression, or licensure eligibility documentation, and that he retain that confirmation regardless of the instructor's verbal assurance. The clinical instructor's name should be added to this entry once confirmed. This entry should be reclassified from POSSIBLE to CONFIRMED once written confirmation is obtained, or escalated if no such confirmation is provided. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-159}} (undocumented NSG521 grade change and the same underlying concern about decisions made without a written record), the existing {{HU|HU-135}} cluster documenting 8 hour clinical shift accommodation and hour count disputes in NSG525 Clinical II, {{HU|HU-190}} and {{HU|HU-190a}} (Fall 2026 clinical placement and scheduling concerns, same course area), and the general pattern in this tracker of students receiving verbal or informal assurances from clinical placement staff that are not later confirmed in writing.


=== HU-196: The reporting student proactively flagged a nurse strike at his clinical site, Ascension Via Christi, and Dr. Rachel Powell confirmed the same morning that contingency staffing was already arranged and his rotation would not be affected ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Low
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED and resolved within the same day
|-
! Issue type
| Proactively Flagged External Risk to Clinical Placement, Resolved Same Day
! Date added
| 2026-08-11
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' On July 7, 2026, the reporting student proactively notified Herzing's national prelicensure clinical staff that nurses at his clinical site, Ascension Via Christi in Wichita, were engaged in a one day strike, and that contingency replacement staff, unfamiliar with the clinical setting, would likely be filling in. He shared several news links documenting the strike and suggested the university confirm there would be no disruption to that week's clinicals. Dr. Rachel Powell responded the same morning that Herzing's team had already been in contact with the site and that his rotation would not be affected.

'''Evidence.''' Email, the reporting student, July 7, 2026, subject "FLAG FOR YOU ALL," with linked news coverage of the Ascension Via Christi nurse strike. Email, Dr. Rachel Powell, same date: confirmation that the clinical site had already been contacted and that the reporting student's rotation would not be affected. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Email, the reporting student to Dr. Rachel Powell, the national prelicensure clinical mailbox, cc Troy Frazier and Dr. Raywattie Prashad, subject FLAG FOR YOU ALL, July 7, 2026, and Dr. Powell's same day reply.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Our team has already been in contact with the clinical site, and your clinical rotations will not be affected by this ongoing walkout.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Not independently implicated; logged for completeness of the clinical placement communication record rather than as a compliance concern.

'''Impact.''' None realized. This entry documents a risk proactively identified by the student and promptly addressed by Herzing staff, and is retained as an example of the clinical placement office responding effectively when given advance notice.

'''Notes.''' No further action needed. Logged for completeness only. Cross-reference: general clinical placement communication entries in this tracker, for contrast with instances where advance notice was not given or was not acted upon.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation

2026-09-15T16:37:58Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern clinical hour structure, on-site nursing intensives, and simulation-based clinical activities. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article gathers thirteen tracker entries dated between April 30, 2026 and July 26, 2026. Six are rated Medium severity ({{HU|HU-009}}, {{HU|HU-039}}, {{HU|HU-040}}, {{HU|HU-079}}, {{HU|HU-104}}, {{HU|HU-183}}) and seven are rated High ({{HU|HU-084}}, {{HU|HU-108}}, {{HU|HU-160}}, {{HU|HU-165}}, {{HU|HU-165a}}, {{HU|HU-165b}}, {{HU|HU-165c}}). Eight records carry a CONFIRMED status, one carries a CONFIRMED status with sub-points marked for verification ({{HU|HU-160}}), and the four-part cluster beginning at {{HU|HU-165}} carries a POSSIBLE status because it rests on a single unverified account.

The entries split into two clusters. The first concerns clinical hour design and documentation: a handbook policy that labels early departure from clinical as patient abandonment ({{HU|HU-009}}), a 135-hour requirement that does not divide evenly into 12-hour shifts ({{HU|HU-079}}), OB/Peds observation hours completed at a public library ({{HU|HU-084}}), VSIM scheduling that conflicts with full-time employment ({{HU|HU-104}}), a mid-program 50 percent cut to on-site Clinical III hours ({{HU|HU-108}}), and an inconsistency between two clinical courses over whether a preceptor signature or CORE ELMS approval satisfies the hours-log requirement ({{HU|HU-160}}). The second concerns the on-site intensives themselves: late clearance emails issued after students had already booked non-refundable travel ({{HU|HU-039}}), a dispute over whether a staff stamp on a skills validation form counted as a valid signature ({{HU|HU-040}}), a reported scheduling and resource failure at a Nashville intensive that left two validations uncompleted, denied requests to finish them, and a resulting course failure ({{HU|HU-165}}, {{HU|HU-165a}}, {{HU|HU-165b}}, {{HU|HU-165c}}), and a registration window for Fall 2026 Intensive II that opened before students knew their clinical schedules or the Nashville session dates ({{HU|HU-183}}).

Recurring owners across the cluster are the Program Chair, the Clinical Coordinator or Clinical Director, and the Intensive Coordinator, with the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing and Academic Affairs named in the more escalated entries. The pattern that runs through the set is a program design and communication gap between the units that control clinical hours, intensive scheduling, and documentation standards, producing outcomes that fall on students in the form of unplanned travel expense, disputed documentation, lost employment, or a course failure traceable to the program's own scheduling structure rather than to student performance.

== Issues ==

=== HU-009: Handbook labels unlicensed nursing students leaving clinical early as 'patient abandonment' ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Policy Language Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | School of Nursing / Legal / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the handbook labels unlicensed nursing students who leave a clinical site early, without faculty approval, as committing patient abandonment, a characterization that results in a failure of the course.

'''Evidence.''' Handbook p.16: "Leaving a clinical site early, without faculty approval, is considered patient abandonment. This will result in a failure of the course."

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Leaving a clinical site early, without faculty approval, is considered patient abandonment. This will result in a failure of the course.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Patient abandonment is a licensure standard under state nurse practice acts, and it applies to licensed RNs, not unlicensed nursing students. NCSBN standards distinguish patient abandonment from student policy violations. Mischaracterizing the conduct may mislead students about their legal exposure.

'''Impact.''' Students may believe they face licensure-threatening patient abandonment charges rather than an attendance policy violation. Language is inaccurate and potentially coercive.

'''Notes.''' This is a policy language issue with implications for all enrolled students.


=== HU-039: Intensive clearance emails issued only 2-3 days before start of intensive sessions, after virtually all students had already purchased non-refundable flights and hotels ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap / Student Financial Risk
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Intensive Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, intensive clearance emails were issued only two to three days before the start of intensive sessions, after virtually all students had already purchased non-refundable flights and hotels.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (February 27-28, 2026): clearance emails went out the Friday or Saturday before the Tuesday start of intensives. Multiple students had booked flights and hotels weeks in advance, with costs reported ranging from $600 to $900 or more.

'''Reported statement.''' Student E stated that giving clearance three days before the intensive made no sense, since students had already paid for everything, and that a denial at that point should mean a full refund of the roughly $900 already spent.

'''Standards.''' Herzing University Mission: "educate, support, and empower all students for success." ACEN Standard 5. Where institutional processes require students to incur significant travel expenses before clearance is confirmed, the institution bears responsibility for designing a process that minimizes financial risk to students.

'''Impact.''' Students incurred non-refundable travel expenses of $600 to $900 or more before receiving clearance confirmation. A denial at that stage would result in complete financial loss.

'''Notes.''' The university did provide a mileage stipend for some students placed at clinical sites more than 100 miles away, referenced in {{HU|HU-024}}. The same principle applies to intensives.


=== HU-040: Students who had intensive skills validation forms stamped by intensive program staff were subsequently told the stamp did not constitute a valid signature ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap / Documentation Dispute
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Intensive Coordinator / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students who had intensive skills validation forms stamped by intensive program staff were subsequently told the stamp did not constitute a valid signature.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (April 16, 2026): Student AI reported receiving a communication questioning whether her intensive validation form was properly signed, despite a stamp having been applied by intensive staff. Student J and other students confirmed all forms received the same institutional stamp.

'''Reported statement.''' Student AI described the same problem with the form, called the outcome ridiculous given that every proctor used the identical stamp, and questioned how the school could then say the stamp does not count.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: clinical simulation activities must be properly documented. Handbook p.25, Simulation and Skills Lab Standards. If the intensive program issues a stamp as an official form of documentation, that stamp constitutes institutional verification.

'''Impact.''' Students who completed intensive requirements in good faith and received institutional stamps as verification now face potential course completion challenges.

'''Notes.''' The intensive coordinator had previously told students to "not upload" intensive skills validation forms and that "more information will be forthcoming." Absence of clear submission guidance combined with the stamp-versus-signature dispute reflects a broader process gap.


=== HU-079: Clinical hour requirement of 135 hours is not divisible by standard 12-hour nursing shifts; institutional policy requires students to work an additional full 12-hour shift to capture the remaining 3 hours ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Hour Structure / Inefficient Scheduling
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the 135-hour clinical requirement for Clinical III and IV is not evenly divisible by 12, yielding eleven shifts of 12 hours plus 3 remaining hours. Institutional policy reportedly does not allow students to work less than a preceptor's full scheduled shift, so students must complete an additional full 12-hour shift to capture those 3 hours, working 12 times 12, or 144 hours, to meet a 135-hour requirement, 9 hours of unpaid, unaccredited overage caused by institutional scheduling design.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student CB (Oct 20, 2024), from the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export, Dec 2022 to May 2026, Topical/Keyword Review, Volume 6.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CB stated that 135 hours does not divide evenly by 12, that the extra 3 hours force another 12-hour shift because the school does not allow shifts shorter than a preceptor's scheduled shift of normally 8 to 12 hours, and called it pathetic that the school could not make the requirement divisible by common nursing shift lengths.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: clinical workload must be reasonable and aligned with credit hour definitions. 34 CFR 600.2 (credit hour): clinical hours must reflect a reasonable approximation of work expected per unit of credit; requiring a full 12-hour shift to capture 3 additional hours represents unjustified excess workload. Common nursing education practice structures clinical hour requirements to align with standard shift lengths of 8 or 12 hours to avoid this kind of inefficient remainder.

'''Impact.''' Students traveling significant distances for clinical ({{HU|HU-024}}, {{HU|HU-049}}) bear additional unnecessary travel and lodging costs to capture an extra full 12-hour shift for only 3 hours of credit. Students with documented disabilities ({{HU|HU-024}}, {{HU|HU-025}}) face additional fatigue exposure. The institutional rigidity of not allowing shifts shorter than the preceptor's scheduled shift is itself questionable, since the institution sets the requirements and could allow shorter make-up shifts for the residual hours. The "pathetic" characterization reflects student frustration with unnecessary institutional inflexibility.

'''Notes.''' Verification: review of clinical syllabi for hour structure, and the institutional policy on minimum shift length. A simple structural fix, requiring 132 or 144 hours, both divisible by 12, would resolve the issue. The persistence of 135 hours suggests no institutional review of this design despite student complaints. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-033}} for related clinical hour total inconsistencies.


=== HU-084: OB/Pediatric clinical observation hours fulfilled at public library children's section; institutional validation of pedagogically inadequate 'clinical experience' ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Hour Quality / Adequacy
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, OB/Pediatrics observation hours required under the Family Nursing course were fulfilled by a student volunteering in the children's section of a public library, and the hours counted toward the total clinical requirement despite having no clinical educational value for obstetric or pediatric nursing care.

'''Evidence.''' Student H (Dec 12, 2024), from the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export, Dec 2022 to May 2026, Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes, Volume 7.

'''Reported statement.''' Student H described the Family Nursing OB/Peds hours as self-arranged observation only, called the arrangement a bit of a joke, and said her OB/Peds hours amounted to volunteering in the kids section of a library.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: clinical learning experiences must provide meaningful exposure to patient populations relevant to the course objectives. NCSBN Guidelines for Prelicensure Nursing Programs: clinical hours must expose students to appropriate patient care scenarios. OB/Pediatrics clinical hours are designed to provide supervised exposure to maternal-newborn and pediatric patients in clinical settings, not to children in a public library. Counting library volunteering as OB/Peds clinical hours misrepresents the nature of students' clinical preparation to state boards of nursing, which rely on institutional attestations of clinical hours.

'''Impact.''' Students graduating with OB/Peds clinical hours fulfilled by library volunteering have not received the clinical exposure those hours represent. If state boards of nursing require specific clinical hours in OB/Peds settings and those hours were fulfilled by library volunteering, students may not meet licensure requirements (see {{HU|HU-085}} Alabama BON enforcement, {{HU|HU-070}} VA BON hours issue). The requirement that students find their own hours also shifts the institutional obligation for clinical placement to the student, a burden-shift documented across multiple issues ({{HU|HU-072}}, {{HU|HU-081}}).

'''Notes.''' Students found their own OB/Peds observation hours in whatever settings they could access, including libraries, schools, and community programs. The institution accepted these hours without clinical educational value review. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-080}} (mid-rotation clinical requirement changes), {{HU|HU-070}} (VA BON direct-care hours), {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama BON enforcement on virtual hours).


=== HU-104: VSIM virtual clinical sessions scheduled during business hours on weekdays; not all available on weekends; 50 hours of required VSIM hours incompatible with full-time employment the program markets itself to ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Schedule Incompatibility / Marketed Flexibility Misrepresentation
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the MSN-DE program is marketed as compatible with full-time employment, but required VSIM virtual simulation sessions, totaling approximately 50 hours per clinical semester, are not all available on evenings or weekends, and students have consistently used PTO or altered their employment to attend them.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export, Dec 2022 to May 2026, Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes, Volume 7, including statements dated October 26, 2025 through February 16, 2026, among them Anonymous member 840's statement on cohort clinical hour totals and an anonymous member's statement about needing to finish the program before being able to leave a job.

'''Reported statement.''' Student B said VSIM sessions had no set day and had fallen on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays throughout the program. Student BG said the 50 hours of VSIM cannot all be done on weekends. Anonymous member 104 said 40 hours of annual PTO would not be enough and that leaving a corporate job for a Tech/CNA role, despite the pay cut, was necessary for schedule flexibility. Student BF said quitting full-time Monday-through-Friday work and taking on multiple part-time jobs became necessary to keep up, and that they expected to graduate in December 2026. An anonymous member said they could not afford to get fired before finishing the program. Anonymous member 840 said their cohort's Clinical 2 requirement was structured as 50 VSIM clinical hours and 85 in-person clinical hours.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): marketing a program as compatible with full-time employment when 50 hours of mandatory synchronous VSIM sessions are scheduled on weekdays during business hours constitutes a misrepresentation of program structure. ACEN Standard 5: clinical learning requirements must be reasonable in relation to student obligations. Requiring full-time working students to use all of their annual PTO for one semester's VSIM sessions, or to leave their jobs, is not a reasonable clinical design for a program marketed to working adults. Consumer protection principles: students who left jobs or took pay cuts to accommodate VSIM scheduling suffered material financial harm based on a program design that was not adequately disclosed.

'''Impact.''' Students forced to leave professional employment lose income, employer-provided benefits including health insurance, and career continuity. Anonymous member 104 took a significant pay cut moving from a corporate role to CNA. Student BF left full-time work and is working multiple part-time jobs while struggling financially. These are documented, concrete financial harms attributable to a program design incompatibility that was not disclosed at enrollment. The VSIM scheduling issue also compounds {{HU|HU-079}} (135 hours not divisible by 12-hour shifts), since students face both the VSIM scheduling constraint and the extra-shift requirement simultaneously during clinical semesters.

'''Notes.''' VSIM sessions require synchronous attendance during scheduled windows, unlike asynchronous assignments that can be completed at the student's convenience. The marketing of the program as "flexible" and compatible with full-time work specifically targets career-changers with existing employment. The documented pattern of students leaving jobs, reducing to part-time, or exhausting PTO indicates the marketed flexibility does not extend to the clinical components of the program. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-096}} (extreme workload), {{HU|HU-079}} (clinical hour structure), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis), {{HU|HU-046}} (enrollment misrepresentation).


=== HU-108: 3rd semester on-site clinical hours reduced 50% mid-program (90 hours to 45 hours) without student consent; virtual hours substituted; students enrolled under 90-hour expectation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Program Clinical Hour Reduction
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Clinical Coordinator / Curriculum Committee
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, third-semester Clinical III on-site hours were reduced from 90 to 45, with the remaining hours fulfilled by virtual simulation, a 50 percent reduction in direct patient care hours implemented mid-program without advance disclosure to enrolled students. This finding is distinct from {{HU|HU-080}} (mid-rotation requirement changes): {{HU|HU-080}} documents changes to the type of clinical hours; {{HU|HU-108}} documents a quantitative 50 percent reduction in on-site hours for an entire semester.

'''Evidence.''' Student H (Oct 3, 2024), from the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export, Dec 2022 to May 2026, Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes, Volume 7. No announcement email or formal program modification notice is referenced in the Facebook archive.

'''Reported statement.''' Student H said third semester now carries 45 on-site hours with the rest virtual, and noted the requirement had recently been changed from what used to be 90 on-site hours.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): students who enrolled expecting 90 on-site clinical hours in semester 3 experienced materially different clinical training than disclosed. ACEN Standard 4: clinical learning experiences must meet established hour requirements; unilateral reduction of on-site hours mid-program without regulatory review or student notification constitutes a curriculum design change with potential accreditation implications. NCSBN Guidelines for Prelicensure Programs: direct patient care hours are a foundational clinical training requirement, and substituting virtual simulation for on-site hours requires regulatory approval in most state BON jurisdictions. State BON implications: if a state BON approved the program based on 90 on-site hours in semester 3 and the institution reduced those hours to 45 without BON notification, the program may not comply with the approved curriculum, potentially affecting student NCLEX eligibility (see {{HU|HU-085}}, Alabama BON enforcement).

'''Impact.''' Students who completed Clinical III with 45 on-site hours received significantly less direct patient care experience than their predecessors or than the program originally represented. This compounds the virtual hour issues documented in {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama BON enforcement of virtual hour limits). If state BONs that approved the program based on 90 on-site hours were not notified of the reduction, students graduating under the revised curriculum may not satisfy those states' licensure requirements. The substitution of virtual simulation for on-site hours is presented as equivalent, but as Alabama's BON enforcement action demonstrates, regulators do not always accept virtual hours as equivalent to direct patient care.

'''Notes.''' This is the third documented mid-program clinical structure change: {{HU|HU-080}} (type of hours changed mid-rotation), {{HU|HU-083}} (assessment regime eliminated), {{HU|HU-108}} (on-site hours cut 50 percent). The pattern establishes that material program changes are made unilaterally and implemented on enrolled students without their consent. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-080}} (mid-rotation hour type changes), {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama BON enforcement), {{HU|HU-083}} (milestones elimination), {{HU|HU-010}} (exit exam benchmark can change at any time).


=== HU-160: Clinical hours documentation requirement applied inconsistently between NSG 522 (Clinical I) and NSG 525 (Clinical II); current-term faculty required both a signed Log of Clinical Hours and CORE ELMS approval and described the prior accepted method as a student failure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED (cross-term inconsistency and faculty characterization documented; sub-points in Notes marked for verification)
|-
! Issue type
| Policy Inconsistency / Compliance Risk: clinical hours documentation method differed between NSG 522 and NSG 525 (with ADA overlay)
! Date added
| 2026-06-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing (Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP); Department Chair (Dr. Raywattie Prashad); Clinical faculty (Dr. Heather Gregg); Clinical Director (Rachel Powell)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, a clinical hours documentation method accepted in NSG 522 (Clinical I, prior term), namely CORE ELMS verification with the log and without a separate preceptor signature, was not accepted in NSG 525 (Clinical II, current term), where faculty stated that both a preceptor-signed log and CORE ELMS approval are program requirements and that the student failed to present the form for the preceptor to sign during the clinical experience (H. Gregg, personal communication, June 5, 2026). The reporting student states the prior term required only the log when hours were in ELMS, that the prior course was run by Clinical Director Rachel Powell, and that Dr. Prashad told him to enter her name so she could verify in CORE ELMS (The reporting student, personal communication, June 5, 2026). The change in documentation method was not communicated in advance, and a documented institutional inconsistency was attributed to the student as a failure. This concerns the same student and the same Summer 2026 clinical sequence as the NSG 521 grade-change issue logged at {{HU|HU-159}}.

'''Evidence.''' Current term (NSG 525): faculty stated both a signed log and CORE ELMS approval are required and that the student did not present the form for signature, and earlier stated the hours sheet could be made a PDF for the preceptor to sign and upload (H. Gregg, personal communication, June 5, 2026). Prior term (NSG 522): the student states CORE ELMS verification was accepted with only the log, no separate signature, under Clinical Director Rachel Powell (The reporting student, personal communication, June 5, 2026). Prior-term written confirmation: Canvas feedback confirms the NSG 522 hours were accepted and the requirement met (R. Powell, personal communication, May 5, 2026). Prior-term log on its face: the NSG 522 Log of Clinical Hours shows blank preceptor-signature fields for most dated rows and a blank Faculty Signature line, with typed names rather than signatures in two later rows, Dr. Prashad and Tiffany Miller; the Student Signature is present and dated May 5, 2026 (Log of Clinical Hours, NSG 522, 2026). Handbook: defines clinical rotations, attendance, and documentation duties and assigns the final course grade to faculty, but the sections reviewed do not specify the hours-log verification method or require both methods (Herzing University, 2026). Source Group: email thread, ClinicalII (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16, via Canvas and Outlook, June 5, 2026, participants Heather Gregg, the reporting student, Raywattie Prashad, Stephanie Black, and Rachel Powell; the NSG 522 Clinical I Log of Clinical Hours (the reporting student, Student Signature dated 5 May 2026); Canvas SpeedGrader feedback by Rachel Powell, May 5, 2026; Prelicensure Program Student Handbook (SICCED09255468); all provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Faculty (NSG 525): "obtaining both a signed log and approval in CORE ELMS may feel redundant. However, both are program requirements"; and "having the necessary forms available for the preceptor to review and sign during the clinical experience, which you failed to do" (H. Gregg, personal communication, June 5, 2026). Clinical Director (NSG 522): "This confirms all clinical hours have been account for and the student has met the requirements for NSG 522" (R. Powell, personal communication, May 5, 2026). Student: "Last term in clinical they accepted the CORE ELMS as meeting the verification requirements and only required the log, they did not require the actual signature if it was in ELMS" (The reporting student, personal communication, June 5, 2026).</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Institutional policy: the handbook provides that extenuating circumstances will be reviewed and considered by the instructor and the program chair, which is in tension with a no-exception application here, and it does not specify the hours-log verification method or require both a signed log and CORE ELMS approval (Herzing University, 2026). Accreditation: ACEN standards require that program and clinical evaluation policies be published, applied consistently, and communicated to students in advance (Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing [ACEN], 2023); confirm the exact ACEN standard numbering against the current ACEN Standards and Criteria. HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity): policies are applied fairly and consistently. Federal administrative capability and notice: 34 CFR 668.14. Disability law overlay, since the student invoked accommodations in this thread: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and 34 CFR 104.44; the Americans with Disabilities Act Title III, 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq.; and the interactive-process obligation discussed in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985). These citations identify standards potentially at issue and are not a legal conclusion. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-125}} (accommodation invocation characterized as a request) and {{HU|HU-004}} (interactive process not completed).

'''Impact.''' Fulfillment of the Unit 3 Clinical Hours Report, due Sunday per the thread, now depends on the preceptor's after-the-fact availability, which the student does not control, because a method accepted in NSG 522 was not accepted in NSG 525 and the change was not communicated in advance (H. Gregg; The reporting student, personal communications, June 5, 2026). The preceptor is reported to travel about five hours each week for the placement, which further limits a timely signature (The reporting student, personal communication, June 5, 2026). A faculty member attributed an institutional inconsistency to the student as a failure, which risks an unwarranted late or zero grade and conflicts with the prior-term written confirmation that requirements were met (R. Powell, personal communication, May 5, 2026). The Dean of Prelicensure Nursing was out of office until Monday, June 15, 2026, so a time-sensitive, accommodation-relevant matter risks going unaddressed before the deadline (S. Black, personal communication, June 5, 2026; see {{HU|HU-158}}). Consistent with a documented pattern of cross-section inconsistency and shifting requirements ({{HU|HU-033}}, {{HU|HU-040}}, {{HU|HU-126}}, {{HU|HU-128}}) and the retroactive supersession framing in {{HU|HU-064}}.

'''Notes.''' Sub-points to verify, kept separate from the CONFIRMED core: (a) the statement that Dr. Prashad instructed the student to enter her name for CORE ELMS verification is documented as the student's account and should be independently corroborated (The reporting student, personal communication, June 5, 2026); (b) whether a late or zero grade is ultimately applied; (c) the exact NSG 522 and NSG 525 syllabus language on hours-log verification. Recommended follow-up: obtain and attach the NSG 522 and NSG 525 syllabi and clinical-documentation instructions; request written confirmation from Dr. Prashad and Rachel Powell of the method accepted in NSG 522; ask NSG 525 to honor the prior method or grant a reasonable extension tied to preceptor availability under the handbook extenuating-circumstances provision and the invoked accommodations; ask faculty to correct the failure characterization; escalate in writing to the Dean and the ADA coordinator noting the June 15 return; preserve the email thread, the Canvas feedback screenshot, and the log as exhibits. Platform-naming inconsistency is also visible across the program: CORE ELMS appears here, while Clinician Nexus, Complio, and MyClinicalExchange appear elsewhere (see {{HU|HU-092}}). Cross-references: {{HU|HU-004}}, {{HU|HU-033}}, {{HU|HU-040}}, {{HU|HU-064}}, {{HU|HU-125}}, {{HU|HU-126}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-155}}, {{HU|HU-158}}, {{HU|HU-159}}. APA 7 note: the emails and the Canvas feedback are personal communications, cited in text only and not in a reference list.


=== HU-165: Lead: an anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443) describes a scheduling and resource failure at the NSG 122 nursing intensive in Nashville, which left two validations (IV Infusion and Parenteral Medication Administration) uncompleted through no fault of the reporter; accommodation requests to finish were denied; Herzing determined the reporter failed NSG 122 and must repeat the course and intensive; a circumstances appeal was denied; and the reporter faces additional tuition as a single mother paying out of pocket; see HU-165a through HU-165e ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (scheduling and resource failure at nursing intensive; accommodation denied; course failure; appeal denied; financial impact; unverified third-party account)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Intensive Program Staff (Nashville) / Academic Affairs (names not provided by the reporter)
|}
'''Finding.''' This is the lead entry for a reported account by an anonymous student, Anonymous member 443, who attended the NSG 122 nursing intensive in Nashville. According to the tracker, the reporter states that on the final day of the intensive two validations remained, IV Infusion and Parenteral Medication Administration, that required simulation activities had occupied most of the day, and that by the time those activities ended, instructors and students were occupied with other evaluations and some skills required a second participant, creating further delays. The reporter states she was ultimately told time had run out, that her requests to stay longer or return the following morning were denied, and that upon returning home she learned Herzing had determined she failed NSG 122 and must repeat the course and the intensive. A circumstances appeal was denied. The reporter also reports that she became emotional during a remediation session and found some staff interactions discouraging. She passed the Fundamentals HESI with a score of 1225 and completed many other required skills. The account is the reporter's own and is unverified; it is recorded here evidence-first for review. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-165a}} (the structural scheduling and resource failure that left no time for the final two validations), {{HU|HU-165b}} (denied accommodation requests to finish), {{HU|HU-165c}} (course failure and mandatory repeat imposed based on the uncompleted validations), {{HU|HU-165d}} (circumstances appeal denied), and {{HU|HU-165e}} (financial impact for a single mother paying out of pocket). See each sub-issue for the reporter's statements and the standards raised for review.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' The reporter states the intensive was held in Nashville. Reporter states she passed the Fundamentals HESI with a score of 1225 and completed many other required skills. Reporter states she became emotional during a remediation session and found some staff interactions discouraging; these are noted as contextual welfare concerns not separately tracked. All statements are attributed to the reporter, Anonymous member 443, and are unverified; institutional records, including the intensive schedule, sign-in and completion logs, the appeal record, and billing records, would be needed to confirm. Added 2026-06-06 at the top of the date-added section, newest first. Parts: {{HU|HU-165a}}, {{HU|HU-165b}}, {{HU|HU-165c}}, {{HU|HU-165d}}, {{HU|HU-165e}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-039}} (last-minute intensive clearance emails after non-refundable travel purchased), {{HU|HU-040}} (intensive skills validation stamp disputed as not a valid signature), {{HU|HU-091}} (check-off failures during intensives causing course failures before successful appeal).


=== HU-165a: Reported structural scheduling and resource failure at the nursing intensive: required simulation activities occupied the reporter's final day, leaving insufficient time for the two remaining validations, and instructor and partner unavailability created additional delays outside the reporter's control ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Structural Scheduling and Resource Failure at Intensive (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Intensive Program Staff (Nashville)
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, the reporter states that on the final day of the intensive she still had two validations remaining, IV Infusion and Parenteral Medication Administration. She states she spent a large part of the day in required simulation activities, and that by the time those ended, many instructors and students were occupied with other evaluations. She also states that some skills required another participant, creating additional delays. She describes continuing to try to complete everything throughout the intensive, participating in remediation when requested, and practicing independently.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, provided by the reporting student, describing required simulation activities occupying the final day, instructor and student unavailability, and partner-dependency delays.

'''Reported statement.''' The reporter, Anonymous member 443, states she spent much of the day in required simulation activities, and that by the time she was free to complete the remaining skills, most instructors and students were occupied with other evaluations, with some skills also requiring a second participant, which added further delay.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under administrative-capability expectations (34 CFR 668.14): an institution is responsible for structuring an assessment program that provides students a fair opportunity to complete required evaluations; HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement); ACEN Standard 4.6 (evaluation methodologies are varied, regularly reviewed, and reflect current evidence-based practices). If the intensive schedule required simulation activities that structurally displaced time needed for skills validations, the scheduling design is a program-integrity concern. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-165}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the reporter was prevented from completing two validations not by refusal or inability but by the program's own scheduling structure and resource constraints.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-165}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.


=== HU-165b: Reported denial of accommodation requests to complete the remaining validations: the reporter states she asked to stay a little longer or to return the following morning, but both requests were denied ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Requests Denied at Intensive (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Intensive Program Staff (Nashville)
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, the reporter states that after being told time had run out she asked if she could stay a little longer or return the following morning to complete the two remaining validations, but both requests were denied. The reporter describes this in the context of having already participated in required activities all day, having engaged in remediation when requested, and having completed many other skills.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, provided by the reporting student, describing the request to stay longer or return the following morning and the denial of both requests.

'''Reported statement.''' The reporter, Anonymous member 443, states she asked to stay a little longer or return the following morning, and that both requests were denied.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including fair academic standards and processes) and administrative-capability expectations (34 CFR 668.14). Denying a student any opportunity to complete validations that were unreached due to required program activities and resource constraints, rather than the student's unwillingness, is a fair-process concern. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-165}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the denial of any accommodation removed what could have been a straightforward remedy to a scheduling failure, converting a logistical problem into a course failure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-165}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.


=== HU-165c: Reported course failure and mandatory course and intensive repeat imposed because the two validations were not completed before the intensive ended, when the non-completion was caused by required activities and resource unavailability rather than student performance ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Course Failure and Mandatory Repeat Based on Scheduling-Driven Non-completion (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Affairs / Intensive Program
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, the reporter states that after returning home she learned that because the two validations were not completed before the intensive ended, Herzing determined she had failed NSG 122 and must repeat the course and the intensive. She notes she had passed her Fundamentals HESI with a score of 1225 and had successfully completed many other required skills, and that her concern was never about refusal or unwillingness to complete the work but about not being given the opportunity to finish.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, provided by the reporting student, describing the course-failure determination and mandatory repeat, and the reporter's statement of her HESI score of 1225 and completion of other skills as evidence of engagement.

'''Reported statement.''' The reporter, Anonymous member 443, states she learned that Herzing determined she failed NSG 122 and must repeat the course and the intensive because the two validations were not completed before the intensive ended, and that her concern is not being given the opportunity to finish the final two validations before the intensive ended.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under administrative-capability expectations (34 CFR 668.14), HLC Criterion 2.A (fair and consistent academic standards), and ACEN Standard 4.6 (evaluation methodologies). Imposing a course failure and mandatory repeat where the non-completion is traceable to the program's own scheduling structure and resource constraints, rather than the student's performance or conduct, is a program-integrity and fairness concern. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-165}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the reporter faces repeating a full course and a full intensive, with the associated time, academic-standing, and financial consequences, for a failure attributable to the program's design rather than her performance.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-165}} (lead). Reporter states she passed the Fundamentals HESI with a score of 1225 and completed many other required skills. Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.


=== HU-183: Fall 2026 Intensive II registration opened without students knowing their clinical schedule and without Nashville specific session dates provided, undermining an informed registration decision ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Registration Process Requires a Decision Before Necessary Scheduling Information Is Available
! Date added
| 2026-07-26
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Intensives Online team / Savannah Wilcox (Intensive Student Coordinator, Brookfield) / Catherine Gray (Intensive Student Coordinator, Nashville)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, on July 23, 2026, Herzing's Intensives Online team opened registration for the Fall 2026 Intensive II sessions, giving students six weeks to select a session, with registration closing August 31, 2026, or sooner if any session reached its 36-student capacity. The announcement listed six Brookfield, Wisconsin session date ranges (single week and dual weekend formats) running from November 9, 2026 through December 10, 2026, and associated hotel information, but did not include specific Nashville session dates in the body of the email, even though a Nashville-based Student Coordinator, Catherine Gray, was listed as a point of contact. The reporting student replied the same evening that he did not yet know his clinical schedule and could not sign up for an intensive session without it, and separately noted that he did not see dates listed for the Nashville campus. The email acknowledged that intensives and clinical experiences are separate requirements handled by separate teams that cannot assist with each other's scheduling questions, which does not resolve the practical problem of needing both schedules to make a single, informed registration choice within a capacity-limited, first-come, first-served window.

'''Evidence.''' Email, Intensives Online to students, Jul 23, 2026, 7:06 PM: intensive registration announcement, six-week registration window closing August 31, 2026, 36-student session capacity, and six listed Brookfield session date ranges. The reporting student, email reply, Jul 24, 2026, 9:41 PM: statement that he could not schedule without knowing his clinical schedule and that he did not see dates for the Nashville campus. Source Group: email thread, subject Fall 2026, Brookfield, WI: Intensive II Registration Now Open, Important Information and Next Steps, from Intensives Online (Herzing University) to students, Thu Jul 23, 2026, 7:06 PM, with attachments (Brookfield Student Intensive Frequently Asked Questions, Intensives Signup Instructions for Online Students); the reporting student reply, Fri Jul 24, 2026, 9:41 PM; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>How are we supposed to schedule this when we do not yet have our clinical schedule? Also, I don't see the dates for the Nahville campus.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including coordination of institutional processes so students can reasonably comply with them) and HLC Criterion 2.A (clear and accurate communication to students). A capacity-limited, deadline-driven registration process that depends on information the institution's own separate clinical scheduling team has not yet released risks students making uninformed choices or losing a preferred session slot through no fault of their own. Cross-reference the existing clinical schedule instability entries in this tracker for the broader pattern of short-notice clinical scheduling.

'''Impact.''' Students, including the reporting student, risk registering for an intensive session that conflicts with a clinical schedule not yet released, or delaying registration until a preferred session fills to capacity given the 36-student-per-session limit and first-come, first-served structure. This compounds the previously documented pattern in this tracker of short-notice and shifting clinical scheduling.

'''Notes.''' Recommend requesting written confirmation of the specific Nashville campus Intensive II session dates, since none were included in the July 23, 2026 announcement despite a Nashville coordinator being listed as a contact, and requesting that Herzing release clinical schedules before or concurrent with intensive registration windows in the future. Cross-References: the existing tracker entries documenting short-notice clinical scheduling and its impact on the reporting student's accommodation-related planning (the June 4, 2026 meeting group); {{HU|HU-184}} (the related ADA and location dispute arising from this same registration cycle).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity

2026-09-15T16:37:57Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern academic integrity. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article gathers sixteen tracker entries on academic integrity, added between April 30, 2026 and August 4, 2026, with underlying evidence dating from December 2022 through August 2026. Ten entries carry a High severity rating, five carry Medium, and one, the HESI secure browser bypass at {{HU|HU-185}}, is rated Critical. All but two entries are marked CONFIRMED; {{HU|HU-089}} is marked POSSIBLE pending institutional verification, and {{HU|HU-162}} carries a long qualified status describing which parts of the record are confirmed and which require follow up.

The entries cluster around several recurring threads. The lead entry {{HU|HU-026}} and its sub-issues {{HU|HU-026a}}, {{HU|HU-026b}}, and {{HU|HU-026c}} document a single EthicsPoint report about exam-answer distribution that produced no disciplinary sanction, left the accused student eligible for student council, and closed in seven days without apparent access to the primary evidence. A second thread, spanning {{HU|HU-027}} and {{HU|HU-115}}, documents AI-generated discussion posts identified through forensic tracking parameters in citation URLs, in both a program-level report and a named, evidence-specific follow-up report. A third thread traces HESI exam-content sharing from a single cohort ({{HU|HU-037}}) to multiple cohorts and programs ({{HU|HU-051}}) to years of open discussion in a public Facebook group ({{HU|HU-078}}), and on to external commercial actors selling exam answers ({{HU|HU-106}}) and advertising ghostwriting services ({{HU|HU-107}}) directly to Herzing students. Recurring owners across these entries include the Senior Director of Academic Operations, the Program Chair, and the Academic Integrity Office, with Elsevier and ProctorU named as owners on the HESI-platform findings at {{HU|HU-185}}.

The remaining entries address the mechanics of academic evaluation itself: unauthorized recording of faculty lectures ({{HU|HU-065}}), open-book and unproctored prerequisite test-out exams ({{HU|HU-086}}), a single report of a faculty member editing a student's submitted work ({{HU|HU-089}}), the university's use of Turnitin without documented student notice or consent ({{HU|HU-162}}), and a demonstrated security bypass in the HESI secure examination browser ({{HU|HU-185}}). Taken together, the entries describe a pattern in which documented integrity concerns, whether student misconduct or institutional and vendor process gaps, are frequently acknowledged but not consistently enforced or corrected.

== Issues ==

=== HU-026: Lead: the reporting student reported Student G, Student AT, and Student T for distributing exam and EAQ answers and copyrighted textbook content ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (disciplinary process, governance eligibility, investigation adequacy)
! Date added
| 2026-04-30 (Updated 2026-05-05) (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Senior Director Academic Operations / ADA Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for an EthicsPoint report filed by the reporting student on September 18, 2025 against Student G, Student AT, and Student T, documenting unauthorized distribution of exam and EAQ answers through a Notion workspace, distribution of copyrighted textbook content (Yoder-Wise, Elsevier), Discord and GroupMe groups operating as answer banks, and unauthorized recording of faculty lectures. The downstream institutional problems are tracked separately: {{HU|HU-026a}} (the report produced no disciplinary sanction), {{HU|HU-026b}} (the accused student was confirmed eligible for student council despite the documented report), and {{HU|HU-026c}} (the case closed in seven days and the organization could not access the Notion evidence, so the primary repository may not have been reviewed). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Notes.''' Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; the original combined entry is preserved across {{HU|HU-026a}} through {{HU|HU-026c}}. Existing references to {{HU|HU-026}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-026a}}, {{HU|HU-026b}}, {{HU|HU-026c}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-065}} (unauthorized recording), {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation against the reporter), {{HU|HU-067}} (investigation adequacy).


=== HU-026a: No disciplinary sanction was imposed after documented distribution of exam and EAQ answers and copyrighted textbook content ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Disciplinary Process Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Senior Director Academic Operations
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student documented unauthorized distribution of exam and EAQ answers through a Notion workspace and the posting of copyrighted textbook content. The institution required the content to be taken down but imposed no disciplinary sanction on the accused, despite an academic integrity policy that provides for progressive discipline.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint report filed September 18, 2025 by the reporting student ([email redacted]); fourteen files uploaded, including seven PDFs of question-and-answer content and four PDFs of copyrighted textbook content (Yoder-Wise Chapter 3, Ethical and Legal Issues, Nursing Licensure, Bioethical Issues). The reporter states the content was removed but that no sanction followed. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>The university made her take them down but there was no disciplinary action taken. The fact that someone could post the answers to 10 exams and not get in trouble is very concerning.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Student Code of Conduct (cheating, unauthorized collaboration, misappropriation of copyrighted or proprietary material); Herzing Academic Integrity Policy (progressive discipline: reprimand, suspension, dismissal); 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501 (reproducing copyrighted textbook content without permission); ACEN Standard 4 (academic integrity policies must be enforced). Lead: {{HU|HU-026}}.

'''Impact.''' When a documented integrity violation produces no sanction, the disciplinary framework is not meaningfully enforced, and the institution is exposed to copyright liability from the textbook publisher.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-026}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-026b: The accused student was confirmed eligible for student council with no disciplinary sanctions on record ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Governance Eligibility Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30 (Updated 2026-05-05) (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Communications Coordinator / Academic Operations
|}
'''Finding.''' After the integrity report, the accused student ran for student council and was confirmed eligible by an advisor because no disciplinary sanctions were on record. Brooke Weishaar-Price (Student Communications Coordinator) confirmed the student remained eligible, and Dr. Laban was copied on the response.

'''Evidence.''' Reporter's account that the accused is now running for student council and was eligible with no disciplinary sanctions per an advisor. Student email to Emilie Thompson and Danielle Laban; Brooke Weishaar-Price confirmed eligibility; Dr. Laban CC'd on the response. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I know this because that student is now running for student council and according to one of the advisors, she was eligible and did not have any disciplinary sanctions.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Academic Integrity Policy and Student Code of Conduct (eligibility for student leadership presumes the absence of unaddressed integrity violations). The accused's continued eligibility reflects the absence of any sanction recorded under {{HU|HU-026a}}. Lead: {{HU|HU-026}}.

'''Impact.''' Permitting a student with a documented, unaddressed integrity report to retain student-leadership eligibility undermines the disciplinary framework and the credibility of student governance.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-026}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Directly downstream of {{HU|HU-026a}} (no sanction recorded).


=== HU-026c: The EthicsPoint case closed in seven days with a generic resolution; the organization could not access the Notion evidence ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Investigation Adequacy Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Senior Director Academic Operations
|}
'''Finding.''' The EthicsPoint report was filed September 18, 2025 and closed September 25, 2025 (seven days) with a generic resolution. The organization noted it was unable to access the Notion URL that held the primary evidence and asked for screenshots, indicating the central evidence repository may not have been fully reviewed before closure.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint closure dated September 25, 2025; the organization separately noted it could not access the Notion URL and requested screenshots. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>We were able to meet with the other party involved and address the concerns shared here.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (integrity processes must be applied); 34 C.F.R. 602.16 (institutional complaint handling, relevant to accreditation review). A seven-day closure that did not access the primary evidence raises an investigation-adequacy concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-026}}. See {{HU|HU-067}} (investigation adequacy).

'''Impact.''' If the central evidence was not reviewed before closing, the resolution rests on an incomplete record, which weakens any reliance on the outcome.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-026}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-067}}.


=== HU-027: Pervasive ChatGPT use in nursing discussion posts reported with forensic evidence ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Program-Level Concern / AI Policy Enforcement Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30 (Updated 2026-05-05)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Senior Director Academic Operations / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student filed an EthicsPoint report on December 3, 2025 documenting AI use in student discussion posts with specific forensic indicators: ChatGPT tracking parameters in citation URLs (ref=chatgpt, utm_source=chatgpt) and hallucinated or dead-link citations across multiple courses over several months. Thirteen screenshots were uploaded as evidence. The university acknowledged the evidence but closed the investigation in five days with no individual enforcement actions, stating AI use is intensifying and that not every case gets caught.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (Dec 3, 2025), filed by the reporting student. Filed against: Multiple. Location: Online, W140 N8917 Lilly Road, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051. Alleged violations: Academic Misconduct (ChatGPT to complete discussion posts) and Dishonesty (falsification). Thirteen screenshots uploaded (Nov 27, 2025). Organization response (Dec 8, 2025) called the submissions questionable citations submitted in various courses over the past several months, and stated that AI use is intensifying and the university has taken steps to help students learn how to use it ethically and responsibly. Supplemented by ADA/Title IX Coordinator Emilie Thompson to student (2025-12-02) and student reply (2025-12-03). Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Faculty address the use of AI individually with students when it is recognized, though it is acknowledged not every case gets caught. AI use is intensifying. I uploaded 10+ examples of the ChatGPT referral links in the discussion posts as well as the hallucinated url links.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing AI Policy (Handbook p.12); student code of conduct; ACEN Standard 4.6 (academic integrity policies must be enforced consistently). The university's response explicitly acknowledges that AI cheating is ongoing and that enforcement is incomplete, constituting institutional knowledge of an unresolved systemic integrity failure. 34 CFR §602.16(a)(1)(ix): accrediting agencies evaluate whether an institution has adequate policies and procedures for student academic integrity.

'''Impact.''' If AI-generated content in discussion posts is widespread and unaddressed, it compromises the integrity of student learning assessments that form part of program outcome measurement. Students who complete assignments independently are disadvantaged relative to AI users. For a nursing program, AI-generated posts mean students are not engaging with clinical concepts at the depth required for patient safety competency. Accreditation risk.

'''Notes.''' Investigation closed December 8, 2025 (5 days after filing). No individual enforcement actions documented against any specific students despite thirteen screenshots of specific forensic evidence. The university's response confirms systemic non-enforcement while simultaneously acknowledging the problem. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-068}} (investigation adequacy); {{HU|HU-037}} and {{HU|HU-051}} (broader academic integrity patterns).


=== HU-037: Students systematically shared HESI exam questions, topics, and answers in real time in GroupMe chat ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Systemic Exam Security Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Senior Director Academic Operations / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Students systematically shared HESI exam questions, topics, and answers in real time in GroupMe chat immediately after sitting for exams; the NAXLEX platform allegedly contains verbatim HESI exam questions and was actively recommended.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (September 30, 2025 through April 2026). Students systematically shared exam topic lists and specific question content immediately after testing. Source Group: MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (Sept 2025 to May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AK reported that a specific exam contained questions sourced from Naxlex. Student S reported that Naxlex practice questions had appeared word for word on a prior semester's mental health exam.

'''Standards.''' HESI/Evolve copyright protections (Elsevier); Herzing Student Code of Conduct; ACEN Standard 4; 17 U.S.C. §§106, 501 (copyright). Sharing HESI exam content likely violates HESI/Elsevier's intellectual property rights and the university's exam security agreement with Elsevier.

'''Impact.''' If exam content is systematically shared, HESI exam scores cannot be taken as valid measures of student nursing competency. Students who do not participate in exam-sharing are disadvantaged. Institutional HESI licensing and accreditation standing may be at risk.

'''Notes.''' Exam sharing was conducted openly across a GroupMe channel with 50+ members. This issue intersects with {{HU|HU-026}}, {{HU|HU-027}}, and {{HU|HU-051}}. See {{HU|HU-051}} for cross-cohort scope.


=== HU-051: HESI exam question sharing occurs systemically across multiple Herzing cohorts and programs ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Systemic Exam Security Failure, Cross-Cohort
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Senior Director Academic Operations / Program Chair / Elsevier
|}
'''Finding.''' HESI exam question sharing occurs systemically across multiple Herzing cohorts and programs (MSN-DE, BSN, ASN): students share questions and answers in real time via GroupMe; third-party platforms (NAXLEX, YBG, Studocu) contain verbatim or near-verbatim HESI exam questions; this pattern is documented across at least four separate program GroupMes spanning 2024-2026.

'''Evidence.''' Health Assessment NSG121 GroupMe (March to April 2025) and Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (January to April 2025). Source Group: Multiple GroupMe Archives: Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

'''Reported statement.''' Student AO reported that Quizlet questions used for review matched the material tested on the health assessment exam. Student AK reported that a specific exam contained questions from Naxlex. Student X reported hearing that some questions on Studocu were on the exam. Student AP shared specific question details immediately after testing.

'''Standards.''' HESI/Evolve copyright protections (Elsevier); Herzing Student Code of Conduct; ACEN Standard 4; 17 U.S.C. §§106, 501 (copyright). The breadth of this pattern indicates a systemic institutional failure rather than isolated student misconduct. The institution has an affirmative obligation under its Elsevier licensing agreement to protect HESI exam content.

'''Impact.''' If HESI exam content is systematically shared across cohorts, exam scores cannot be treated as valid measures of student nursing competency at Herzing University. Graduates who benefited from pre-knowledge of exam content may enter clinical practice without the assessed competency the HESI was designed to certify. This creates a direct patient safety risk.

'''Notes.''' This issue extends and expands {{HU|HU-037}} (MSN-DE cohort specific) and {{HU|HU-026}} (HESI answer posting). The cross-cohort scope is significant: the same behavior appears in BSN (NSG121), ASN (MSN-DE Dec 2026), and direct-entry MSN cohorts.


=== HU-065: Student (Student G) recorded faculty lectures without permission after being explicitly told not to ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Unauthorized Recording / Intellectual Property Violation
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Legal Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Student G recorded faculty lectures without permission on at least one documented occasion (Dr. Terri Hayden, September 15, 2025) after being explicitly told that recording was not permitted. When asked if recording was allowed, Student G stated absolutely not but recorded anyway. Recordings were shared within cohort communication groups.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (Sept 18, 2025), filed by the reporting student. Reporter follow-up (Sept 22, 2025) states that faculty asked students not to record lectures themselves and that the individual mentioned recorded without permission or knowledge, even though a professor explicitly told her not to; the lectures took place on Zoom. Source Group: EthicsPoint Reports: Sept 18, 2025 (Report #1); Dec 3, 2025 (Report #2).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Despite faculty expressly prohibiting recordings, lectures were recorded and shared, violating intellectual property rights of faculty and potentially state/federal law. The individual mentioned has recorded without their permission or knowledge, even though one of the professors explicitly told her not to.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Student Code of Conduct: requires respect for faculty instructions, intellectual property, and University resources. P.R.I.C.E. Values (Handbook p.14): Integrity, being honest, ethical, and accountable in all actions. Wisconsin Statute §968.31 (electronic surveillance): Wisconsin is a one-party consent state for recordings, however the faculty member's explicit prohibition and university policy create a contractual and institutional violation. 17 U.S.C. §§106, 301 (copyright): faculty lectures are intellectual property; unauthorized recording and distribution constitutes potential copyright infringement. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): if lecture recordings capture other students' comments or participation, unauthorized distribution may also implicate student privacy protections.

'''Impact.''' Faculty whose lectures are recorded and distributed without consent lose control of their intellectual property. Students who are recorded without knowledge during synchronous sessions have their educational records and participation exposed. The institution's ability to conduct candid, interactive educational sessions is undermined.

'''Notes.''' The EthicsPoint investigation (closed Sept 25, 2025) stated that concerns related to recording lectures and information sharing had been investigated and addressed accordingly, with no specific corrective action documented. The university's response confirmed that official recordings are provided to students, making unauthorized student recordings both unnecessary and explicitly prohibited. This issue involves the same student (Student G) and the same EthicsPoint report as {{HU|HU-026}}. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-067}} (investigation adequacy).


=== HU-078: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group functions as documented forum for systematic third-party exam-content sharing ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Public Documentation of Exam-Content Sharing Across Cohorts
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Senior Director Academic Operations / Program Chair / Compliance
|}
'''Finding.''' A comprehensive review of the public Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group export (1,350 posts and 14,112 comments spanning December 2022 through May 2026) confirms that the group functions as a documented forum for systematic recommendations of third-party platforms containing HESI exam content: Quizlet (specific recommendations of users Handle 9, Handle 8, and others), Studocu (for blueprints and HESI practice tests), NAXLEX (multiple confirmations of verbatim HESI questions), YourBestGrade (referenced for milestone preparation), Bootcamp cheat sheets (uploaded as group files), and Mark Klimek's PDF notes. NCLEX cheat sheets covering Diabetes, Eating Disorders, Growth and Development, Burns, and Analgesics are uploaded as files in the group. Even graduating students recommend these resources as essential, indicating institutional non-enforcement and de-facto cohort-wide reliance.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group export (PostsExporter for Facebook, 1,350 posts including content, 14,112 comments, group ID 689851319336385). Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AM said she used Quizlet sets and Studocu materials for HESI preparation and found the Studocu practice tests helpful. Student AF (Jun 25, 2024) shared Quizlet links and said the sets from Handle 8 and Handle 9 were good. Student H (Jun 30, 2024) said she used YourBestGrade for milestone preparation, that being able to use drug books during the test was the biggest help since there were a lot of pharm questions, and that she also did a lot of practice tests on NurseLabs.com. Student BZ said the Studocu blueprints were spot on. Student N (Aug 29, 2024) advised going to Quizlet because the questions were almost the exact same as the exam. Student CA said the Bootcamp cheat sheets were the best resource for summarizing HESI and NCLEX topics and that she would upload them to the group's files. Student U (Sep 29, 2024) named Quizlet and Studocu. Student AC noted she had been messaged by fake profiles claiming to sell exam answers and that others had commented that exams appeared on Quizlet.

'''Standards.''' HESI/Evolve copyright protections (Elsevier); 17 U.S.C. §§106, 501 (copyright); Herzing Student Code of Conduct (cheating, unauthorized collaboration); ACEN Standard 4.6 (academic integrity policies must be enforced consistently). The comprehensive scope of this Facebook archive, 1,350 posts spanning 3.5 years and 14,112 comments, establishes that the practice of recommending third-party HESI-content platforms is not isolated, hidden, or covert: it occurs openly in a public forum where Herzing administration could reasonably be expected to monitor or be aware. The institution's failure to enforce academic integrity standards consistently ({{HU|HU-026}}, {{HU|HU-067}}, {{HU|HU-068}}) is reinforced by this scope of public documentation.

'''Impact.''' If the institution were to bring disciplinary action against any individual student for using these resources, the action would be unfair given the cohort-wide normalization of this practice across multiple years. The institution's apparent acquiescence to this practice, coupled with {{HU|HU-074}}'s escalation of HESI weighting to 82 percent of course grade, means that grades are determined by exams whose content is publicly circulating, undermining the validity of any HESI-based academic determination. This compounds {{HU|HU-026}}, {{HU|HU-027}}, {{HU|HU-037}}, {{HU|HU-051}}, {{HU|HU-067}}, and {{HU|HU-068}} into a comprehensive program-level academic integrity finding. Graduates who pass the HESI based on memorized question banks rather than nursing competency may enter clinical practice without the assessed skills, a direct patient safety concern.

'''Notes.''' This issue extends {{HU|HU-026}} (HESI answer posting on Notion), {{HU|HU-037}} (in-cohort exam sharing), {{HU|HU-051}} (cross-cohort exam sharing). This entry was generated from a different evidence base (the Facebook group archive) than {{HU|HU-037}} and {{HU|HU-051}} (GroupMe archives), and the systematic pattern across both communication channels strengthens the program-level finding. The exam-sharing pattern documented here is not a student-misconduct issue where individual students can be disciplined, but an institutional non-enforcement issue where the institution has either declined or been unable to address a documented program-wide practice. Verification recommended: institutional review of the HESI exam content security agreement with Elsevier; review of academic integrity enforcement actions taken or not taken; comparison of Herzing graduate HESI scores to cohort NCLEX pass rates to assess whether HESI-based grading reliably predicts nursing competency.


=== HU-086: Open-book, unproctored prerequisite test-outs create foundational academic integrity concern ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Prerequisite Assessment Integrity
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Enrollment / Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' Herzing offers test-out exams for prerequisite courses (A&P I & II, Chemistry, Microbiology, Statistics) at one hundred dollars per exam. Students confirmed these exams are open book, unproctored, and can be completed from home. One student documented passing all four prerequisites without studying, scoring 92, 98, 94, and 96 respectively, noting she used knowledge retained from a recent TEAS exam. Another student took a twelve-dollar Udemy microbiology course before her test-out and passed with a 93. The formal Herzing test-out email documented in the Facebook group does not specify open book; it only states the exam is password protected and warns of technical issues, yet students confirm it is open book in practice, a discrepancy between institutional policy as stated and as practiced.

'''Evidence.''' Formal Herzing Test-Out Email (documented approximately lines 14391 to 14415): does not say open book but warns about technical disconnection, and contains no proctoring requirement. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student CF reported passing four prerequisite test-outs without studying, using retained knowledge from a recent TEAS exam, and stated that each test-out allowed only one try and was 45 minutes for 50 questions. Student J said the exams were open book and not proctored. Student BK told other students the exams were literally open book and to use whatever resources they found helpful. Student K said the exam was 50 multiple-choice questions on very fundamental content, and that she took a twelve-dollar Udemy microbiology course before her test-out and passed with a 93. Student D said the exam was unproctored but timed, and that an 85 percent score was required to pass.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain academic standards and credential integrity. ACEN Standard 3 (Curriculum): prerequisite requirements exist to ensure students have foundational knowledge for advanced nursing coursework; allowing test-outs that can be passed without studying undermines this gatekeeping function. Academic integrity principles: assessments used for credit must maintain reasonable security measures. A one-hundred-dollar open-book, unproctored exam for graduate nursing prerequisites does not provide meaningful academic gatekeeping. 34 CFR §600.2 (credit hour): credits awarded through test-out must reflect genuine competency demonstration.

'''Impact.''' Students entering the MSN-DE nursing program without genuine prerequisite mastery, because test-outs can be passed without studying, are less prepared for high-stakes nursing coursework and clinical settings. Nurses who lacked foundational A&P, Chemistry, and Microbiology preparation may practice with gaps in foundational knowledge. The revenue dimension is also notable: one hundred dollars per test multiplied by approximately four prerequisites and the number of students opting for test-outs represents a significant revenue stream for what amounts to an open-book quiz.

'''Notes.''' The discrepancy between the formal policy email (no open book mention) and actual practice (universally described as open book) suggests either the policy is intentionally vague or students are not being informed of restrictions. Either way, the outcome is functionally equivalent to an open-book assessment. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-078}} (HESI exam content sharing), {{HU|HU-037}} (in-cohort exam sharing), {{HU|HU-051}} (cross-cohort exam sharing), the test-out issue being the upstream entry-point version of the broader academic integrity pattern.


=== HU-089: Faculty edited student discussion board post without consent ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Editing Student Academic Work
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Academic Affairs / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, Student J posted a question, on May 6, 2024, asking whether it was permissible for a faculty member to edit a student's discussion post, and stated she had never had that experience before. According to the tracker, the responding comment associated this with Dr. Holland, who teaches A&P II, a prerequisite course. Whether faculty have authority to edit student-submitted academic work without consent is reported as a concern raising questions about academic record integrity and the authenticity of graded submissions.

'''Evidence.''' [post link redacted], May 6, 2024. Student CQ response (May 7, 2024) asked what was edited and whether Student J had Dr. Holland; Student J confirmed she did. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student J asked whether it was normal for a teacher to edit a student's discussion post, said she had never had that experience before, and confirmed the faculty member involved was Dr. Holland.

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): educational records, including student academic submissions, belong to the student; unauthorized modification may implicate FERPA. Academic integrity principles: graded student work must represent the student's own submission; faculty editing submitted work for grade raises authenticity concerns. If the discussion post is a graded assignment, editing it post-submission affects the graded record without documented institutional authority.

'''Impact.''' If faculty are routinely editing student academic submissions without documentation or consent, graded records may not accurately reflect student performance. Students have a right to know what they submitted and what was graded. This is reported as a POSSIBLE issue pending verification of whether the post was graded, whether edits were documented, and institutional policy on faculty editing of student submissions.

'''Notes.''' Single documented instance; requires institutional verification. Student J's expressed shock suggests this was not standard practice at other institutions she had attended. Dr. Holland teaches A&P II, a prerequisite course, so this may affect prerequisite coursework records.


=== HU-106: External actors actively targeting Herzing students with paid exam-answer sales ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| External Exam-Answer Sales Targeting Program Students
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Integrity Office / Dean of Nursing / IT Security
|}
'''Finding.''' Student AC documented two distinct forms of external exam-answer solicitation targeting Herzing MSN-DE students on October 19, 2024: direct messaging from fake profiles offering to sell exam answers, and open offers in student forums of exam answers for two hundred dollars. This documents that external commercial actors have identified Herzing's MSN-DE student community as a target market for paid academic dishonesty services, indicating the program's exam content and student community are sufficiently known to outside actors to make targeted solicitation viable. No institutional response to this documented solicitation is recorded in the Facebook archive.

'''Evidence.''' Posts appeared in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group on October 19, 2024 and received no documented institutional response or warning to students. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AC said fake profiles had messaged her claiming to sell exam answers, and that she had seen someone offering to sell exam answers for two hundred dollars.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain academic integrity and protect the security of assessment instruments. ACEN Standard 4: assessments must be secure and validly measure student competency. The existence of a commercial market for Herzing exam answers at two hundred dollars per exam indicates that exam content has leaked sufficiently to enable paid resale, a direct exam security failure. The absence of any documented institutional response to the reported solicitation (no warning email to students, no investigation, no security review of exam content) compounds the original breach. HESI exam security: the Herzing-Elsevier contract requires protection of HESI content; external resale of HESI exam answers may constitute a contract breach and an Elsevier IP violation.

'''Impact.''' Students who purchase exam answers gain an unfair advantage over students who do not, undermining the validity of the program's academic assessments. If HESI exam answers are commercially available, the HESI's function as a meaningful measure of clinical competency is compromised, which in turn undermines the validity of Herzing's NCLEX pass rate data. The two-hundred-dollar price point suggests a functioning market, not an isolated incident. The combination of this finding with {{HU|HU-078}} (systematic third-party HESI content sharing in the Facebook group), {{HU|HU-026}} (HESI answers posted to Notion), {{HU|HU-037}} (in-cohort exam sharing), and {{HU|HU-051}} (cross-cohort exam sharing) establishes a comprehensive academic integrity failure across multiple channels.

'''Notes.''' This is distinct from {{HU|HU-078}} (student-to-student sharing within the cohort community): {{HU|HU-106}} documents external commercial actors targeting the program's students. Together they form a complete picture: HESI content escapes the program, enters student-sharing networks, and eventually reaches commercial resale markets. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-078}} (systematic third-party sharing), {{HU|HU-026}} (Notion HESI posting), {{HU|HU-037}} (in-cohort sharing), {{HU|HU-051}} (cross-cohort sharing), {{HU|HU-027}} (AI cheating). Verification recommended: institutional records of any academic integrity investigation triggered by the reported solicitations.


=== HU-107: Academic ghostwriting service advertised directly in Herzing MSN-DE Facebook group ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Academic Ghostwriting Service Solicitation in Student Community
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Integrity Office / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' Lauren Wangu posted an advertisement on January 27, 2025, in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group for homeworkhubwriters.com, describing it as offering professional nursing and medical writing services. This constitutes direct solicitation of academic ghostwriting services to the program's student community, in a forum where students actively discuss assignments and seek academic help. Academic ghostwriting services exist to enable students to submit purchased work as their own, constituting academic fraud. The advertisement appeared during the Spring 2025 semester when students in the program were managing heavy assignment loads (documented at 40 to 100 assignments per week in {{HU|HU-096}}) and expressed frustration with writing-intensive coursework. No documented institutional response to this advertisement appears in the Facebook archive. The advertisement is distinct from legitimate tutoring services (Knack, student-to-student tutoring) also advertised in the group; it specifically offers writing services for nursing coursework.

'''Evidence.''' Advertisement posted by Lauren Wangu in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, January 27, 2025, in the same student community where students regularly share course materials, seek assignment help, and discuss academic strategies. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>homeworkhubwriters.com, professional nursing and medical writing services, posted by Lauren Wangu in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, Jan 27, 2025.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain academic integrity and respond to documented academic dishonesty threats in their student communities. ACEN Standard 4: assessments must reflect genuine student competency. Academic ghostwriting violates the fundamental principle that submitted work represents the student's own effort. The presence of ghostwriting advertising in the program's primary student community, without documented institutional response, indicates either institutional unawareness of the student community or institutional failure to monitor and respond to academic integrity threats within that community. If nursing students submit purchased written assignments, their documented competency is fraudulent, a direct patient safety concern.

'''Impact.''' Students who purchase ghostwritten nursing assignments and pass the program without genuine competency in written professional communication and clinical reasoning represent a patient safety risk. The advertisement specifically targets nursing and medical writing, the exact genre of assignments used in the MSN-DE program. The heavy assignment load documented at {{HU|HU-096}} (40 to 100 assignments per week) and the 80-20 self-teaching expectation documented at {{HU|HU-077}} create conditions where overwhelmed students are more likely to seek and use ghostwriting services. The advertisement's presence in the Facebook group, without removal or institutional warning, may have normalized the option for students who saw it.

'''Notes.''' This finding, combined with {{HU|HU-106}} (paid exam answer sales), {{HU|HU-078}} (systematic HESI content sharing), {{HU|HU-026}} (Notion HESI posting), {{HU|HU-037}} and {{HU|HU-051}} (in-cohort and cross-cohort exam sharing), and {{HU|HU-027}} (AI cheating), establishes a comprehensive academic integrity ecosystem failure: exam answers are commercially available, ghostwriting is advertised, AI is used for assignments, and HESI content is shared across cohorts, with documented institutional non-response across all channels. Cross-reference: all academic integrity issues above. Verification recommended: whether homeworkhubwriters.com can be confirmed as an active ghostwriting service; institutional records of any response to the advertisement.


=== HU-115: EthicsPoint report filed May 7, 2026 reporting Student G for AI-assisted discussion post submission ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| EthicsPoint Report, Student AI Academic Dishonesty with Forensic Evidence
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Integrity Office / Dean of Nursing / NU725 Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' On May 7, 2026, the reporting student filed an EthicsPoint report reporting Student G for using ChatGPT to draft a discussion post in NU725-7D (Nursing Informatics, Canvas Course 54101, 2262A18). The specific post is Unit 1: Discussion, Legal and Ethical Issues in Technology (May 6, 2026, 9:06am). Forensic evidence of ChatGPT use: all three reference URLs in the post contain the tracking parameter utm_source=chatgpt.com, a parameter automatically appended by ChatGPT's browsing feature when a user follows links from within a ChatGPT session. A student manually composing a citation would never produce this parameter. This is the identical forensic marker documented in {{HU|HU-027}}. Student G is identified in her introduction post (May 4, 12:02pm) as a student council representative for the graduate online campus. She also submitted a Unit 1 Introduction post on May 4, 2026 citing the American Nurses Association (2022) Nursing Informatics scope and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas Discussion Post: Student G, NU725-7D Unit 1: Discussion, Legal and Ethical Issues in Technology, May 6, 2026, 9:06am. Forensic URL evidence: all three reference URLs (AACN Essentials Domain 8, HHS HIPAA Privacy Rule, HHS HIPAA Security Rule) contain utm_source=chatgpt.com. EthicsPoint Report Key [redacted], filed by the reporting student, May 7, 2026. Course: NU725-7D, Canvas Course ID 54101, 2262A18. Source Group: EthicsPoint NAVEX Report Key [redacted] (May 7, 2026); Canvas Discussion Post Screenshots, NU725-7D Unit 1 (May 4-6, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>https://www.aacnnursing.org/essentials/tool-kit/domains-concepts/informatics-and-healthcare-technologies?utm_source=chatgpt.com; https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com; https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/laws-regulations/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing University Academic Integrity Policy: submission of AI-generated work as one's own constitutes academic dishonesty. ACEN Standard 4: assessments must reflect genuine student competency; AI-generated discussion posts do not reflect the student's own clinical reasoning or professional communication skills. The utm_source=chatgpt.com URL parameter is a forensic artifact produced specifically by ChatGPT's web browsing feature; it is not present when a student independently locates and cites a source. This is the same evidentiary standard applied in {{HU|HU-027}}, where thirteen screenshots of similar forensic markers were submitted and the university acknowledged that AI use is intensifying. The institutional response to {{HU|HU-027}} was general education with no individual enforcement; this report provides a specific, named, evidence-supported instance that tests whether the institution will enforce its academic integrity policy against an identified individual with documented forensic evidence.

'''Impact.''' Student G is identified as a student council representative for the graduate online campus, a student leadership role that carries expectations of modeling academic integrity. If the institution declines to act on a report with this level of forensic specificity, it confirms the pattern documented at {{HU|HU-067}} and {{HU|HU-027}} (institutional non-enforcement of AI policy). The 5-6 business day review window expires approximately May 14-15, 2026. If no substantive response is received, that non-response is itself documentable evidence of institutional non-enforcement.

'''Notes.''' EthicsPoint Report Key [redacted] must be retained. Follow-up at www.ethicspoint.com or the EthicsPoint hotline after May 14-15, 2026 using the report key and password. The irony of the post content is notable: Student G used ChatGPT to write a discussion post about technology ethics, HIPAA compliance, and the importance of nurses acting with integrity around information systems. The post itself discusses consequences of privacy violations and pause before you click or share culture, while the metadata of the post's own citations reveals the post was AI-generated. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-027}} (program-level AI use pattern with same forensic markers), {{HU|HU-067}} (prior EthicsPoint report closed inadequately), {{HU|HU-068}} (AI EthicsPoint institutional response, general education only).


=== HU-162: Use of Turnitin to screen student work and retention of student submissions in Turnitin's third-party repository ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| POSSIBLE. Turnitin use and the presence of other students' papers in the comparison database are CONFIRMED by the screenshot; the absence of prior consent or knowledge is the reporter's concern and requires verification against the course syllabus, course pages, academic catalog, the enrollment agreement, any Turnitin click-through agreement, and Herzing's Turnitin repository setting.
|-
! Issue type
| Use of a Third-Party Plagiarism-Detection Service (Turnitin) and Retention of Student Work in Its Repository, Without Disclosed Prior Consent or Notice (transparency, FERPA, and intellectual-property concern)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Office of the Registrar and FERPA compliance; MSN-DE Program Chair (Dr. Raywattie Prashad); course faculty; institutional academic-integrity and data-privacy administration
|}
'''Finding.''' A screenshot of Turnitin Feedback Studio shows a NU725-7I Gap Analysis Presentation (author displayed: Student A) processed through Turnitin with a 19 percent overall similarity score. The matched sources are other institutions' student papers stored in Turnitin's repository: Capella University (13 percent), Faulkner University (6 percent), and Dublin City University (2 percent). This confirms that Turnitin is used to screen student work in this program and that the service retains and reuses student submissions as comparison sources. According to the tracker, the reporter states that Turnitin is used without prior consent or knowledge of students and that student content is uploaded to Turnitin's database without consent. The Prelicensure Student Handbook reviewed does not mention Turnitin, plagiarism-detection software, similarity reports, or the submission or retention of student work in a third-party repository, and its consent provisions address patient or client information rather than student data or intellectual property (Herzing University, 2026). Whether students received notice or consented through the syllabus, course pages, the academic catalog, the enrollment agreement, or a Turnitin click-through agreement is not established by the available evidence and requires verification. This entry documents a transparency, notice, and consent concern and does not assert a settled legal violation.

'''Evidence.''' Turnitin Feedback Studio screenshot: NU725-7I Gap Analysis Presentation, 19 percent overall similarity; match sources listed under Student papers as Capella University 13 percent, Faulkner University 6 percent, and Dublin City University 2 percent, captured June 6, 2026. The Prelicensure Student Handbook reviewed contains no reference to Turnitin, plagiarism detection, similarity scoring, or third-party repository submission of student work; the only consent provisions concern patient or client information (Herzing University, 2026). Source Group: Screenshot of Turnitin Feedback Studio showing a NU725-7I Gap Analysis Presentation (author displayed: Student A), 19 percent overall similarity, captured June 6, 2026; Prelicensure Program Student Handbook (SICCED09255468); provided by the reporting student. The concern is program-level (Herzing's use of Turnitin for student submissions), not specific to one student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Turnitin report header: 19% Overall Similarity; match sources listed as Student papers from Capella University (13%), Faulkner University (6%), and Dublin City University (2%). The reporter states Turnitin is used without prior consent or knowledge of students, and student content is uploaded to their database without consent.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99): institutions must annually notify students of their rights and of the practices affecting their education records, and disclosures of education records to third parties are regulated; whether submitting and retaining student work in a commercial repository is disclosed and consistent with FERPA notice is the question raised. Institutional transparency and academic integrity: HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, ethical and responsible conduct) and HLC Criterion 2.E (clear, fairly applied academic-integrity policies) support disclosing the tools used to evaluate student work. Intellectual property and consent context: the leading federal case on Turnitin, A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009), held that Turnitin's archiving of student papers was a fair use and that a click-through agreement was enforceable consent; the copyright and fair-use question is therefore largely settled in Turnitin's favor and consent can be effected through a click-through, so the live concern here is whether Herzing provided clear notice and obtained or relied on such consent. This entry frames the matter as a disclosure and consent concern and a FERPA-notice question, not as a settled violation. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-159}} (FERPA and records integrity), {{HU|HU-155}} and {{HU|HU-156}} (NSG 521 exam and proctoring), {{HU|HU-092}} (third-party platform integration).

'''Impact.''' If student work is submitted to and retained in a third-party commercial repository without clear notice or disclosed consent, students may be unaware that their intellectual work is stored and reused to evaluate others, and the institution's FERPA notice and transparency obligations may be implicated. Conversely, if the syllabus, catalog, enrollment agreement, or a Turnitin click-through disclosed and obtained consent, the concern is largely addressed; that disclosure is not present in the handbook reviewed and has not been verified elsewhere. Because the concern is program-level and the documenting student is enrolled in NU725 this term (see {{HU|HU-159}}), it may affect his own submissions as well, pending verification of the disclosure and repository settings.

'''Notes.''' Verification recommended: whether the NU725 syllabus, course pages, academic catalog, enrollment agreement, or a Turnitin click-through agreement disclose Turnitin use and the submission or retention of student work in Turnitin's repository, and whether students consented; Herzing's Turnitin repository configuration, specifically whether submissions are stored in the standard paper repository, an institutional repository, or set to no repository; whether and how students may opt out or request removal. Scope note: this is program-level evidence; the screenshot shows another student's NU725-7I assignment (author displayed: Student A), and the documenting student's enrollment in NU725 is context. Recommended follow-up: request the institution's Turnitin and academic-integrity policy and its FERPA annual notice; request the repository setting; preserve the screenshot as an exhibit. The matter is framed as transparency, notice, and consent, with the copyright and fair-use question already resolved in Turnitin's favor by A.V. v. iParadigms (4th Cir. 2009). Cross-references: {{HU|HU-092}}, {{HU|HU-155}}, {{HU|HU-156}}, {{HU|HU-159}}. APA 7 note: the screenshot and the reporter statement are treated as personal communications, cited in text only and not in a reference list.


=== HU-185: The HESI secure examination browser permits in-exam access to outside reference content and a complete bypass out of the locked exam ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED; demonstrated live by the reporting student during a screen share and directly observed and acknowledged by the Elsevier representative on the call
|-
! Issue type
| Examination Lockdown Browser Security Failure Permitting Outside Resource Access and Desktop Bypass
! Date added
| 2026-08-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Elsevier / HESI product and technology teams; ProctorU (Meazure Learning); Herzing University academic leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' During joint troubleshooting on August 4, 2026, the reporting student demonstrated, on screen share, that within the HESI secure examination browser a student can click a word in an exam item and receive a macOS dictionary and thesaurus panel displaying the definition of that term. The same panel offers a Siri Knowledge option which renders full Wikipedia article content. The reporting student further demonstrated that selecting the Wikipedia option launches the article in Google Chrome outside the locked browser, at which point he had complete access to his computer, and that he could then return to the still-open exam via the application dock or the application switcher and repeat the cycle. He demonstrated this behavior on the legacy secure browser and stated it also occurred on the newer secure browser he was asked to load during the same call. The Elsevier representative observed the dictionary panel on the shared screen, stated that the behavior should not occur, said he was raising it within his internal group chat and updating an open ticket with his technology team, and thanked the reporting student for surfacing it. The reporting student noted on the call that a live ProctorU proctor watching the screen would likely observe such activity, but that the lockdown browser is itself the control intended to prevent access to outside resources, and that a student testing without an attentive live proctor would face no barrier at all.

'''Evidence.''' Recorded call and transcript, August 4, 2026. The reporting student demonstrated the dictionary and thesaurus panel appearing within the secure browser, demonstrated Siri Knowledge rendering Wikipedia content, and demonstrated launching a Wikipedia article into Google Chrome and returning to the open exam. The Elsevier representative acknowledged the behavior on the call, stated it should not be occurring, and stated he was escalating internally and updating a technology ticket. The reporting student also recorded a short screen capture of the behavior during the call and emailed it to the Elsevier representative after an in-call screen share attempt failed due to an external sharing restriction. Source Group: Recorded video call, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who joined near the end of the call; transcript provided by the reporting student. Speaker attribution in the automated transcript is inconsistent and the same speaker is labeled variously; the substance is clear but individual lines should be attributed by reference to the underlying recording rather than to transcript speaker labels.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I was able to completely bypass and go out of the lockdown browser into Google Chrome while I was showing him, and access the dictionary, and I had complete control over my computer during this time. [Elsevier representative:] that stuff should not be showing.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including the integrity of academic assessment) and 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including adequate oversight of third party vendors performing core institutional functions). Compare against Herzing's published Student Code of Conduct and Academic Integrity policy, which impose obligations on students not to access unauthorized resources during examinations; a proctoring control that does not in fact prevent such access places students at risk of integrity findings arising from software behavior rather than student conduct. Programmatic nursing accreditation standards regarding the integrity and validity of student evaluation are also potentially implicated; the applicable standard number should be confirmed against the current standards of the accreditor for this specific program before being cited in any filing.

'''Impact.''' This is an examination validity and academic integrity risk that runs to the institution and the student body rather than solely to the reporting student. If the lockdown control does not prevent access to reference material or to the desktop, the security assurance underlying every proctored HESI examination administered through this browser is weakened. For the reporting student specifically, the same defect creates the exposure documented at {{HU|HU-186}}, because his accommodation gesture triggers the dictionary panel. The reporting student raised on the call the question of whether other students on comparable devices could reproduce the bypass; that has not been tested and is not established.

'''Notes.''' Recommend requesting written confirmation from Herzing and Elsevier of the disposition of the technology ticket opened on August 4, 2026, whether the behavior has been reproduced by the vendor, and whether any examinations already administered are considered affected. The reporting student's screen capture of the behavior should be preserved as an exhibit. Whether other students can reproduce the bypass has not been tested and should not be asserted as established. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-186}} (text to speech gesture triggering the dictionary panel, arising from the same defect), {{HU|HU-175}} (the underlying accessibility failure and the August 4, 2026 root cause finding), {{HU|HU-188}} (compatibility check calculator defect surfaced on the same call).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process

2026-09-15T16:37:56Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern academic appeals and due process. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article collects ten tracker entries concerning academic appeals and due process, dated between April 30, 2026 and July 17, 2026. The severity mix is seven Medium entries and three High entries ({{HU|HU-165d}}, {{HU|HU-166}}, {{HU|HU-166a}}). Seven entries are marked CONFIRMED ({{HU|HU-016}}, {{HU|HU-090}}, {{HU|HU-163e}}, {{HU|HU-166}}, {{HU|HU-166a}}, {{HU|HU-166b}}, {{HU|HU-166c}}), two are marked POSSIBLE ({{HU|HU-164c}}, {{HU|HU-165d}}), and one entry, {{HU|HU-177}}, carries a mixed status: confirmed as to two written instructions given close together, but possible as to whether it reflects a repeated institutional pattern.

The entries cover several distinct threads. {{HU|HU-016}} concerns an unmonitored appeal-decision email inbox operated by the Academic Appeals Office. {{HU|HU-090}} documents a recurring pattern of Change.org petitions filed across multiple class years and the institutional response of directing students to an individual formal complaint process and a town hall. A cluster of five entries, {{HU|HU-163e}}, {{HU|HU-166}}, {{HU|HU-166a}}, {{HU|HU-166b}}, and {{HU|HU-166c}}, traces a single NSG524 grade-appeal thread involving Dr. Stacey Gombar, Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair), and Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), in which the student was directed to the appeals process and an IT ticket, and in which Bishop and Prashad gave contradictory instructions about the appeal's status within the same thread. Two reported, unverified entries, {{HU|HU-164c}} and {{HU|HU-165d}}, describe misdirection to re-file an already-open or already-approved appeal and denial of a circumstances appeal, both attributed to Academic Advising or Academic Appeals. {{HU|HU-177}} documents a later, separate instance in which Dr. Gombar and Dr. Danielle Laban gave close-in-time, differing instructions about whether a grade appeal was required at all, and asks whether this reflects the same institutional pattern seen in {{HU|HU-166}}.

Taken together, the entries recur around two themes: an appeals channel that is difficult for students to reach or rely on (unmonitored inboxes, misdirection to re-file, denials without apparent engagement with the student's circumstances), and instances where different institutional offices or the same office gave students conflicting or shifting guidance about what an appeal required or whether one was needed at all.

== Issues ==

=== HU-016: Grade appeal response inbox is unmonitored; students explicitly told not to reply ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Appeals Office
|}
'''Finding.''' Grade appeal response inbox is unmonitored; students explicitly told not to reply.

'''Evidence.''' Grade Appeal Decision email (2026-04-24) from academicappeals@herzing.edu, plus the Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468) and Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Important: Please do not reply to this email, as this inbox is not monitored. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Program Chair.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.20 establishes appeals procedures. Standard due process requires a reasonable communication channel at each stage of any appeals process. Redirecting appeal follow-up through the Program Chair creates a conflict (the program chair may be party to the issue) and leaves no clear channel for urgent pre-exam follow-up.

'''Impact.''' In time-sensitive situations (exam at 8 AM, appeal decision at 3 PM the prior business day), no monitored reply channel leaves the student without ability to confirm procedural requirements before the exam.

'''Notes.''' The student sent three follow-up emails over the weekend before the 8 AM exam. No evidence of monitored response to time-sensitive pre-exam questions.


=== HU-090: Recurring Change.org petitions across multiple class years ignored; institutional 'formal complaint process' response characterized as dismissive; pattern of institutional non-response to collective student advocacy ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Pattern of Petition Non-Response
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Provost / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' At least three separate Change.org petitions have been filed by MSN-DE students, each targeting program assessment concerns. First, in September 2024, Student AN filed a petition ([link redacted]) regarding a 45 percent HESI weighting; Herzing's response was to direct students to the individual formal complaint process and schedule a town hall. Second, on December 29, 2025, an anonymous organizer filed a petition ([https://www.change.org/p/remove-the-exit-hesi-benchmark-score]) regarding the exit HESI benchmark, and stated that she planned an EthicsPoint complaint to the Provost. Third, on December 30, 2025, another anonymous filer submitted a petition ([https://c.org/MYjf8ymFCM]) simultaneously to EthicsPoint, Nursing Admin, and Registrar. Anonymous member 157, commenting on December 31, 2025, stated that this happens every semester, that someone always posts a petition, that it will not pass, that the institution will make excuses, and that the class of 2024 had already gone through the same thing without result.

'''Evidence.''' The September 2024 petition link was shared in the group ([link redacted]). Student H, commenting on September 24, 2024, stated that Herzing sent an email in response saying students needed to individually go through the school's formal complaint process, and that they could also attend a town hall. The December 29, 2025 petition is at [https://www.change.org/p/remove-the-exit-hesi-benchmark-score]; the organizer, commenting the same day, stated she planned to speak with EthicsPoint the next day, usually someone in the Provost's Office. The filer of the December 30, 2025 petition stated she had submitted it for review to EthicsPoint, Nursing Admin, and Registrar, and expressed hope for a positive outcome and more equitable and realistic expectations. Anonymous member 157, commenting on December 31, 2025, gave the statement paraphrased above. Source: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous member 157 stated that this happens every semester, that someone always posts a petition, that it will not pass, that the institution will make excuses regardless, and that the class of 2024 had already experienced the same thing. Student H stated that Herzing's email response directed students to individually pursue the school's formal complaint process and noted that a town hall was also offered.

'''Standards.''' HLC Criteria for Accreditation 2.C: institutions must maintain appropriate and fair processes for addressing student concerns. 34 CFR §668.97 (student complaints): institutions must maintain processes to address student complaints. Directing petitioners to an individual complaint process rather than engaging with collective concerns is a systemic response pattern that fails to address programmatic issues raised by multiple cohorts. The recurrence of petitions across multiple class years (2024 and 2025) without programmatic change demonstrates institutional non-responsiveness to documented collective student advocacy.

'''Impact.''' Students who participate in petitions risk retaliation ({{HU|HU-066}}) and invest time and effort in advocacy that produces no programmatic change. The pattern of non-response documented across at least two class years indicates that petition-based advocacy is ineffective at this institution, driving students toward external complaint channels (HLC, state BON, EthicsPoint, legal action), a predictable consequence of institutional dismissal of collective student voice.

'''Notes.''' The town hall response is particularly telling: Student H's dismissive characterization of the response suggests students find the town hall format inadequate for substantive program change. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty and administration non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-067}} (EthicsPoint investigation closed inadequately), {{HU|HU-068}} (AI cheating EthicsPoint response). The pattern of petition, then formal complaint referral, then town hall, then no change, documents an institutional loop that deflects rather than resolves collective student concerns.


=== HU-163e: The burden was shifted to the student through an appeals and makeup process requiring a Herzing IT ticket and weather documentation, for a failure not of his making; faculty acknowledged they cannot set up an additional exam ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Burden-Shift to Appeals / Makeup Process
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' After the failure, Dr. Stacey Gombar relayed that the course lead and program lead advised the student to go through the appeals process to take a makeup exam, similar to any other missed exam, and to obtain a Herzing IT ticket and include the inclement weather in his documentation. This places the burden of an appeal, an IT ticket, and documentation on the student for a missed exam caused by weather and a vendor failure, and it confirms that faculty cannot set up an additional exam directly.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Stacey Gombar email: the course lead and program lead advise going through the appeals process to take a makeup exam, obtaining a Herzing IT ticket, and including the inclement weather in the appeal documentation; Herzing faculty do not have access to set up an additional exam. Source: Dr. Stacey Gombar emails, June 6, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>They are advising that you go through the appeals process to take a makeup exam, similar to any other missed exam. Be sure that you obtain a Herzing IT ticket if you haven't already.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity and fair process); ACEN Standard 4 (fair academic standards). Routing a weather-and-vendor failure through a standard missed-exam appeal, with the documentation burden on the student, is a fairness and recourse concern, particularly where the underlying cause was outside the student's control. Lead: {{HU|HU-163}}. See {{HU|HU-155}} (a separate exam retake that was denied).

'''Impact.''' The student must now expend time and effort on an appeal and an IT ticket, with the risk that the makeup is denied as the NSG521 retake was ({{HU|HU-155}}), to recover from a failure he did not cause.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-163}} (lead). Documented 2026-06-06. UPDATE (2026-07-17): in this same thread, after being routed to the appeals process, the reporting student stated he would submit another grade appeal, describing it as approximately his thirteenth in two terms for a Proctor U issue, and attributed part of the underlying scheduling pressure to Herzing not giving ample notice of clinical schedules. This is offered as corroborating context for the cumulative burden documented in this sub-issue and is not independently verified as an exact count. See also {{HU|HU-182}} (a subsequent, separately documented pattern of chronic ProctorU exam-start delays).


=== HU-164c: Reported repeated misdirection to file a grade appeal that the reporter states was already open, including when she later raised the SAP and GPA problem ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Misdirection to Re-file an Open Appeal (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Advising
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that on more than one occasion she was told to file a grade appeal that she already had open. She states this happened in Week 3 of the disputed term, and again about three weeks after the appeal had already been approved, when she raised that her GPA had not been updated and that she had been placed on SAP. She states she was repeatedly told to address the matter by filing an appeal that was already filed and, by then, already approved.

'''Evidence.''' Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing being told in Week 3 to file an appeal already open, and being told again, weeks after approval, to file a grade appeal to resolve the GPA and SAP issue. Source: Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted].

'''Reported statement.''' The reporter states she was told she needed to file an appeal that she already had open, that she was told to address it with her advisor, that she called and emailed him, that he again told her to file a grade appeal, that she did so, and that it was already approved.

'''Standards.''' Raises a concern under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14) and HLC Criterion 2.A (clear and reliable processes). Repeatedly directing a student to re-file an appeal that is already open or already decided indicates a tracking and communication breakdown. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-164}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the misdirection delayed resolution of the GPA and SAP problem and compounded the reporter's time burden and frustration.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-164}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.


=== HU-165d: Reported denial of the circumstances appeal submitted by the reporter to explain why the two validations were not completed before the intensive ended ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Circumstances Appeal Denied (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Appeals / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states she submitted an appeal explaining the circumstances under which the two validations were not completed, but the appeal was denied. She states she is currently requesting documentation, information about the staff involved, and clarification regarding additional appeal options.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group; provided by the reporting student, describing the submission of a circumstances appeal and its denial; reporter's statement that she is seeking documentation and additional appeal options. Source: Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' The reporter states she submitted an appeal explaining the circumstances, that the appeal was denied, and that she is currently requesting documentation, information about the staff involved, and clarification regarding additional appeal options.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear, fair, and published appeal procedures) and administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14). Denying a circumstances appeal without apparent consideration of the structural and resource factors the reporter describes is a fair-process concern. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-165}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the denial closes the primary internal remedy without addressing the scheduling and resource factors the reporter raised.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-165}} (lead). The reporter is continuing to pursue documentation and additional options. Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.


=== HU-166: Lead: the NSG524 grade-appeal email thread contains a direct conflict within the same thread ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (conflicting appeal-status instructions in same thread; shifting IT-requirement rationale; IT-contact blocking condition for non-technical appeal)
! Date added
| 2026-06-09
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for a cluster of process-integrity issues arising from the email thread responding to the reporting student's NSG524 Mental Health exam grade appeal. In the same thread, Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) told the reporting student the appeal was incomplete and must be resubmitted after contacting Herzing IT, while Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) stated the appeal had already been advanced to the next level for processing based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course. These two responses are directly contradictory within a single thread: one returns the appeal to the student as procedurally incomplete; the other treats it as received and in progress. In the same thread, Bishop also shifted her stated rationale for the IT communication requirement, first citing it as required appeal documentation and then, after the reporting student replied that the issue was not technical, citing it only as needed for tracking purposes. Additionally, the IT contact requirement is being enforced as a blocking condition for an appeal that the reporting student characterizes as a weather and vendor failure with no Herzing technical component. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-166a}} (conflicting instructions from Bishop and Prashad in the same thread), {{HU|HU-166b}} (Bishop's shifting rationale for the IT requirement), and {{HU|HU-166c}} (IT contact required as a blocking condition for a non-technical appeal).

'''Evidence.''' Email thread among Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), the reporting student, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair of Online Prelicensure Nursing); cc'ing IT Support (ServiceNow), Dr. Danielle Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; provided by the reporting student, June 2026.

'''Notes.''' Appeal relates to NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 1, 2026 Summer C, the June 6, 2026 weather-related exam failure documented in {{HU|HU-163}}. Dr. Prashad references the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course. Bishop's first email also cited the technology test assignment as missing; the reporting student replied attaching the test. Added 2026-06-09. Parts: {{HU|HU-166a}}, {{HU|HU-166b}}, {{HU|HU-166c}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-163}} (NSG524 ProctorU weather exam failure; lead cluster), {{HU|HU-163d}} (vendor-institution ping-pong and contradictory explanations), {{HU|HU-163e}} (burden-shift to appeals and IT ticket as directed by Dr. Gombar).


=== HU-166a: Conflicting appeal-status instructions delivered within the same email thread: Shannon Bishop told the reporting student the appeal was incomplete and required resubmission with IT documentation, while Dr. Raywattie Prashad stated in the same thread the appeal had already been advanced to the next level for processing ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Conflicting Appeal-Status Instructions Within the Same Thread
! Date added
| 2026-06-09
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair)
|}
'''Finding.''' In the same email thread, Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) told the reporting student that his appeal was missing two required items and directed him to contact Herzing IT and resubmit. In a later message in the same thread, Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) stated she had already received the appeal, it had been moved to the next level for processing based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course, and asked the reporting student to allow time for it to be sent to him. These two responses are mutually contradictory: Bishop's treats the appeal as procedurally incomplete and returns it to the student for action; Prashad's treats the same appeal as received and in progress, with no reference to the deficiencies Bishop identified. A student who followed Bishop's instruction would resubmit, potentially disrupting Prashad's processing; a student who relied on Prashad's statement would take no further action and risk having the appeal denied for missing documentation.

'''Evidence.''' Shannon Bishop email: "While I do see the exam registration documentation, the other 2 items are missing. Please connect with Herzing IT ... You would then need to resubmit the appeal with this documentation." Dr. Raywattie Prashad email in the same thread: "I received the appeal and this has already been moved to next level to process the link for the exam based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course. Please allow for processing time for this to be sent to you." Source: Email thread among Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), the reporting student, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair of Online Prelicensure Nursing); cc'ing IT Support (ServiceNow), Dr. Danielle Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; provided by the reporting student, June 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Bishop:] Please connect with Herzing IT at assist@herzing.edu and inform them of the situation. You would then need to resubmit the appeal. [Prashad, same thread:] I received the appeal and this has already been moved to next level to process the link for the exam based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear, fair, and consistently applied appeal processes); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including coherent student-services processes). Delivering contradictory instructions about an appeal's status and required next steps within the same thread, with neither party coordinating with the other, leaves the student without a reliable understanding of the appeal's status or what action is required. Lead: {{HU|HU-166}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student is in an active, time-sensitive appeal for an exam failure with academic-standing consequences. The conflicting instructions created immediate ambiguity about whether resubmission was required or whether the appeal was already progressing, with no way to determine which instruction was authoritative.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-166}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party email evidence. Documented 2026-06-09.


=== HU-166b: Shannon Bishop shifted her stated rationale for the IT communication requirement within the same thread: initially citing it as required appeal documentation, then citing it as needed for tracking purposes only after the reporting student replied that the issue was not technical ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Shifting Rationale for a Procedural Requirement Within the Same Thread
! Date added
| 2026-06-09
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor)
|}
'''Finding.''' In her first email, Shannon Bishop listed IT communication as part of the required appeal documentation alongside exam registration proof and the technology test assignment, framing it as a substantive condition for appeal completeness. After the reporting student replied that there was no Herzing IT communication because the issue was not technical, Bishop responded: "I understand, but all ProctorU appeals must have communication with our IT for tracking purposes." The stated rationale shifted within the same thread from a substantive documentation requirement to an administrative tracking requirement. This distinction is material: if IT communication is only for internal tracking, its absence does not affect the merits of the appeal, and imposing it as a blocking condition is a procedural formalism rather than a substantive prerequisite.

'''Evidence.''' Shannon Bishop first email: "For all ProctorU appeals, students must attach proof of the exam registration, the technology test assignment and communication with HU IT." Shannon Bishop second email in the same thread, after the reporting student's objection: "I understand, but all ProctorU appeals must have communication with our IT for tracking purposes." Source: Email thread among Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), the reporting student, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair of Online Prelicensure Nursing); cc'ing IT Support (ServiceNow), Dr. Danielle Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; provided by the reporting student, June 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Bishop, first message:] For all ProctorU appeals, students must attach proof of the exam registration, the technology test assignment and communication with HU IT. [Bishop, second message, same thread:] I understand, but all ProctorU appeals must have communication with our IT for tracking purposes.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity and clear, consistently stated processes); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability). A procedural requirement whose stated rationale shifts from substantive to administrative within the same thread, specifically in response to the student's objection, raises a process-clarity and fair-process concern. The shifting rationale makes it difficult to evaluate whether the requirement is justified in this specific context or to challenge it on the merits. Lead: {{HU|HU-166}}.

'''Impact.''' The shift obscures whether IT contact is genuinely required for a weather-and-vendor appeal and provides no clear basis for the student to contest the requirement or understand its significance.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-166}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party email evidence. Documented 2026-06-09.


=== HU-166c: Herzing IT communication required as a blocking condition for an appeal about a non-technical weather and vendor failure, with no documented Herzing technical issue for the student to have raised with IT ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| IT-Contact Requirement as Blocking Condition for Non-Technical Appeal
! Date added
| 2026-06-09
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Shannon Bishop required the reporting student to contact Herzing IT and provide documentation of that communication as a condition of his NSG524 appeal. The appeal arose from the weather-and-vendor failure documented in {{HU|HU-163}}: the reporting student's internet was interrupted by severe weather, no ProProctor was available for the in-window reschedule date, and the exam was marked a no-show by ProctorU/Meazure. The reporting student states this was not a technical issue with Herzing systems and that there was accordingly no Herzing IT communication to provide. Bishop acknowledged his position but maintained the requirement, citing tracking purposes. Requiring a student to initiate IT contact for an issue that did not involve a Herzing technical failure imposes a procedural step with no substantive connection to the appeal's subject matter and creates a document-production requirement the student cannot legitimately fulfill.

'''Evidence.''' Shannon Bishop email requiring IT communication as part of ProctorU appeal documentation; the reporting student reply: "There is no communication with Herzing IT as it was not a technical issue"; Bishop second email: "I understand, but all ProctorU appeals must have communication with our IT for tracking purposes." Source: Email thread among Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), the reporting student, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair of Online Prelicensure Nursing); cc'ing IT Support (ServiceNow), Dr. Danielle Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; provided by the reporting student, June 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>There is no communication with Herzing IT as it was not a technical issue. [Bishop:] I understand, but all ProctorU appeals must have communication with our IT for tracking purposes.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including fair and proportionate student-services processes); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair process). Imposing a procedurally required step that has no substantive connection to the appeal's facts, and that Bishop herself describes as for tracking rather than for merit review, may constitute an unreasonable procedural barrier to a weather-related appeal. The requirement also places the student in an impossible position: he cannot provide documentation of IT contact for an issue that did not involve a Herzing technical system. Lead: {{HU|HU-166}}.

'''Impact.''' The IT-contact requirement, if treated as a hard prerequisite, gives the institution a basis to deny the appeal for missing documentation even though the missing documentation reflects the nature of the appeal rather than any failure by the student to follow proper steps.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-166}} (lead). CONFIRMED that the requirement was imposed; the appropriateness of its application in this context is the concern. Dr. Gombar also directed the reporting student to obtain a Herzing IT ticket (cross-ref {{HU|HU-163e}}). Documented 2026-06-09.


=== HU-177: Institutional leadership gave contemporaneous, conflicting instructions on whether a grade appeal was required for the July 15, 2026 Exam II disruption documented in HU-175 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED as to the two written instructions; characterization as a repeated institutional pattern is POSSIBLE pending fuller comparison against HU-166
|-
! Issue type
| Conflicting Institutional Instructions on Grade Appeal Requirement
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Danielle Laban / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' On the day of the exam disruption documented in {{HU|HU-175}}, Dr. Stacey Gombar advised the reporting student to complete the Grade Appeal form as soon as possible per policy, and to follow up with faculty or leadership regarding a new exam link if the appeal was approved. The following day, Dr. Danielle Laban's email stated that Herzing would not require the reporting student to go through the appeal process at all, because the disruption was caused by a technical issue outside his control. Both instructions were given in good faith and are not necessarily incompatible if Dr. Laban's email is read as superseding Dr. Gombar's same day advice once the Elsevier root cause was identified; however, from the student's perspective the two instructions arrived close together from two different institutional offices and created uncertainty about which process governed. This is logged as an item for review regarding clarity and consistency of appeal related guidance, not as a confirmed policy violation. This tracker already documents an earlier instance of same thread conflicting appeal instructions at {{HU|HU-166}}; whether {{HU|HU-177}} reflects a repeated institutional pattern or two isolated events should be assessed by comparing the two entries directly.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Stacey Gombar, written recap of their same day phone call: advice to complete the Grade Appeal form as soon as possible per policy and to follow up on a new exam link if approved. Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 16, 2026, 4:45 PM: statement that the reporting student would not be required to go through the appeal process because the impact was due to a technical issue outside his control. Source: Written phone call recap from Dr. Stacey Gombar, same day as the Jul 15, 2026 exam disruption; email from Dr. Danielle Laban, Jul 16, 2026, 4:45 PM.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I advised you to complete the Grade Appeal form ASAP per policy, and advised you to follow up with faculty and leadership regarding a new exam link if approved.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in communications, including clear and consistent guidance to students) and 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability). Compare against the grade appeal procedure published in the current Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, to determine whether the catalog contemplates a technical failure exception to the standard appeal process, or whether such an exception is being applied on an ad hoc basis.

'''Impact.''' A student receiving two different instructions about whether a formal appeal is required, from two different offices within a 24 hour period, risks confusion about deadlines and required steps, and risks either missing a required appeal window if Dr. Laban's waiver is later reversed, or unnecessarily duplicating effort if both instructions were meant to apply.

'''Notes.''' Request written, singular confirmation from Herzing of whether the previously drafted NSG524 grade appeal is still required for this specific exam session or is formally superseded by Dr. Laban's waiver, and request that this confirmation come from the office with final authority over grade appeals. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-175}} (underlying exam session failure), {{HU|HU-176}} (Elsevier acknowledgment and appeal waiver), {{HU|HU-166}} (earlier same thread conflicting appeal instructions; compare directly for pattern assessment).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations

2026-09-15T16:37:54Z

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern the university's handling of disability accommodations under the ADA and Section 504. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article collects 39 tracker entries dated from April 30, 2026 through September 13, 2026. The severity mix skews toward the high end: most entries are rated Critical or High, a smaller number are Medium, and only one, {{HU|HU-003}}, carries a status of POSSIBLE rather than CONFIRMED. The entries cluster around several recurring problems. Proctoring vendor conduct is the largest single thread: repeated blocking of an approved sound machine accommodation ({{HU|HU-018}}), a discrepancy between a 200 percent and 250 percent testing-time accommodation ({{HU|HU-019}}), and a multi-part 2026 pattern of ProProctor unavailability, long connection delays, and a structurally narrower testing window on the only days available to the reporting student ({{HU|HU-163a}}, {{HU|HU-167}}, {{HU|HU-167a}}, {{HU|HU-167c}}).

A second thread concerns institutional communication and accessibility infrastructure: a screen reader incompatible with the Herzing Outlook web email system, a security policy that blocked the only workaround the reporting student found, and a faculty communication directive he could not meet because of his disability ({{HU|HU-005}}, {{HU|HU-054}}, {{HU|HU-054a}}, {{HU|HU-054b}}, {{HU|HU-054c}}), together with a Disability Services contact address that routed through general Admissions ({{HU|HU-006}}) and course content embedded in images that a screen reader could not read, which cost a student credit on a completed assignment ({{HU|HU-021}}, {{HU|HU-022}}).

A third thread is the recurring characterization of approved accommodations as discretionary courtesies rather than legal entitlements, and the practical burden this shifted onto the reporting student: an unauthorized department-chair approval layer blocking a routine extension ({{HU|HU-125}}), an eight-hour clinical accommodation described as honored only "when possible" with a suggested course-failure risk for enforcing it ({{HU|HU-145}}, {{HU|HU-146}}, {{HU|HU-147}}), a written meeting follow-up that memorialized contested points as agreed ({{HU|HU-153}}), a location-exception process that treated a standing accommodation as a case-by-case request ({{HU|HU-184}}), and an acute asthma episode in which the university offered a "one time courtesy" explicitly stated not to be an ADA accommodation ({{HU|HU-197}}). Clinical scheduling and placement accommodations recur throughout ({{HU|HU-024}}, {{HU|HU-025}}, {{HU|HU-135}} and its sub-issues, {{HU|HU-193}}), as do disputes over advance provision of synchronous session materials required by a written accommodation letter ({{HU|HU-189}}, {{HU|HU-192}}) and a software behavior that put an approved read-aloud accommodation at risk of being mistaken for academic dishonesty ({{HU|HU-186}}). The owners named most often across this set are Disability Services and the ADA and Title IX Coordinators (Emilie Thompson for ground students, Rachel Dalmont for online students), Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, and the IT Department, with ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning named as a recurring vendor. The set closes with two entries documenting an active U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights investigation and an updated diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder ({{HU|HU-197}}, {{HU|HU-198}}).

== Issues ==


=== HU-003: Google Remote Desktop flagged by ProctorU; if running due to prior IT support session, removal requirement may be misdirected at student ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Compliance Risk
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Disability Services / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, Google Remote Desktop flagged by ProctorU; if running due to a prior IT support session, the removal requirement may be misdirected at the student.

'''Evidence.''' Grade Appeal Decision (2026-04-24): "Decision Instructions: Please remove software." The user confirmed the software was Google Remote Desktop. (Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.)

'''Reported statement.''' The decision instructed the student as follows:
<blockquote>Please remove software since this is a one-time approval with the knowledge that the software was removed and a clear test it out has been obtained.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' If Google Remote Desktop was active from an IT-initiated support session: 28 CFR §35.130(b)(1), an institution may not impose requirements that shift institutional failures onto students. The ADA interactive process requires good-faith inquiry into cause before placing burden on a student.

'''Impact.''' If the software was running due to IT support, requiring removal shifts institutional responsibility to the student and mischaracterizes the cause.

'''Notes.''' It must be verified whether IT was using Google Remote Desktop for support, or whether the student was running it independently. See {{HU|HU-018}} for related sound machine blocking.


=== HU-004: The reporting student's ADA request for advance notice of testing procedure changes not responded to before exam ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Disability Services / Academic Appeals
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student's ADA request for advance notice of testing procedure changes was not responded to before the exam.

'''Evidence.''' Per the tracker's evidence, student email to academicappeals@herzing.edu (2026-04-25, 2026-04-27, 2026-04-27 second follow-up). The grade appeal response said the inbox is not monitored. (Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I'm going to request an accommodation that if there is any changes to the testing procedures or rules that I'd be notified in advance. I believe this is a reasonable accommodation that complies with the requirements of the ADA.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504; 34 CFR §104.44; ''Alexander v. Choate'', 469 U.S. 287 (1985): institutions must engage in an interactive process with students regarding accommodation requests. Failure to respond constitutes a failure of the interactive process.

'''Impact.''' The student entered an 8 AM exam without confirmation that all requirements were met. The ADA interactive process obligation was not fulfilled. Documented anxiety and panic disorder make unresolved procedural uncertainty particularly harmful.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student has documented Bipolar II disorder, BPD, GAD, Panic Disorder, narcolepsy, sleep apnea, ADHD, and dysgraphia (confirmed in a November 9, 2025 email and October 2025 ADA plan emails).


=== HU-005: Screen reader incompatibility with Herzing Outlook web email interface reported; urgency classified as "inconvenienced" ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accessibility
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Disability Services
|}
'''Finding.''' Screen reader incompatibility with the Herzing Outlook web email interface was reported; the urgency was classified as "inconvenienced."

'''Evidence.''' Per the tracker's evidence, INC0552230 (2026-04-29): IT staff asked clarifying questions about which screen reader and whether the web or desktop version was affected.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I'm sorry for the trouble you've had with screen readers the reporting student. To make sure I'm understanding properly, you mean that when you visit your student email account via the Outlook web page, your browser screen reader is not handling it well?</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504; Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794d): federal contractors and institutions receiving federal funds must ensure electronic communications are accessible. Priority email communications inaccessible via screen reader constitute a systemic barrier.

'''Impact.''' If the university's primary student email system is inaccessible via screen reader, the student's ability to receive time-sensitive academic, financial aid, clinical, and appeal communications is materially impaired.

'''Notes.''' Classified as Urgency 3 (Inconvenienced). Access to official university email is not a convenience; it is the primary channel for all institutional communications.


=== HU-006: Disability Services email contact routes through general Admissions address (admissions@herzing.edu) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Compliance
|}
'''Finding.''' The Disability Services email contact routes through the general Admissions address (admissions@herzing.edu).

'''Evidence.''' Multiple auto-replies (2026-01-31, 2026-02-01): From: Herzing Admissions <admissions@herzing.edu>, Subject: "Thank you for emailing Disability Services at Herzing University."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Thank you for emailing Disability Services at Herzing University. Someone will respond to your email within 1-2 business days.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' OCR Resolution Agreements (multiple) require institutions to maintain dedicated, adequately staffed disability services infrastructure separate from general admissions operations. Routing Disability Services inquiries through Admissions creates confusion and potential FERPA disclosure concerns.

'''Impact.''' Using the Admissions email for Disability Services creates confusion, potential FERPA disclosure risk, and signals inadequate dedicated Disability Services infrastructure.

'''Notes.''' The student sent accommodation emails from both a personal Gmail address and a Herzing email, suggesting possible difficulty accessing primary institutional email (see {{HU|HU-005}}).


=== HU-018: Approved accommodation (sound machine) repeatedly blocked by ProctorU, causing 5+ exam reschedules across semester ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| ADA Violation Risk
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Disability Services
|}
'''Finding.''' An approved accommodation (a sound machine) was repeatedly blocked by ProctorU, causing five or more exam reschedules across the semester.

'''Evidence.''' Official Accommodation Plan (October 2025, from ada@herzing.edu): "Student may use a noise-cancelling headset and/or a sound machine." Student email to Dr. Laban (2026-04-13): "due to Proctor U ID, sound machine, etc issues, I have had to reschedule my exams on 5 different occasions."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Student may use a noise-cancelling headset and/or a sound machine. Headset may not be connected to an internet-capable device.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504; 28 CFR §35.130(b)(7): an institution may not impose criteria that screen out individuals with disabilities from participation in programs. Contracting with a proctoring vendor whose policies block approved accommodations is the institution's liability, not the student's.

'''Impact.''' The student lost five exam-day time slots because ProctorU blocked an officially approved accommodation. Each reschedule represented a full wasted day of preparation, in a pattern of disruption across the entire semester.

'''Notes.''' This is one of the clearest documented issues: the accommodation plan explicitly includes a sound machine, and ProctorU blocked it repeatedly. The institution bears responsibility for its proctoring vendor's accommodation failures.


=== HU-019: Testing time accommodation changed from 200% to 250% with no formal update letter in available evidence ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Disability Services / ADA Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' The testing time accommodation changed from 200 percent to 250 percent with no formal update letter in the available evidence.

'''Evidence.''' Accommodation Plan emails (October 2025): 200 percent time on timed testing. Dr. Laban email (December 2025): "I'm working on your new testing link with the 250% time." ProctorU reminder (2026-04-28): "NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam 2026 Spring C Accommodations 250%."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Additionally, I'm working on your new testing link with the 250% time. Can you please cancel your 12/8 exam at this time while I'm getting the other link set up?</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §104.44; ADA regulatory requirements for accommodation documentation. All accommodation changes must be formally documented and communicated to the student and relevant instructors.

'''Impact.''' If the 200 percent accommodation was insufficient and required upgrade to 250 percent, that suggests the initial assessment may have been inadequate. The informal process of changing via a "link" rather than an updated plan may leave the change undocumented if disputed.

'''Notes.''' The transition from 200 percent to 250 percent in December 2025 apparently was driven by ongoing ProctorU disruption issues (sound machine blocking). It is possible that the upgrade was a workaround rather than a properly assessed accommodation.


=== HU-021: NSG521 course content embedded instructions in images, making them inaccessible to screen readers; student received zero on 6-hour assignment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| WCAG / ADA Violation
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ADA Coordinator / Course Faculty / IT
|}
'''Finding.''' NSG521 course content embedded instructions in images, making them inaccessible to screen readers; the student received a zero on a six-hour assignment.

'''Evidence.''' Student email thread (2026-04-07 to 2026-04-10), including Dr. Soles, Dr. Laban, and Emilie Thompson (ADA/Title IX Coordinator). The student wrote: "I did complete six hours of this assignment and now credit is being refused directly as a result of me using an accommodation for my disability."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>The module is not compliant with the act... I did complete six hours of this assignment and now credit is being refused directly as a result of me using an accommodation for my disability that the university said I would not need to have in writing because all of the modules were compliant with WCAG.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' WCAG 2.1 Guideline 1.1.1 (Non-text content: all non-text content has a text alternative); ADA Title II; Section 504; Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Embedding assignment instructions in images without alt text is a direct WCAG 1.1.1 violation.

'''Impact.''' The student received a zero on an assignment completed over six hours because of inaccessible course content. The academic record was directly harmed by a WCAG violation, potentially affecting course grade and progression.

'''Notes.''' ADA Coordinator Emilie Thompson was actively engaged. The zero was disputed and the ADA office was investigating. The outcome is not confirmed in the available evidence. See also {{HU|HU-022}} for related institutional misrepresentation.


=== HU-022: Student was told at enrollment that screen reader accommodation was not needed because all modules were WCAG compliant; representation was false ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Misrepresentation
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ADA Coordinator / Enrollment / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The student was told at enrollment that a screen reader accommodation was not needed because all modules were WCAG compliant; per the tracker's evidence, the representation was false.

'''Evidence.''' Student email (2026-04-07): "I actually brought this up at the beginning of the semester last semester regarding the use of a screen reader and was told that I did not need an accommodation for that as the courses were already compliant." Dr. Soles response (2026-04-07): "I do not have anything about a screen reader in your accommodations."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>There's an assumption that the courses are already compliant and that they follow the law. There's typically not a need for that accommodation because you don't need an accommodation to use screen reading software unless a professor puts something in a photograph that is unreadable by the screen reading software.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA interactive process obligations; promissory reliance doctrine; institutional duty of honest representation to students. If the university represented that no formal accommodation was needed because of existing WCAG compliance, and that representation was false, the student was deprived of the opportunity to request and document a formal screen reader accommodation.

'''Impact.''' Because the student relied on the university's representation of WCAG compliance, no formal screen reader accommodation was requested. When the module proved non-compliant, faculty had no record of the accommodation, and the student faced a catch-22: no documented accommodation, yet the university had represented one was unnecessary.

'''Notes.''' This represents a systemic institutional failure: misrepresenting accessibility compliance to a student who then suffered academically as a direct result.


=== HU-024: Clinical sites assigned at 4+ hours and 2h39m from student's home despite documented medical need for proximity and prior disability services discussion ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Failure
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Disability Services
|}
'''Finding.''' Clinical sites were assigned at four or more hours and two hours thirty-nine minutes from the student's home despite a documented medical need for proximity of approximately one hour, and despite a prior disability services discussion of that proximity need.

'''Evidence.''' Student email to Christina Kennedy (2026-04-02): "The first site assigned was about 4 hours away, and the current site is approximately 2 hours and 39 minutes from my home on the south side of Wichita. Unfortunately, this distance is not feasible for me given my medical conditions." (Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Managing asthma, sleep apnea, narcolepsy, glucose intolerance, and other health concerns requires significant coordination of equipment, medications, and support. The combination of an 8-hour clinical day with nearly 5 hours of driving is not something I can safely sustain.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504; 34 CFR §104.44; Handbook p. 26: placements must be "within a reasonable distance from the campus or student's address on file." Reasonable distance must consider disability-related medical needs, and the ADA requires an individualized assessment of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation.

'''Impact.''' A student with narcolepsy, sleep apnea, and asthma was required to drive up to five-plus hours round trip for clinical, a safety risk documented in the student's own stated concern about ability to safely sustain the schedule.

'''Notes.''' Dr. Laban and Emilie Thompson were copied on the April 2 email. Executive Leadership had approved a mileage stipend for placements over 100 miles, but the stipend does not address the safety and medical feasibility concern for a student with narcolepsy and sleep apnea.


=== HU-025: Student formally requested 8-hour clinical shifts instead of 12-hour intensive days; no documented response in available evidence ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Request, Unresolved
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ADA Coordinator / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' The student formally requested eight-hour clinical shifts instead of twelve-hour intensive days; per the tracker, no documented response appears in the available evidence.

'''Evidence.''' Accommodation Request email (2025-11-09, from [email redacted] to ada@herzing.edu, emthompson@herzing.edu, ppitts@herzing.edu, rprashad@herzing.edu): "I am formally requesting that my clinical time be scheduled as 8-hour shifts instead of 12-hour shifts for the session I am registered for: Session: 02/23/26 - 02/26/26."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I am not asking to reduce total required hours, only to alter the daily duration so I can participate safely and effectively. With narcolepsy, insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea, bipolar disorder, ADHD, and panic/anxiety disorders, maintaining alertness, emotional regulation, and safe clinical performance across four consecutive 12-hour clinical days presents a significant challenge and potential safety concern.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504; 34 CFR §104.44; ADA interactive process obligations. Duration modification of daily shifts, rather than total hours, is a reasonable accommodation to evaluate. Failure to respond to a formally submitted accommodation request violates the ADA interactive process.

'''Impact.''' The student attended the intensive without knowing whether the accommodation was granted. For a student with narcolepsy and sleep apnea, twelve-hour clinical days present documented safety concerns; no response means no accommodation, and a potential ADA failure.

'''Notes.''' The accommodation was requested on November 9, 2025. The intensive was scheduled for February 23 to 26, 2026. No response is documented in the available evidence.


=== HU-054: Lead: the inaccessibility of Herzing email to the student's screen reader produced three problems; see HU-054a, HU-054b, HU-054c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (three independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / ADA Coordinator / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' This is the lead entry for three independent ADA email-accessibility problems documented in the reporting student's April 28, 2026 email to Emilie Thompson and IT, and Dr. Stacie Johnson's April 27, 2026 directive to the SNA board: {{HU|HU-054a}} (the Herzing Outlook web email is inaccessible to the student's screen reader), {{HU|HU-054b}} (Herzing IT security policy blocks the external-software workaround the student tried), and {{HU|HU-054c}} (a Herzing-email-only communication directive the student's disability makes impossible to meet, with accessible external email routed to faculty spam). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-054}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-054}} resolve to this lead. Substantially expands {{HU|HU-005}} with evidence of actual harm. Parts: {{HU|HU-054a}}, {{HU|HU-054b}}, {{HU|HU-054c}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-004}} (documented disabilities), {{HU|HU-005}} (screen reader incompatible with Outlook), INC0552230 (prior IT ticket, Urgency 3, not escalated).


=== HU-054a: Herzing Outlook web email is inaccessible to the student's screen reader ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accessibility Barrier: Primary Institutional Email Inaccessible to Screen Reader
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / ADA Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' The Herzing Outlook web email system is not compatible with the student's screen reader, leaving him unable to use the institution's primary communication channel.

'''Evidence.''' Email from the reporting student to Emilie Thompson and IT (April 28, 2026) stating the screen reader software is not compatible with Outlook and does not work well.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Unfortunately the screen reader software is not compatible with Outlook and does not work well.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504; Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794d), requiring institutional electronic information to be accessible. Lead: {{HU|HU-054}}. Expands {{HU|HU-005}} (screen reader incompatibility).

'''Impact.''' The student cannot reliably use Herzing's primary institutional communication channel, affecting access to faculty, time-sensitive notices, and academic communications.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-054}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-054b: Herzing IT security policy blocks the external-software workaround the student tried ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accessibility Barrier: Security Policy Blocks the Only Identified Workaround
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / ADA Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' The student attempted to connect his email through external software so the screen reader would function, but Herzing IT security policy blocks students from using external programs; he called IT twice in one day and waited about twelve minutes on hold without resolution.

'''Evidence.''' The same April 28, 2026 email: the student tried to connect his email via external software so the screen reader would work, but Herzing IT blocks external programs as a security measure; he called IT twice and waited on hold about twelve minutes.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I tried to connect my email via external software so the screen reader would work but Herzing IT blocks students from using external programs as a security measure which I completely understand but creates a barrier for me.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(1): a public entity may not impose eligibility criteria or methods of administration that screen out individuals with disabilities. A neutral security policy that blocks the only accessible workaround, without an accommodation, operates as such a barrier. Lead: {{HU|HU-054}}.

'''Impact.''' With the primary channel inaccessible and the workaround blocked, the student has no functioning accessible path to institutional email absent an accommodation.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-054}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-054c: Herzing-email-only directive the student's disability makes impossible to meet, with accessible email going to spam ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Conflict: Communication Directive Incompatible With Disability
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacie Johnson (SNA Faculty Advisor) / ADA Coordinator / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Stacie Johnson directed the SNA board that she should receive emails from Herzing email only; because the student's disability makes Herzing email inaccessible, and his accessible external email is routed to faculty spam folders, the directive imposes a condition he cannot meet without accommodation and impaired his ability to conduct SNA business.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Johnson's response to the SNA board (April 27, 2026) asked that in the future she receive emails from Herzing emails only; the student's accessible external email went to faculty spam.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>In the future, please ensure that I receive emails from Herzing emails only.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(1) and ADA/Section 504: imposing a communication requirement a student cannot meet because of disability, without accommodation, is a barrier. Lead: {{HU|HU-054}}.

'''Impact.''' The directive places the student in an impossible position, either use an inaccessible channel or be treated as noncompliant, and materially impairs his SNA leadership communications.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-054}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-062c: A NOLA student received no accommodation after emergency surgery during the semester ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| No Accommodation Following Documented Medical Emergency
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ADA Coordinator / Campus Director / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Student L reported that she had to have emergency surgery during the semester and that the campus kept on going without accommodating her.

'''Evidence.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the same April 27, 2026 thread states that, on top of everything, she had to have emergency surgery and the institution just kept on going.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student L, a pseudonym for a former Herzing NOLA student, described undergoing emergency surgery during the semester and stated that the institution continued its normal pace without pausing to accommodate her.

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504 and the Rehabilitation Act: institutions must provide reasonable accommodation for documented medical situations. Lead: {{HU|HU-062}}.

'''Impact.''' A student undergoing emergency surgery without accommodation may be forced to fail courses she could otherwise have completed.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-062}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student L (former Herzing NOLA student); documented by the reporting student.


=== HU-125: Disability accommodation (3-day extension) blocked pending Department Chair approval ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Implementation Blocked / Unauthorized Approval Requirement
! Date added
| 2026-05-12
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Heather Gregg / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Dr. Danielle Laban / Emilie Thompson (ADA/Title IX)
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student invoked his university-approved disability accommodation, a three-day extension on assessments, for the NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review Quiz. Dr. Gregg responded that unlocking the quiz was "outside of my scope" and escalated to Dr. Tressler, the course lead, who in turn awaited a response from Dr. Prashad. Dr. Prashad was traveling for work on May 12, 2026, and her out-of-office auto-reply indicated emails would be answered at her "earliest opportunity." Dr. Gregg explicitly stated she was "directed not to take further action until Dr. Prashad responds." The reporting student escalated clearly:
<blockquote>Respectfully, this isn't a request. I have invoked my accommodations. I have the right to these accommodations. I am not sure why I am not allowed to simply have my 3 day extension that is promised to me by the university. At the beginning of the semester, the university emailed my instructors to let them know what my approved accommodations were. None of my previous professors had to go through this just to simply allow me to have the 3-day extension the university has already granted me.</blockquote>
As of the final email in the chain, the reporting student was almost halfway through Week 2 with his three-day accommodation window expiring and the quiz still locked. He stated:
<blockquote>We're already almost halfway through week two and I can't get my accommodations applied as they're supposed to be and I'm given a three day extension which technically should've ended today but because we have failed to give me the ability to do what I'm supposed to do obviously will be later this week.</blockquote>
Dr. Gregg also confused the student by characterizing his accommodation invocation as a "request"; the reporting student corrected her, "Respectfully, this isn't a request," and separately asked, "So are we going to have to get Dr. Prashad to approve every disability accommodation going forward? Or just this one time." CC'd on the final emails were Dr. Prashad, Dr. Laban, Dr. Tressler, and Emilie Thompson.

'''Evidence.''' Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Gregg / Dr. Gombar re NSG525 Week 1 quiz issues, May 2026. Dr. Gregg: "Unlocking the assignment is outside of my scope. I have presented your request to Dr. Tressler, the course lead, and she is currently awaiting a response from Dr. Prashad regarding your request." Dr. Gregg: "At this time, I was directed not to take further action until Dr. Prashad responds." Dr. Prashad's out-of-office auto-reply (May 12, 2026): "I am currently traveling for work today only 5.12. Emails will be answered at my earliest opportunity." The reporting student: "Respectfully, this isn't a request. I have invoked my accommodations. I have the right to these accommodations... None of my previous professors had to go through this just to simply allow me to have the 3-day extension the university has already granted me." The reporting student: "So are we going to have to get Dr. Prashad to approve every disability accommodation going forward? Or just this one time." (Source Group: Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Gregg / Dr. Gombar / Dr. Tressler / Dr. Prashad / Dr. Laban / Emilie Thompson, May 2026, NSG525 Week 1 quiz accommodation dispute.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Unlocking the assignment is outside of my scope. I have presented your request to Dr. Tressler, and she is currently awaiting a response from Dr. Prashad regarding your request. [And:] Respectfully, this isn't a request. I have invoked my accommodations. I have the right to these accommodations. None of my previous professors had to go through this just to simply allow me to have the 3-day extension the university has already granted me. [And:] At this time, I was directed not to take further action until Dr. Prashad responds.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794): once a disability accommodation is formally approved by the institution, faculty are obligated to implement it without requiring further institutional approval from department chairs or program directors. The accommodation is a right, not a request subject to supervisory discretion. ''Southeastern Community College v. Davis'', 442 U.S. 397 (1979): institutions must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified students with disabilities. HLC Criteria 2.E: institutions must ensure equitable treatment of all students including those with documented disabilities. The requirement that Dr. Prashad approve a standard three-day extension before Dr. Gregg can implement it creates an unauthorized additional approval layer not contemplated by the reporting student's accommodation agreement and not required by prior faculty in prior semesters; this delay itself constitutes a failure to provide the accommodation in a timely manner. OCR Dear Colleague Letter (2011): delays in implementing disability accommodations may constitute a violation of Section 504 and the ADA even if the accommodation is eventually provided.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student's three-day accommodation window was actively expiring while the institution deliberated. As of the final email in the chain, he was approaching the end of Week 2 and still had not been granted quiz access. The compounding factors are significant: (1) the quiz had confirmed coding errors that affected his ability to optimize his score; (2) the quiz deadline was non-standard, 12:59 AM versus the announced 11:59 PM, see {{HU|HU-126}}, catching him and other students off guard; (3) his accommodation was invoked precisely because of these institutional failures; and (4) the accommodation was then blocked by the same institution. The characterization of his accommodation invocation as a "request" requiring supervisory approval fundamentally misunderstands the legal nature of approved disability accommodations.

'''Notes.''' CC chain at final escalation: Dr. Prashad (rprashad@herzing.edu), Dr. Laban (Danielle Laban), Dr. Tressler (jtressler@herzing.edu), Emilie Thompson (ADA/Title IX Coordinator). Dr. Gregg's final response confirmed she was waiting for Dr. Prashad before acting. Dr. Prashad's out-of-office indicated she was unavailable that day. This issue extends {{HU|HU-004}} (ADA accommodation failures) and {{HU|HU-005}} (accommodation documentation failures). The statement that "None of my previous professors had to go through this" confirms prior faculty implemented the three-day extension without Department Chair involvement, meaning this semester's process is an anomalous and unauthorized escalation. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-004}} (ADA accommodation failures), {{HU|HU-005}} (accommodation plan issues), {{HU|HU-006}} (ProctorU accommodation), {{HU|HU-114}} (conflicting chain of communication), {{HU|HU-112}} (NSG525 duplicate quiz answers), {{HU|HU-126}} (quiz deadline discrepancy).


=== HU-133c: Student A's documented medical accommodations for priority clinical placement, structured communication, and advance notice of changes were violated by the uncorrected error ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Priority-Placement and Communication Accommodations Violated
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ADA Coordinator / Dr. Rachel Powell / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Student A holds a documented medical accommodation letter from her Allina Health primary care provider requesting priority registration for clinical placement, structured communication surrounding clinical placement, advance notice of schedule and clinical changes, extended time, and a 48-business-hour faculty response time. The uncorrected placement error and lack of communication violate the priority-placement, structured-communication, and advance-notice accommodations specifically.

'''Evidence.''' Medical accommodation letter from Student A's primary care provider via Allina Health MyChart, requesting priority registration for clinical placement, structured communication, advance notice of schedule and clinical changes, extended time, and a 48-business-hour faculty response time. (Source Group: Medical accommodation letter, Allina Health; Clinician Nexus records.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Priority registration for clinical placement. Structured communication surrounding clinical placement. Advance notice of schedule/clinical changes.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794): once accommodations are documented by a medical provider, the institution must implement them; priority clinical placement and structured communication are documented accommodations being violated by the uncorrected assignment. Lead: {{HU|HU-133}}. See {{HU|HU-134b}} (48-business-hour policy confirmed).

'''Impact.''' A student whose documented accommodation is priority placement was left with an uncorrected, incorrect placement and no structured communication, the precise circumstances the accommodation was meant to prevent.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-133}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. The accommodation letter documents anxiety and mood concerns, referenced only as relevant to the documented violations. Source Group: Medical accommodation letter (Allina Health); Clinician Nexus records.


=== HU-135: Lead: the reporting student's 8-hour clinical shift accommodation was not properly implemented at Ascension via Christi St. Joseph ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (8-hour accommodation implementation failures)
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement, National Online) / Professor Troy Frazier (Adjunct Clinical Instructor) / Dr. Danielle Laban / Emilie Thompson (ADA Coordinator, out of office until June 3)
|}
'''Finding.''' This is the lead entry for the failure to properly implement the reporting student's eight-hour clinical shift accommodation at Ascension via Christi St. Joseph in Wichita, with Adjunct Clinical Instructor Professor Troy Frazier. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-135a}} (the schedule exceeded the 8-hour limit, originally 7:30 AM to 5 PM, about 9.5 hours, then 7:30 to 4, with the student having to correct it himself), {{HU|HU-135b}} (scheduling offered as a range, 7:30 to 3:30 or 8:00 to 4:00, rather than a fixed consistent schedule), {{HU|HU-135c}} (Professor Frazier stating the student may have to work past the 8-hour time frame as part of nursing), {{HU|HU-135d}} (Powell dismissing the advocacy as students not creating their own schedule), and {{HU|HU-135e}} (the ADA Coordinator out of office until June 3, one day before the clinical start). The reporting student disclosed narcolepsy and diabetes as bases for the accommodation.

'''Notes.''' Clinical site: Ascension via Christi St. Joseph, Wichita, Kansas; clinical start June 5, 2026; Thursdays and Fridays 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM. A required-hours discrepancy is noted (108 hours in this chain versus 96 in the {{HU|HU-128}} weekly report). Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-135}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-135a}}, {{HU|HU-135b}}, {{HU|HU-135c}}, {{HU|HU-135d}}, {{HU|HU-135e}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-004}}, {{HU|HU-005}}, {{HU|HU-125}}, {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement, now resolved), {{HU|HU-154}} (conflicting clinical start times).


=== HU-135a: The clinical schedule exceeded the 8-hour accommodation limit, and the student had to identify and correct his own accommodation violation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Schedule Exceeding the 8-Hour Limit / Burden-Shift to Student
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Professor Troy Frazier
|}
'''Finding.''' The original schedule listed shifts from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM, about 9.5 hours, exceeding the 8-hour accommodation; Professor Frazier also initially stated clinic was from 8 to 5 and 7:30 to 5. The reporting student correctly identified that 7:30 AM plus 8 hours ends at 3:30 PM, not 5:00 PM, and had to repeatedly correct the schedule (7:30 to 5, then 7:30 to 4, both over 8 hours), placing the burden of accommodation enforcement on the student. Powell's original email also contained a typo stating shifts ran 7:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.

'''Evidence.''' Email chain: the original schedule listed 7:30 to 5; Frazier stated clinic runs from 8 to 5 (and 7:30 to 5); Powell's email stated 7:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. (AM intended); the reporting student corrected that the schedule was originally 7:30 to 5, then 7:30 to 4, both over eight hours, and stated he should not have to constantly make those corrections.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I never claimed to make my own schedule... Schedule was originally 7:30-5, then 7:30-4, both over 8 hours. I should not have to constantly make those corrections.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794): approved accommodations must be implemented as specified. OCR Dear Colleague Letter (2011): institutions must ensure accommodations are communicated to and implemented by all relevant parties, including clinical instructors. Requiring the student to identify and correct his own accommodation violation shifts the institution's burden onto him. Lead: {{HU|HU-135}}.

'''Impact.''' A schedule exceeding the eight-hour limit has direct medical consequences for a student with narcolepsy and diabetes; the repeated need for the student to correct it is a burden-shift and a sign the accommodation was not built into the schedule.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-135}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-135b: Scheduling was offered as a range rather than a fixed, consistent schedule, inconsistent with the consistent-scheduling accommodation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Range Scheduling Inconsistent With Consistent-Scheduling Accommodation
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' After the length was corrected, Powell confirmed hours would be either 7:30 to 3:30 or 8:00 to 4:00, offering a range rather than a fixed schedule. Consistent scheduling is a documented medical necessity for narcolepsy and diabetes management, so a variable start undermines the accommodation.

'''Evidence.''' Powell's confirmation that hours would be either 7:30 to 3:30 or 8:00 to 4:00; the reporting student's escalation noting that consistent scheduling is important given narcolepsy and diabetes.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>your hours will be either 7:30-3:30 or 8:00-4:00.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA and Section 504: the consistent-scheduling need for narcolepsy and diabetes is a documented medical necessity, not a preference; offering a variable start does not satisfy a consistent-scheduling accommodation. Lead: {{HU|HU-135}}.

'''Impact.''' A variable start time disrupts medication timing and sleep scheduling for narcolepsy and diabetes, the very conditions the accommodation addresses.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-135}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-135c: Professor Frazier stated the student may have to work past the 8-hour time frame as part of nursing ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Faculty Statement Overriding the Accommodation
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Troy Frazier (Adjunct Clinical Instructor)
|}
'''Finding.''' Professor Frazier stated there may be times the student has to work past the eight-hour time frame and that this is part of nursing, and separately proposed a debrief between 3:30 and 4 PM and possibly coming in earlier to take part in shift change as the summer progressed, each of which could extend the working day beyond the eight-hour accommodation.

'''Evidence.''' Frazier: there may be times the student has to work past the eight-hour time frame, this is part of nursing, with the goal to be completed by 3:30 and going over treated as a learning opportunity; Frazier proposed a debrief between 3:30 and 4 PM and coming in earlier for shift change. The reporting student responded suggesting the debrief run 3 to 3:30 to respect the eight-hour limit.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>There may be times where you have to work past the 8 hour time frame. This is part of nursing.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794): an approved accommodation is a right that cannot be conditioned on clinical-faculty discretion; a statement that the student may be required to exceed the limit as part of nursing does not override the accommodation. Lead: {{HU|HU-135}}.

'''Impact.''' Frazier's statement creates a documented risk the accommodation will not be honored in practice, with direct medical consequences for the student's conditions.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-135}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-135d: Powell's response dismissed the accommodation advocacy as students not creating their own schedule ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mischaracterization of Accommodation Enforcement
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' Powell responded to the reporting student's accommodation advocacy by stating that students do not create their own schedule with this faculty-led model and that Professor Frazier would ensure the clinical experience is accommodated appropriately, framing the request as schedule creation rather than accommodation enforcement. The reporting student corrected that he never claimed to make his own schedule and was only flagging that the schedule exceeded eight hours.

'''Evidence.''' Powell: students do not create their own schedule with this faculty-led model; Professor Frazier will ensure the clinical experience is accommodated appropriately. The reporting student: I never claimed to make my own schedule.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>students do not create their own schedule with this faculty-led model.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA and Section 504: enforcing an approved accommodation is a legal right, not an attempt to create a personal schedule; mischaracterizing it as such signals a misunderstanding of the institution's accommodation obligations. Lead: {{HU|HU-135}}.

'''Impact.''' Framing accommodation enforcement as improper schedule creation discourages advocacy and signals that clinical-placement leadership may not fully understand its legal obligations.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-135}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-135e: The ADA Coordinator was out of office until June 3, one day before the clinical start ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Support Gap at the Critical Moment
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator) / Dr. Danielle Laban
|}
'''Finding.''' Emilie Thompson, the ADA and Title IX Coordinator, was out of office until June 3, 2026, one day before the first scheduled clinical day, leaving the reporting student without institutional accommodation support during the period when the eight-hour accommodation was being mis-implemented.

'''Evidence.''' Emilie Thompson's out-of-office message returning June 3, 2026; the reporting student's escalation to Danielle Laban and Emilie Thompson during the same period.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I'm not sure why we continue to have issues with understanding and respecting the eight-hour accommodation.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA and Section 504; OCR Dear Colleague Letter (2011): institutions must ensure accommodation support is available, particularly at implementation. The ADA Coordinator's absence at the critical moment left a gap in institutional support. Lead: {{HU|HU-135}}.

'''Impact.''' With the ADA Coordinator unavailable until the day before clinical, the student had no institutional accommodation support while the schedule problems were unresolved.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-135}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.


=== HU-142: Discussion board closed for comments at the Sunday deadline, blocking submission under an approved 72-hour extension accommodation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Discussion Board Auto-Closure Blocks Approved 72-Hour Extension Accommodation
! Date added
| 2026-06-03
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Wilma Hart-Flynn / Rachel Dalmont (ADA/Title IX Coordinator, Online Students) / NSG 525 Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student attempted to submit his second peer reply for the prior week's discussion post in NSG 525-7E Clinical II, using his approved 72-hour disability accommodation extension, but the discussion board would not accept the submission because the topic was closed for comments. The Peer Response instructions state that peer responses are due Sunday at 11:59 PM CT, and the LMS displays "This topic is closed for comments" after that deadline. The reporting student's official ADA accommodation notification for this exact course (NSG 525-7E) explicitly includes: (1) a 72-hour extension on assignments when requested prior to the original deadline, and (2) permission for the student to submit all portions of the discussion post assignment on the same date. The automatic closure of the discussion board at the standard deadline directly prevents the reporting student from exercising his approved 72-hour extension, because the technical mechanism that closes comments does not account for accommodated extended deadlines. The reporting student emailed Professor Wilma Hart-Flynn, the same faculty member who deducted points in error in {{HU|HU-124}}, to ask how to proceed, and attached the completed peer reply he was unable to submit. The attached reply is a substantive, fully referenced post with APA citations to Pew Charitable Trusts 2018, Gordon and Catalini 2018, and GAO 2019, confirming the work was complete and ready before he was blocked by the closed board. This is a systemic conflict between the LMS discussion-board auto-closure configuration and approved disability accommodations: a student with a 72-hour extension cannot use it if the board closes at the original deadline.

'''Evidence.''' Email, the reporting student to Wilma Hart-Flynn: "As you know, I get a three-day extension due to my disability accommodations. I went in to do my second reply for last week's discussion post, and it will not allow me to submit it because comments are closed. Please let me know how to proceed. I am attaching for your review." Attached: complete peer reply to Student CL with APA references. Canvas/LMS Peer Response screenshot: "Please read and respond to at least two of your peers' initial postings... All peer responses are due by Sunday at 11:59 pm CT... This topic is closed for comments." Official ADA Accommodation Notification (NSG 525-7E, Clinical II), sent via IT Apps Auto Notifications to Heather Gregg and the reporting student: 72-hour extension on assignments when requested prior to the original deadline; student is permitted to submit all portions of the discussion post assignment on the same date. ADA/Title IX Coordinators listed on the notification: Online Students, Rachel Dalmont (ada@herzing.edu, rdalmont@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]); Ground Students, Emilie Thompson (ada@herzing.edu, emthompson@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]). (Source Group: email to Professor Wilma Hart-Flynn re closed discussion comments and 72-hour accommodation with attached peer reply; Canvas/LMS Peer Response screenshot; Official ADA Accommodation Notification for NSG 525-7E.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>As you know, I get a three-day extension due to my disability accommodations. I went in to do my second reply for last week's discussion post, and it will not allow me to submit it because comments are closed. Please let me know how to proceed. [LMS]: This topic is closed for comments. [Accommodation letter]: 72-hour extension on assignments when requested prior to the original deadline. Student is permitted to submit all portions of the discussion post assignment on the same date.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794): an institution that approves a 72-hour extension accommodation must configure its systems so the accommodation can actually be used; an LMS discussion board that auto-closes at the original deadline and blocks submission defeats the approved accommodation. The accommodation letter itself states that faculty are required to provide approved accommodations in a timely and consistent manner and that students should promptly notify the ADA/Title IX Coordinator if accommodations are not implemented. The board closure is a failure of implementation: the accommodation exists on paper but cannot be exercised because the technical mechanism does not honor the extended deadline. OCR Dear Colleague Letter (2011): institutions are responsible for ensuring electronic and information technology used in instruction is accessible and does not deny students with disabilities the benefits of approved accommodations. This is the same pattern as {{HU|HU-125}} (accommodation blocked by approval-layer delay) and {{HU|HU-126}} (quiz deadline closing before accommodated retake): the accommodation is consistently defeated by deadline and closure mechanics.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student completed a substantive, fully referenced peer reply within his 72-hour accommodation window but could not submit it because the discussion board was closed for comments. Unless Professor Hart-Flynn manually reopens the board or grades the attached reply, the reporting student loses credit for work he was entitled to submit under his accommodation. This is the second documented grading and accommodation problem with this same faculty member, {{HU|HU-124}}, where she deducted points in error and was non-responsive Monday and Wednesday. The structural risk is broader: any online student with a 72-hour extension accommodation in a course using auto-closing discussion boards faces the same barrier every week, meaning the accommodation is systematically unusable for discussion assignments unless faculty manually intervene each time. The accommodation letter places the burden on the student to notify the coordinator when accommodations are not implemented, which forces the student to repeatedly advocate for an accommodation that should function automatically.

'''Notes.''' New personnel identified: Rachel Dalmont, ADA/Title IX Coordinator for Online Students (ada@herzing.edu, rdalmont@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]). This clarifies the ADA coordinator structure: Rachel Dalmont handles Online Students; Emilie Thompson handles Ground Students (emthompson@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]). This is relevant to {{HU|HU-135}}, where Emilie Thompson was out of office until June 3 just before the reporting student's clinical start; as an online student, the reporting student's coordinator is actually Rachel Dalmont. The official accommodation notification provides the full confirmed list of the reporting student's NSG 525-7E accommodations: 250 percent time on timed testing; 150 percent time on timed skills checkoffs; short breaks, visual breaks, whiteboard, noise-cancelling headset, self-administer medication, snack and water, stand and stretch during testing; 72-hour extension on assignments when requested prior to the original deadline; permitted to submit all portions of the discussion post assignment on the same date; PowerPoint slides 24 hours prior to synchronous sessions; instructor to record and transcribe synchronous sessions; timely feedback. The letter was sent via IT Apps Auto Notifications (IT-Apps-AutoNotifications@herzing.edu) to Heather Gregg and the reporting student. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-124}} (Wilma Hart-Flynn deducted points in error, non-responsive), {{HU|HU-125}} (accommodation blocked pending chair approval), {{HU|HU-126}} (quiz closed before accommodated retake), {{HU|HU-135}} (8-hour accommodation, Thompson out of office), {{HU|HU-004}}/{{HU|HU-005}} (ADA accommodation failures). POSSIBLE follow-up: whether Professor Hart-Flynn reopened the board or accepted the attached reply for credit.


=== HU-145: Eight-hour clinical accommodation characterized by staff as conditional and tied to course-failure risk ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Approved Accommodation Framed as Conditional / Course-Failure Warning for Honoring It
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP) / Emily/Emilie (ADA/Title IX) / Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' During the June 4, 2026 meeting, Herzing staff repeatedly characterized the reporting student's approved eight-hour clinical accommodation as conditional rather than guaranteed. Dr. Danielle Laban stated that what the accommodation says related to the eight hours is that, when possible, eight hours can be honored, and that the institution is at the mercy of the clinical sites and cannot make a site honor it. The ADA/Title IX coordinator (Emily/Emilie) stated that this "when possible" language applies for every professor for the rest of the program, and warned that if the reporting student were to leave in the middle of a patient-care activity at his accommodated end time, abandoning patient care, that could potentially lead to a course failure. The reporting student, who has a documented eight-hour accommodation tied to medication timing, ADHD medication, diabetes medication, and a GI medication, and the trade-off that he would not bring his service dog if the eight-hour limit was honored, expressed that this framing did not match his prior understanding that clinicals were eight hours start to finish. The concern documented here is that an approved ADA/Section 504 accommodation is being presented to the student as non-guaranteeable and that honoring his own accommodated end time is linked to a risk of course failure.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Danielle Laban: "what your accommodation says related to the eight hours is... when possible, eight hours can be honored; we are going to do everything we can to meet that eight hour need, but a site that won't honor that, we can't make them honor." Emily/Emilie: "I want to be clear that what it says [applies] for every professor for the rest of your program; eight hours is not something that is fully within the control of your instructor... there may be a situation that arises where you would need to be there beyond eight hours; if you were to leave in the middle of doing a patient care activity, that could be... potentially lead to a course failure." The reporting student: "that's been my understanding in conversations with you guys... clinicals are eight hours, that's start to finish." (Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting, audio and transcript; provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Laban]: what your accommodation says related to the eight hours is... when possible, eight hours can be honored. [Emily/Emilie]: if you are expected... to stay past your exact eight hour end time, that if you were to abandon patient care that that could potentially lead to a course failure.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794): once an accommodation is approved as reasonable, the institution is obligated to implement it; characterizing an approved accommodation as honored only "when possible," and warning that adhering to the accommodated limit could cause course failure, risks denying the student the benefit of the approved accommodation. The accommodation letter (see {{HU|HU-142}}) states faculty are required to provide approved accommodations in a timely and consistent manner. If the institution believes an accommodation fundamentally alters an essential clinical requirement, the proper process is a documented interactive review with the ADA/Title IX Coordinator, not an in-meeting warning that honoring the accommodation may lead to failure. OCR guidance: discouraging or penalizing the use of an approved accommodation can constitute a denial of access. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-135}} (the underlying eight-hour dispute with Professor Troy Frazier).

'''Impact.''' The reporting student is placed in the position of being told that the eight-hour limit he relies on for medical reasons may not be honored and that adhering to it during patient care could cause him to fail the course. This creates a chilling effect on the use of an approved accommodation and shifts the risk of the institution's placement limitations onto the student. Because staff stated this framing applies for the rest of the program, the concern is not limited to one course but is presented as the standing posture toward his eight-hour accommodation.

'''Notes.''' Speaker 3 identified by the student as Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP). Speaker 4 is the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie; note that per {{HU|HU-142}} the online-student ADA/Title IX Coordinator is Rachel Dalmont while Emilie Thompson serves ground students, so an online student's accommodations being handled in this meeting by Emily/Emilie may itself be an inconsistency to verify. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-135}} (eight-hour accommodation, Troy Frazier), {{HU|HU-142}} (accommodation letter and coordinator structure), {{HU|HU-125}} (accommodation blocked pending approval), {{HU|HU-128}}/{{HU|HU-134}} (at the mercy of the clinical sites language). Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).


=== HU-146: Staff suggested the reporting student may have to take an approved break and made continued progression contingent on whether a site can meet his accommodations ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Progression Made Contingent on Accommodation Availability / Suggested Forced Break
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Emily/Emilie (ADA/Title IX) / Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP) / Clinical Placement
|}
'''Finding.''' During the June 4, 2026 meeting, the ADA/Title IX coordinator (Emily/Emilie) told the reporting student that in future semesters the institution may not have a clinical site that can accommodate everything, that he needs to make a determination about whether he feels he can move forward with the clinical, and that he may be in a situation where he would have to take an approved break if the program does not have a clinical that is sufficiently flexible to meet his needs. This frames the student's continued progression through the program as contingent on whether Herzing can locate a site that meets his approved accommodations, and raises the prospect of a break in enrollment, a forced sit-out, if it cannot. For a student with documented disabilities, conditioning continued enrollment on the institution's ability to meet accommodations, and suggesting an approved break as the fallback, is a significant concern.

'''Evidence.''' Emily/Emilie: "it is pretty uncommon that we have this available, so I do want to prepare you that in future semesters we may not have a site that can accommodate everything, and so I think ultimately you also need to make a determination about if you feel that you can move forward with the clinical; we are going to have to make that determination as we have clinical sites assigned and available... or not, because then you may be in a situation where you would have to take an approved break if we do not have a clinical that is this flexible." (Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting, audio and transcript.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>you may be in a situation where you would have to take an approved break if we do not have a clinical that is this flexible.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794): institutions must provide reasonable accommodations and may not exclude an otherwise qualified student with a disability from program participation because of the institution's own difficulty arranging accommodations; suggesting a forced break in enrollment as the consequence of the institution being unable to place the student with accommodations may constitute a denial of program access. The proper mechanism for any claim that an accommodation fundamentally alters an essential requirement is a documented interactive process and individualized assessment, not a general warning that the student may have to sit out. 34 C.F.R. §668.14 (administrative capability): the institution is responsible for arranging clinical placements. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-145}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student is told he may have to pause his education through an approved break if the institution cannot find a sufficiently flexible site, effectively transferring the consequences of the school's placement limitations to the student in the form of delayed progression. This creates uncertainty about his ability to continue and complete the program and pressures him to consider whether to proceed without full accommodation.

'''Notes.''' Distinct from {{HU|HU-145}} (which concerns the conditional framing and course-failure warning); this issue concerns the suggestion of a forced break and progression being made contingent on accommodation availability. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-145}}, {{HU|HU-142}}. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).


=== HU-147: Accommodation request reframed by staff as a concern about the reporting student's patient-safety fitness for the clinical site ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Request Reframed as Question About Student Fitness / Patient Safety
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Emily/Emilie (ADA/Title IX)
|}
'''Finding.''' During the June 4, 2026 meeting, when the reporting student explained that his eight-hour limit and 4:30 PM medication timing are medically necessary and raised patient-safety reasons why he should not be on the floor past those limits, the risk of low blood sugar, medication wearing off, and GI effects, the ADA/Title IX coordinator (Emily/Emilie) responded that she was "a little concerned" that he seemed to have concerns, and stated that this could raise general concerns about patient safety with him being in the clinical site. This turns the student's own articulation of why his accommodation is needed into a question about whether he is fit to be in the clinical environment. Reframing an accommodation request as a doubt about the student's clinical fitness or patient safety can deter students from asserting accommodations and risks treating a disability-related need as a competence problem.

'''Evidence.''' Emily/Emilie: "I will be transparent that I am a little concerned that you seem to have concerns about... [the exact end time]; based on what you are sharing, [concern] if we are having generally concerns about patient safety with you being in the clinical site." The reporting student: "patient safety should never depend on me independently... there should be a nurse or someone who I am shadowing... what I do not want to happen is to be on the floor and pass out because my blood sugar has dropped because I am there two hours late, or miss a step because my medication is wearing off." (Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting, audio and transcript.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I will be transparent that I am a little concerned that you seem to have concerns about [it]... if we are having generally concerns about patient safety with you being in the clinical site.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794): an institution may not treat a student's request for a disability accommodation as evidence that the student is unfit; doing so risks disability discrimination. Any direct-threat or fitness determination must be based on an individualized, evidence-based assessment, not on the student's act of requesting an accommodation or expressing safety concerns. OCR guidance discourages responses that penalize or pathologize accommodation requests. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-145}}.

'''Impact.''' By reframing the reporting student's accommodation request as a patient-safety concern about him, staff put the student in the position of having his disability-related needs treated as a potential disqualifier for the clinical site. This can chill future accommodation requests and creates a risk that a disability-related need is recharacterized as a competence or safety deficiency, which could affect his standing in the program.

'''Notes.''' Distinct from {{HU|HU-145}} and {{HU|HU-146}}; this concerns the reframing of the accommodation request as a fitness and patient-safety question. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-145}}, {{HU|HU-146}}, {{HU|HU-142}}. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).


=== HU-153: Discrepancies between the June 4, 2026 recorded accommodation meeting and Emilie Thompson's written follow-up ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Discrepancies Between Recorded Accommodation Meeting and the Written Follow-Up / Contested Points Memorialized as Confirmed
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator) / Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP) / Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, sent the reporting student a written follow-up to the June 4, 2026 meeting stating "we confirmed the following" and that she wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. A comparison of that email against the meeting transcript shows that several points the email presents as confirmed were in fact actively disputed by the reporting student during the meeting, and that the written summary repeatedly softens or omits the more serious statements made to him while memorializing the institution's and the professor's positions as the agreed outcome. This entry also confirms the identity of the meeting participant previously referred to as Emily/Emilie in {{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}: she is Emilie Thompson. Notably, per {{HU|HU-142}}, Emilie Thompson is the ADA/Title IX Coordinator for ground students while Rachel Dalmont serves online students; the reporting student is an online student, so the ground-student coordinator handled and memorialized his accommodations, which the transcript explains as Dr. Rachel Powell asking Thompson's office to handle it for this term because of the timing, itself an inconsistency with the documented coordinator assignment. The specific discrepancies between the meeting and the email are itemized in the Evidence field.

'''Evidence.''' DISCREPANCY 1 (confirmed vs. disputed): Email: "we confirmed the following" / "make sure everyone is on the same page." Transcript: multiple points were openly contested by the reporting student, who repeatedly stated his understanding differed. DISCREPANCY 2 (debrief timing, direct contradiction): Email: "if there is need to debrief... you may need to extend a bit past the 8-hour mark." Transcript: the reporting student stated the debrief should be done during that clinical time, and of an after-clinical debrief said "this doesn't make any sense." DISCREPANCY 3 (magnitude minimized): Email: "your time could possibly extend a bit past the 8-hour mark" ("a bit," used twice). Transcript: the reporting student: "we're not talking about 15 minutes... we're talking about an hour, hour and a half past my end time... that's 10 hours. That's not eight. That is a significant difference." DISCREPANCY 4 (start time settled): Email: "You now have a start time." Transcript: the reporting student stated "my schedule has changed four times this week alone," with still no meeting point less than 24 hours before start. DISCREPANCY 5 (lunch): Email: "You are approved to take a lunch break." Transcript: lunch was uncertain; the professor reportedly said "you're not going to have a lunch, and you need to be flexible." DISCREPANCY 6 (omission of approved break / decide whether to continue): Transcript: Thompson stated "you may be in a situation where you'd have to take an approved break" and that he "also need[s] to make a determination about if you feel that you can move forward with the clinical." Email: softened to "it is not possible to guarantee that every need... will be able to be met, but we will continue to make a good-faith effort." DISCREPANCY 7 (medical basis dropped): Transcript: the eight-hour cap was a negotiated trade-off, no service dog plus medication timing, and routine extension is medically problematic. Email: states eight hours but frames extensions as acceptable without acknowledging the trade-off or medical necessity. DISCREPANCY 8 (soft vs. firm 4:30): Email: "Your clinical time should end before 4:30pm." Transcript: the reporting student treated 4:30 as a firm need tied to his GI medication and a September procedure, supported by a six-month provider letter. (Source Group: comparison of the June 4, 2026 recorded meeting transcript, the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban, AVP, and Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, and Emilie Thompson's written follow-up email dated June 4, 2026, both provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Email]: Based on our conversation today, we confirmed the following... your time could possibly extend a bit past the 8-hour mark... Abandoning a patient care activity to leave at a specific time... could constitute a risk to patient safety and a clinical failure. [Transcript, contested]: we're not talking about 15 minutes... we're talking about an hour, hour and a half past my end time... that's 10 hours. That's not eight.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794): an accommodation follow-up should accurately reflect what was discussed and agreed; memorializing contested points as confirmed, and softening or omitting statements such as a possible forced break or a course-failure warning, can misstate the interactive process and disadvantage the student in any later dispute. The accommodation letter ({{HU|HU-142}}) places responsibility on faculty and coordinators to implement approved accommodations consistently; a written record that recasts disputed items as agreed undermines that process. The coordinator-assignment inconsistency, a ground-student coordinator handling an online student, should be reconciled against the documented structure in {{HU|HU-142}}. No legal conclusion is asserted; these are documented discrepancies between two records of the same meeting. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-135}} (underlying eight-hour dispute), {{HU|HU-145}} (conditional framing and course-failure warning), {{HU|HU-146}} (approved break), {{HU|HU-147}} (patient-safety reframing), {{HU|HU-142}} (accommodation letter and coordinator structure).

'''Impact.''' Because the written follow-up presents contested items as confirmed and softens or omits the more serious statements, the possible forced break, the course-failure warning, the magnitude of the overage, and the medical basis for the eight-hour and 4:30 limits, the official record of the meeting does not match what the reporting student experienced and disputed. If this email becomes the institution's reference point, the reporting student may be held to terms he did not agree to, for example routine extension past eight hours for debrief, and the medical necessity of his limits may be understated. The discrepancy between the contemporaneous recording and the written summary is itself significant for any later review of how his accommodations were handled.

'''Notes.''' Confirms that the meeting participant referred to as Emily/Emilie in {{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}} is Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator (emthompson@herzing.edu, [phone redacted], Calendly: calendly.com/emthompson-hu). Coordinator-assignment inconsistency: per {{HU|HU-142}}, Thompson serves ground students and Rachel Dalmont serves online students; the reporting student is online. The transcript records that Dr. Rachel Powell asked Thompson's office to handle it for this term because of the timing. The student retained both the recording/transcript and the email, which are the sources for this comparison. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-142}}, {{HU|HU-145}}, {{HU|HU-146}}, {{HU|HU-147}}, {{HU|HU-148}} (schedule changes), {{HU|HU-149}} (no meeting point). Relates to the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}). POSSIBLE follow-up: whether the reporting student responds to correct the record, and whether the institution amends the written summary.


=== HU-163a: The student could not reschedule the accommodated NSG524 exam to the remaining in-window date during a documented weather emergency ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodated Exam Not Rescheduleable Within the Open Window
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Testing and Accommodations
|}
'''Finding.''' On June 6, 2026, with severe weather in Kansas interrupting his internet, the reporting student attempted to reschedule the NSG524 Mental Health exam to Sunday June 7, a date still inside his open testing window (June 1 to June 7, 2026). The scheduling page showed June 7 unavailable (no ProProctor), and the vendor stated it could not reschedule within its restriction window. Because his 250 percent accommodation requires a live ProProctor, the unavailability meant the accommodated exam could not be taken before the window closed.

'''Evidence.''' ProctorU scheduling page (NSG524, window 6/1/26 to 6/7/26, 375 minutes, previously scheduled Saturday 06/06/26 2:20 PM CDT) showing the remaining in-window date unavailable; ProctorU live chat (June 6, 2026, 1:46 to 1:49 PM CDT); NWS Wichita Weather Forecast Office severe-weather page (June 6, 2026, 1:40 PM CDT, scattered storms and flood warnings); the reporting student's email to Herzing faculty stating Sunday was greyed out despite the open window through the 7th and that he requires a ProProctor.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Sunday is greyed out despite my open testing window through the 7th. I am required to use a proproctor in conjunction with my accommodations. [Live chat:] this is an emergency due to bad weather.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA Title III, examinations and courses (42 U.S.C. §12189; 28 C.F.R. §36.309): an entity that offers examinations related to postsecondary education must offer them in an accessible place and manner, including necessary accommodations; Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794); 34 C.F.R. §668.14 (the institution remains responsible for its testing vendor). A 250 percent time accommodation that cannot be exercised within the open window because the accommodated proctoring is unavailable is an accommodation-access failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-163}}.

'''Impact.''' The student was prevented from taking his accommodated exam within the window through no fault of his own, exposing him to a missed-exam penalty and a makeup process for a weather-and-vendor failure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-163}} (lead). Documented 2026-06-06. The weather is independently corroborated by the NWS Wichita page.


=== HU-167: Lead: no ProProctor was available for the reporting student's NSG523 exam on Saturday June 13, 2026 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (ProProctor Saturday unavailability; 75-plus-minute exam start delay; effective window narrowing; institutional contacts out of office)
! Date added
| 2026-06-13
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Testing and Accommodations / Dr. Danielle Laban / Dr. Nicole Franklin / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Dr. Stephanie Black
|}
'''Finding.''' This is the lead entry for a cluster of accommodation and proctoring-access failures on Saturday June 13, 2026, during the NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 (ONL: HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 2026 Summer C, Accommodations 250%, Herzing University, HESI). The reporting student logged in at approximately 2:25 PM CDT and attempted three times over the following hour to connect with a ProProctor, as required by his approved accommodation. He was connected to a regular support agent, Gedela T., who asked him to wait for a ProProctor, but no ProProctor connected. Exam start was delayed over one hour and fifteen minutes; the reporting student ultimately confirmed the exam was completed but noted the delay. He identified that ProProctor appears to be unavailable on weekends and raised that his Thursday and Friday clinical schedule leaves weekends as his only available testing days, meaning the ProProctor requirement effectively provides him a narrower testing window than peers without the accommodation. Key institutional contacts he emailed for help, Dr. Nicole Franklin and Dr. Stephanie Black, were simultaneously out of office, with Franklin supporting the Birmingham Campus during a transition and Black on PTO. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-167a}} (ProProctor Saturday unavailability for NSG523), {{HU|HU-167b}} (over one hour and fifteen minute exam start delay, three failed connection attempts), {{HU|HU-167c}} (effective testing window narrower than peers due to ProProctor unavailability on the only days available to the student), and {{HU|HU-167d}} (key institutional escalation contacts out of office simultaneously during an active accommodation failure).

'''Notes.''' Exam: ONL: HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 2026 Summer C, Accommodations 250%, Herzing University, HESI. The reporting student logged in approximately 2:25 PM CDT Saturday June 13, 2026; screenshots timestamped 3:27 PM to 3:44 PM CDT show the waiting state. The ProctorU screen showed "Setup Complete! Exam will Begin Once Connected to Proctor" with an average wait of five minutes, then shifted to "Wait time is longer than expected" with an average wait of eight minutes. The chat agent Gedela T. is not a ProProctor, which the reporting student confirmed by asking. The session was transferred to another technician at 3:43 PM. The reporting student emailed Dr. Tanetshia Brown (office hours), Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Nicole Franklin, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, David Steele, and Dr. Stephanie Black at 3:39 PM from his Herzing email. Added 2026-06-13. (Source Group: seven ProctorU chat/screen screenshots, Saturday June 13, 2026, 3:27 PM to 3:44 PM CDT; email from the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Nicole Franklin, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, David Steele, Dr. Stephanie Black, and Dr. Tanetshia Brown, sent approximately 3:39 PM, June 13, 2026; follow-up email from the reporting student confirming the exam completed after over a one hour fifteen minute delay; provided by the reporting student.) Parts: {{HU|HU-167a}}, {{HU|HU-167b}}, {{HU|HU-167c}}, {{HU|HU-167d}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-002}} (prior ProctorU exam block, NSG521), {{HU|HU-135}} (eight-hour clinical accommodation; clinical scheduling constraints), {{HU|HU-163}} and {{HU|HU-163a}} (NSG524 ProctorU weather and no-ProProctor failure, lead cluster; accommodation not exercisable within window), {{HU|HU-163d}} (vendor-institution ping-pong), {{HU|HU-166}} (NSG524 appeal process-integrity issues).


=== HU-167a: No ProProctor was available for the NSG523 exam on Saturday June 13, 2026 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| ProProctor Unavailability on Saturday, Accommodation Not Deliverable
! Date added
| 2026-06-13
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Testing and Accommodations
|}
'''Finding.''' On Saturday June 13, 2026, the reporting student connected to ProctorU for his NSG523 exam (250 percent accommodation, Herzing University, HESI). The agent, Gedela T., introduced herself as "your proctor today." The reporting student immediately asked whether she was a ProProctor, stating he was supposed to connect with one for his exam, and she responded "Just a moment please," indicating she was not one and needed to find one. No ProProctor connected during the documented session. His email to faculty noted that ProctorU appears to have no ProProctors on the weekends. The 250 percent time accommodation requires a live ProProctor; the absence of one means the accommodation could not be delivered as approved on a Saturday.

'''Evidence.''' ProctorU chat screenshot (3:25 to 3:27 PM, June 13, 2026): Gedela T. introduces herself as proctor; the reporting student asks if she is a ProProctor; she says "Just a moment please"; the ProctorU screen shows "Setup Complete! Exam will Begin Once Connected to Proctor," average wait five minutes, then shifting to "Wait time is longer than expected," eight minutes. Email from the reporting student (approx. 3:39 PM, June 13, 2026): "It appears they have no proproctors on the weekends."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Are you a pro proctor? I am supposed to connect with one of them for my exam I was told. [Gedela T.:] Just a moment please. [Email:] It appears they have no proproctors on the weekends.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA Title III, examinations (42 U.S.C. §12189; 28 C.F.R. §36.309); Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794); 34 C.F.R. §668.14 (the institution is responsible for its testing vendor). A 250 percent ProProctor accommodation that cannot be delivered on a Saturday because no ProProctor is available is an accommodation-delivery failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-167}}.

'''Impact.''' The ProProctor is an approved accommodation component; its unavailability on Saturdays means the student cannot take his exams with his full accommodation on the days his clinical schedule forces him to test.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-167}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party screenshots and email. Documented 2026-06-13.


=== HU-167c: ProProctor unavailability on weekends effectively narrows the reporting student's accommodation-based testing window relative to peers ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Effective Testing Window Narrower Than Peers Due to ProProctor Unavailability on Only Available Testing Days
! Date added
| 2026-06-13
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Testing and Accommodations / ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student raised in his June 13, 2026 email that his Thursday and Friday clinical schedule leaves only Saturday and Sunday as available testing days, and that if ProProctor is unavailable on weekends, he effectively has a narrower testing window than peers who do not require a ProProctor. The ProProctor is an accommodation component approved because of his disability; if it is structurally unavailable on the only days his clinical obligations allow, the net effect is that his disability accommodation reduces rather than equalizes his access to the full testing window.

'''Evidence.''' Email from the reporting student (approx. 3:39 PM, June 13, 2026): "I should have the full exam window like my peers so I can study throughout the week and due to clinicals on Thursdays and Fridays that only leaves Saturday and Sunday. ... The proproctor is supposed to be part of the approved accommodations and I don't see why I'd have a smaller testing window then my peers due to a disability."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I should have the full exam window like my peers so I can study throughout the week and due to clinicals on Thursdays and Fridays that only leaves Saturday and Sunday. ... The proproctor is supposed to be part of the approved accommodations and I don't see why I'd have a smaller testing window then my peers due to a disability.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA Title III, examinations (42 U.S.C. §12189; 28 C.F.R. §36.309); Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794; 34 C.F.R. §104.44): academic adjustments must not have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability; 34 C.F.R. §668.14 (institutional responsibility for vendor). An accommodation design that, combined with an approved clinical schedule, produces a structurally narrower testing window than non-accommodated peers is an inequitable-access concern and a potential Section 504 violation. Lead: {{HU|HU-167}}.

'''Impact.''' If ProProctor is unavailable on weekends, the reporting student has no days within a standard week on which he can both meet his clinical obligations and exercise his approved accommodation, giving him a de facto shorter testing window than peers without disabilities.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-167}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party email. The clinical scheduling constraint is documented in {{HU|HU-135}}. Documented 2026-06-13.


=== HU-184: Herzing's Intensive Location Exception Request process treated a disability-related location accommodation as a discretionary, case-by-case request ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED as to the content of the email exchange and the form language quoted; POSSIBLE as to whether Nashville was in fact the contractually specified intensive location at enrollment, which is the reporting student's own assertion and has not been independently verified against an enrollment agreement in this entry
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Request Processed as Discretionary Exception; Disputed Form Language; Disputed Enrollment Location Term
! Date added
| 2026-07-26
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Ilma Stipanovic (Experiential Learning Manager, Intensives) / Intensives Online team / Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator)
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student, pre-slotted into the Brookfield location based on his state of residence, emailed the Intensives team stating he needed the dates and times for both the Brookfield and Nashville sessions in order to coordinate care for his service dog, describing this as something he has done consistently throughout the program, including for Intensive I and a prior out-of-town Clinical I, and characterizing it as a disability accommodation that has been approved each semester rather than a new request. Ilma Stipanovic responded that the dates were the same for both locations, that a location change required completing the standard Location Exception Request Form, that such requests are reviewed case by case with no guarantee of approval, and that a student arriving at the wrong location would be turned away; she added that under the ADA a student can have a service dog with him as any member of the public could in a store or doctor's office, and that Herzing could not make exceptions for any one student in fairness to others. The reporting student replied that this was not a request but a legally required disability accommodation, that he understood ADA and Section 504 well from over a decade of relevant professional experience, and separately asserted that Herzing had promised Nashville as his intensive location at the time of his enrollment, characterizing the university's current attempt to place him in Brookfield instead as a misleading and deceptive trade practice and a likely breach of contract. After reviewing the Location Exception Request Form, the reporting student identified several form provisions he stated violate the ADA and Section 504 and constitute retaliation: that his request would only be reviewed after registration for assigned-location students is complete, that submission of the form does not guarantee approval, that he would still need to register for a session at his assigned location he did not intend to attend, that failure to secure a session may delay his progression, and that the form did not let him select his preferred Nashville date the way non-disabled students could select their preferred date. Ilma Stipanovic maintained that every student, disabled or not, must go through the same form and process, and that the process could not be varied for fairness reasons. The reporting student subsequently asked that further communication from Ilma Stipanovic be directed to his Herzing email rather than his personal email, stating the personal emails were frustrating him and he preferred to read them in a better headspace, and stated he would coordinate directly with disability services and requested time with Emilie Thompson, the ADA and Title IX Coordinator, to discuss both the accommodation process and his concerns about the form language.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student, email, July 25, 2026, 6:11 PM: request for both locations' dates to coordinate service dog care, describing this as an approved, recurring disability accommodation. Ilma Stipanovic, emails, July 25, 2026, 6:25 PM, 6:39 PM, and 6:38 PM (Sunday July 26, 8:46 AM continuation): statements that the dates are the same for both locations, that the exception form is required of every student regardless of ADA status, that a service dog is separately permitted under the ADA the way it would be in any public place, and that the process could not be varied for fairness. The reporting student, email, July 25, 2026, 6:27 PM: statement that this is a disability accommodation matter, not a request. The reporting student, email, July 25, 2026, 6:52 PM: assertion that Nashville was the enrollment-promised location and that changing it now is a misleading and deceptive trade practice and a likely breach of contract. The reporting student, email, July 25, 2026, 7:20 PM, with an attached annotated copy of the Location Exception Request Form: identification of specific form language he states violates the ADA and Section 504 and constitutes retaliation. The reporting student, email, July 26, 2026, 9:15 AM: statement that he will coordinate with disability services, a request to schedule time with Emilie Thompson, and a request that Ilma Stipanovic use his Herzing email address going forward. Screenshot, July 25, 2026, 7:16 PM (Screenshot 2026-07-25 at 7.16.36 PM.png): the actual Location Exception Request Form (Microsoft Forms), question 13, titled "Acknowledgment and Agreement," showing the five bulleted statements the reporting student identifies as problematic and his verbatim typed response declining to agree to them. (Source Group: email thread, subject "Fall 2026, Brookfield, WI: Intensive II Registration," between the reporting student and Ilma Stipanovic, Experiential Learning Manager, Intensives, Herzing University Brookfield, with Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Danielle Laban, ADA, and Emilie Thompson copied, July 24 through 26, 2026; provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>This is a disability accomodations matter not a request and it is required by law unless you are going to allow me to have my service animal with me at the campus which is also required by law. [Form language the reporting student identifies as problematic:] My request will only be reviewed after registration for assigned-location students is complete. Submission of this form does not guarantee approval. I should still register for an available session at my assigned location. Failure to secure a session may delay my progression. [The reporting student's verbatim typed response in the form, July 25, 2026:] I do not agree or consent to this. By doing "My request will only be reviewed after registration for assigned-location students is complete" you are retaliating for me requesting disability accommodations. Putting me in a worse position than other students because I am requesting an accommodation.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq., require that reasonable accommodations be provided rather than treated as a discretionary courtesy, and prohibit retaliation against a student for requesting an accommodation, 42 U.S.C. §12203. Whether requiring every student, disabled or not, to submit the same location exception form is itself a Section 504 or ADA violation depends on whether the process as applied denies or unreasonably delays a legally required accommodation; a facially neutral process applied without an individualized accommodation review can still violate these laws if it results in the disabled student being treated less favorably or being required to jump through hurdles that a documented, previously approved accommodation should not require. The reporting student's characterization of specific provisions as retaliatory is his own legal conclusion, offered here as his stated position rather than an adjudicated finding. Separately, if Herzing did in fact specify Nashville as the reporting student's intensive location as a term of his enrollment agreement, changing that assignment without his consent could implicate general contract and consumer protection principles; this has not been verified against the enrollment agreement itself in this entry and is flagged as an open item.

'''Impact.''' If the reporting student's account is accurate, treating a previously approved, recurring disability accommodation as a discretionary, case-by-case exception request, subject to a process that does not guarantee approval and that requires registering for a session he does not intend to attend, risks both delay in securing an appropriate intensive location and the chilling effect of a process the reporting student already experiences as retaliatory. The unresolved dispute over which location was contractually promised at enrollment adds a separate risk of a last-minute location conflict close to the intensive dates.

'''Notes.''' It is recommended that the reporting student request, in writing from Emilie Thompson or the ADA office, a formal determination of whether his location preference for intensives is a standing approved accommodation as he describes it, rather than a case-by-case exception request, and that he request a copy of his original enrollment agreement or admissions materials to verify or refute his assertion that Nashville was the specified intensive location at enrollment. The full text of the Location Exception Request Form and the reporting student's verbatim typed response (Screenshot 2026-07-25 at 7.16.36 PM.png) have now been provided and should be preserved as exhibits; the form's own text confirms the five bulleted statements quoted above are the institution's stated terms, and the reporting student's response was entered directly into the form's required response field rather than sent only by separate email, meaning his non-consent and retaliation objection is part of the submitted form record itself. Cross-References: the June 4, 2026 meeting group documenting his approved accommodations tied to his service dog, sleep schedule, and medication timing, and the short-notice clinical scheduling pattern already documented there; {{HU|HU-183}} (the related Intensive II registration process issue arising from this same registration cycle).


=== HU-186: The click gesture the reporting student uses to trigger text-to-speech read aloud now opens a dictionary panel instead ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED as to the software behavior, which was demonstrated on the call and acknowledged by the Elsevier representative; the risk of an actual academic integrity flag arising from it is prospective and has not yet occurred
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Gesture Triggers Prohibited Resource Display, Creating False Academic Integrity Flag Exposure
! Date added
| 2026-08-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Elsevier / HESI product and technology teams; ProctorU (Meazure Learning); Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator); Herzing academic leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student stated on the August 4, 2026 call that the method he has used throughout the program to trigger read-aloud of examination text is to hover over and click the text. He demonstrated that within the current secure browser this gesture no longer triggers read-aloud and instead opens a macOS dictionary and thesaurus panel displaying the definition of the selected term, with an option to open full Wikipedia content. The reporting student identified the consequence directly on the call: if he performs his ordinary accommodation gesture and a dictionary panel appears on screen, a ProctorU proctor observing the session may flag the session for accessing unauthorized resources, after which the reporting student would bear the burden of a grade appeal to establish that he was attempting to use an approved accommodation rather than attempting to cheat. He characterized that as a materially harder appeal to win because the on-screen behavior superficially resembles misconduct. The Elsevier representative stated that the text-to-speech function should play and that he was not aware of this behavior, and escalated it together with the dictionary defect documented in {{HU|HU-185}}.

'''Evidence.''' Recorded call and transcript, August 4, 2026: the reporting student's description of his established read-aloud method, his live demonstration that the gesture produces a dictionary panel rather than audio, his statement of the resulting academic integrity exposure, and the Elsevier representative's acknowledgment that the text-to-speech function should be functioning and that he was unaware of the dictionary behavior. (Source Group: recorded video call, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who joined near the end of the call; transcript provided by the reporting student. Speaker attribution in the automated transcript is inconsistent and the same speaker is labeled variously; the substance is clear but individual lines should be attributed by reference to the underlying recording rather than to transcript speaker labels.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>If I go to click on something and have it read it to me, and it opens a dictionary instead of reading it to me, then ProctorU flags me for cheating. They shut down my exam in the middle of exam. Well, I didn't mean to. I was trying to have it read it back to me.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq., together with 34 C.F.R. §104.44 (academic adjustments), require that approved accommodations be usable in practice and not merely nominally available. A configuration in which the act of invoking an accommodation produces conduct that the institution's own integrity controls treat as suspicious places a disability-related burden on the student that non-disabled students do not bear. Whether text-to-speech read-aloud is documented as an approved accommodation in the reporting student's June 2026 accommodation letter remains an open item, as noted in {{HU|HU-175}}, and should be confirmed before this entry is relied upon as an accommodation violation rather than a software defect.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student faces a choice between forgoing an accommodation he relies on for chart-heavy and split-screen items, or using it and risking an integrity flag he would then have to disprove through the appeals process. Given the volume of grade appeals already documented in this tracker arising from vendor-caused disruptions, an additional appeal predicated on an apparent integrity violation would be substantially more difficult and more consequential than the appeals filed to date.

'''Notes.''' It is recommended that written confirmation be requested from Herzing that no academic integrity finding will be initiated against the reporting student arising from a dictionary panel appearing during an examination while this defect remains unresolved, and that Emilie Thompson confirm whether text-to-speech read-aloud is documented as an approved accommodation. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-185}} (the underlying dictionary and outside-resource defect), {{HU|HU-175}} (the accessibility failure cluster and the open question of what the June 2026 accommodation letter documents), {{HU|HU-187}} (cumulative examination scheduling pressure).


=== HU-189: Herzing failed to provide virtual simulation presentation slides at least 24 hours in advance as required by the reporting student's written accommodation letter ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED. Unlike most accommodation entries in this tracker, the underlying accommodation is expressly documented in writing in the February 3, 2026 accommodation letter, so no verification of the accommodation's existence is required
|-
! Issue type
| Failure to Deliver an Expressly Documented Written Accommodation, Advance Provision of Synchronous Session Slides
! Date added
| 2026-08-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Heather Gregg (Clinical II faculty) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Jessica Tressler / Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator) / Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs)
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student's approved accommodations, as set out in writing by Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, on February 3, 2026, expressly include that the instructor should provide the PowerPoint slides for any synchronous session to the student at least 24 hours prior to that synchronous session. For the virtual simulation session scheduled for Wednesday, August 5, 2026 in NSG525 Clinical II, that accommodation was not delivered. On August 4, 2026 at 10:02 AM, Heather Gregg wrote that she had been asked to provide review materials, but stated that she did not have access to the PowerPoint presentations that would be used during the session, and instead supplied her own topical presentations on Schizophrenia, PTSD, and ADHD together with Nursing Leadership materials provided by Dr. Prashad. She further noted uncertainty as to the session content itself, stating that Wednesday's topics were to include Schizophrenia, Nursing Leadership, and PTSD, but that PTSD may have already been covered on Day 2 and might be replaced by ADHD, so she was providing materials for both possibilities. The reporting student replied the same morning asking how to obtain the actual case studies, noting he had received them the prior week from Jessica Tressler, and explaining that they are very hard to read because they are very small on the screen and because he is unable to move back and forth between slides. At 9:09 PM that evening, roughly the eve of the session, the reporting student emailed six Herzing recipients stating he still had not received the slides, that he could not complete the associated assignment because he was struggling to read them on the small screen share, that the screen share is not compatible with his screen reader or zoom features because it is pixelated, and that his accommodation requires the materials at least 24 hours in advance, which had not occurred. At 9:17 PM he sent a parallel Microsoft Teams message to Dr. Prashad, Emilie Thompson, Dr. Laban, and Dr. Black, in which he stated he understood the university wished to keep the virtual simulation slideshows confidential, disclaimed any intention of sharing or publicizing them, and asked the university to confirm that it intended to comply with his accommodations as written. In that message he also stated that he had received the materials the prior week only after pushback, that he is not receiving effective extended time because the professor advances to the next slide before he has finished reading, and that he has the right to use a screen reader and to print the materials. The reporting student has separately described the institution's stated rationale as a desire to keep copyrighted or proprietary simulation material from being released, while nonetheless displaying that same material to students on a screen share he cannot magnify or process with assistive technology.

'''Evidence.''' Accommodation letter, Emilie Thompson, February 3, 2026, subject "Academic Accommodations Updated," addressed to faculty and copied to the reporting student, Dr. Prashad, and Dr. Laban, stating among the approved accommodations that the instructor should provide the PowerPoint slides for any synchronous session to the student at least 24 hours prior to any synchronous session, and separately that the instructor should record and transcribe any live or synchronous learning session and provide a copy to the student. Email, Heather Gregg, August 4, 2026, 10:02 AM: statement that she did not have access to the PowerPoint presentations to be used during the session, provision of substitute topical materials, and description of unresolved uncertainty as to whether the session would cover PTSD or ADHD. Email, the reporting student, August 4, 2026, 10:15 AM: request for the actual case studies and description of difficulty reading them at small size and inability to move between slides. Email, the reporting student, August 4, 2026, 9:09 PM, subject "Sims": statement that the slides had still not been received, that the screen share is pixelated and not compatible with his screen reader or zoom, that he requires a hard copy to complete the assignment, and that his accommodation requires provision at least 24 hours in advance. Microsoft Teams message, the reporting student, August 4, 2026, 9:17 PM: acknowledgment of the university's confidentiality interest, disclaimer of any intent to share the material, statement that he received materials the prior week only after pushback, statement that he is not receiving effective extended time because the presenter advances slides before he finishes, and request for written confirmation of intent to comply. (Source Group: email, Heather Gregg to the reporting student, cc Jessica Tressler and Dr. Raywattie Prashad, August 4, 2026, 10:02 AM Central, subject "Supplemental Materials for Sim Day"; the reporting student's reply, August 4, 2026, 10:15 AM Central; the reporting student's email, August 4, 2026, 9:09 PM Central, subject "Sims," to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Heather Gregg, the ADA office, Emilie Thompson, and David Steele; Microsoft Teams group chat message from the reporting student, August 4, 2026, 9:17 PM, to Dr. Prashad, Emilie Thompson, Dr. Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; and the governing accommodation letter, Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, February 3, 2026, subject "Academic Accommodations Updated.")

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Accommodation letter, Feb 3, 2026:] Instructor should provide the powerpoint slides for any synchronous session to the student at least 24 hours prior to any synchronous session. [The reporting student, Aug 4, 2026:] I still have not received the respective slides for the assignment for tomorrow. That is not compliant with my accessibility features such as the screen reader or the zoom feature because it is pixelated. [Heather Gregg, Aug 4, 2026:] I do not have access to the PowerPoint presentations that will be used during the session.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq., together with 34 C.F.R. §104.44 (academic adjustments), require that approved academic adjustments actually be delivered. This entry is materially stronger than most accommodation entries in this tracker because the specific accommodation is expressly stated in Herzing's own February 3, 2026 accommodation letter in mandatory terms, so the question is one of delivery rather than of whether the accommodation exists or was approved. A stated institutional interest in protecting proprietary or copyrighted instructional material is not, without more, a defense to non-delivery, particularly where the same material is displayed to the student in a format he cannot access; the ordinary course would be to provide the material subject to confidentiality conditions, which the reporting student has stated he would accept. Whether Herzing in fact asserted a copyright or confidentiality rationale in writing, as opposed to the reporting student's account of what he was told, has not been confirmed from a Herzing-authored document in this entry and should be verified. The related accommodation in the same letter that the instructor record and transcribe any live or synchronous session and provide a copy to the student is also potentially engaged and should be checked for compliance.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student faced a graded virtual simulation session and an associated assignment on August 5, 2026 without access, in any usable format, to the presentation materials the assignment is based upon. He states he cannot read the material as displayed and cannot apply his screen reader or magnification to a pixelated screen share, and that the presenter advances slides before he has finished, which negates the practical benefit of extended time. Faculty were themselves uncertain what topics the session would cover, so the substitute materials provided may not correspond to the session content. This occurs in the same week as the compressed examination schedule documented in {{HU|HU-187}}, compounding the cumulative academic risk.

'''Notes.''' IMPORTANT COLLATERAL FINDING: the February 3, 2026 accommodation letter located in connection with this entry expressly documents 250 percent time on timed testing, a 72-hour assignment extension on request, advance provision of synchronous session slides, and recording and transcription of synchronous sessions. It does NOT, on its face, enumerate screen magnification or text-to-speech read-aloud as named accommodations. That bears directly on the open item flagged in {{HU|HU-175}} and in both pending OCR complaints, and should be reconciled before those filings are relied upon; there may be a later or supplemental accommodation letter, and the reporting student should be asked whether one exists. It is recommended that written confirmation be requested of whether Herzing asserts a copyright or confidentiality basis for withholding the simulation slides, and if so, why provision under a confidentiality condition is not workable given the reporting student's stated willingness to accept one. It is also recommended that the recordings and transcripts of the synchronous sessions, which the same accommodation letter requires, be requested. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-187}} (compressed examination schedule in the same period), {{HU|HU-175}} (accessibility failure cluster and the open question, now partly answered by the February 3, 2026 accommodation letter, of what accommodations are formally documented), {{HU|HU-186}} (accommodation gesture and integrity exposure), and the earlier tracker entries documenting clinical and simulation scheduling instability in NSG525 Clinical II.


=== HU-192: Dr. Raywattie Prashad told the reporting student he could access required virtual clinical materials only through course postings rather than receiving them directly ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED. The entire exchange is documented in the parties' own written emails
|-
! Issue type
| Denial of Direct Provision of a Documented Accommodation; Confidentiality and Accreditation Rationale Offered in Lieu of Compliance; Escalation to Associate Vice President Pending
! Date added
| 2026-08-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Jessica Tressler / Dr. Sarah Bell / Heather Gregg / Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs)
|}
'''Finding.''' On July 29, 2026 at 8:31 AM, the reporting student emailed Dr. Tressler, Heather Gregg, and Dr. Bell, copying Dr. Prashad, Dr. Laban, the ADA office, Emilie Thompson, and David Steele, stating that he is supposed to receive the slideshow 24 hours in advance of his virtual clinical in accordance with his accommodations, that he had not received them, that it was vital given how small the screen is, and that he was also supposed to receive a recording and transcript of the prior week's session, which did not happen. Dr. Tressler responded within the thread providing that week's slideshow, stating she would send the prior week's slides as a resource during a break, asking Dr. Bell to provide the recording and transcript, and instructing that the materials not be shared with other students for confidentiality purposes. Dr. Prashad then wrote directly to the reporting student, stating that the relevant materials had been in NSG523 and NSG524 since the start of the course, that NSG525 Clinical II is the application of that material, and that the reporting student should locate the recordings and slides already posted in those other courses, including materials prepared as part of the Sherpath suite, rather than being sent the virtual clinical materials directly. She stated that the specific virtual clinical patient scenarios are treated the same as protected patient data in an in-person clinical and would not be shared, including the recordings, and separately explained that she had personally provided make-up materials to the reporting student the prior semester only because the scenarios used that day were being retired and he was the only student doing a make-up session with her. The reporting student replied that he had learned disability services had not communicated his accommodations to Dr. Bell, which he stated was why he had not received the materials previously, and asked that this be handled more proactively going forward, noting it had been a struggle to complete the prior week's assignment without them. Dr. Prashad followed up stating she had sent a further email and asking that the materials not be shared until new patient scenarios could be created, citing a need to create authentic experiences for each virtual clinical to meet accreditation standards. The reporting student's final message in the thread, sent while on a work break, confirmed he had the weekly slides and the V-Sim slide but stated this did not resolve the underlying accommodation issue: he quoted his written accommodation directly, that the instructor should provide PowerPoint slides for any synchronous session at least 24 hours prior and should record and transcribe any live or synchronous session, stated the V-Sim is a synchronous session, and explained that unlike an in-person clinical where he can zoom, pause, and return to a physical chart as long as needed, a virtual simulation displayed only as a small, time-limited screen share does not allow him to read the material in time before the presenter advances, and that being able to zoom and use a screen reader would be a reasonable accommodation already built into most electronic health record systems used at his workplace. He stated he was not going to share the materials with others but needed them properly accommodated. Separately, on August 5, 2026, in an unrelated thread concerning exam scheduling, Dr. Danielle Laban wrote to the reporting student: "I am working with Dr. Prashad to determine what happened with the materials." This is the first written confirmation from Herzing leadership above the Program Chair level that the materials issue is being reviewed, though as of the date this entry was added no further written update, resolution, or documented outcome of that review has been provided to the reporting student. UPDATE: the reporting student did not participate in the most recent virtual clinical day because he did not have the documentation, the required advance materials described above, needed to take part.

'''Evidence.''' Email, the reporting student to Jessica Tressler, Heather Gregg, and Sarah Bell, cc Raywattie Prashad, Danielle Laban, ADA, Emilie Thompson, and David Steele, subject "Slides/Accommodations," July 29, 2026, 8:31 AM. Email, Jessica Tressler, same thread, July 29, 2026, 8:37 AM (providing partial materials, instructing confidentiality, requesting the recording and transcript from Sarah Bell). Email, Raywattie Prashad, same thread, July 29, 2026, 10:12 AM (directing the reporting student to locate materials in NSG523 and NSG524, describing virtual clinical scenarios as protected patient data, referencing a prior-semester exception tied to retiring scenarios). Email, the reporting student, same thread, July 29, 2026, 10:26 AM (learned ADA had not communicated accommodations to Dr. Bell). Email, Raywattie Prashad, same thread, July 29, 2026, 10:26 AM (citing accreditation authenticity requirements and asking the materials not be shared until new scenarios are created). Email, the reporting student, same thread, July 29, 2026, 10:35 AM (quoting the written accommodation verbatim, explaining the V-Sim is a synchronous session, describing the small screen and advancing-slide problem, and the reasonable-accommodation comparison to workplace EHR zoom and screen reader functionality). Email, Danielle Laban to the reporting student, subject "Re: [EXTERNAL]," August 5, 2026, 11:19 AM ("I am working with Dr. Prashad to determine what happened with the materials"). (Source Group: email thread, subject "Slides/Accommodations," between the reporting student, Dr. Jessica Tressler, Heather Gregg, Dr. Sarah Bell, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad, cc Dr. Danielle Laban, ADA, Emilie Thompson, and David Steele, July 29, 2026, 8:31 AM through 10:35 AM Central; and email thread, subject "Re: [EXTERNAL]," between the reporting student and Dr. Danielle Laban, August 4 through August 5, 2026, specifically Dr. Laban's message of August 5, 2026, 11:19 AM Central.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>The accommodation reads "Instructor should provide the powerpoint slides for any synchronous session to the student at least 24 hours prior to any synchronous session... The VSim is a synchronous session." [Dr. Prashad, Jul 29, 2026:] For us to meet accreditation standards we have to create authentic experiences for each virtual clinical so please do not share these until we are able to create new patient scenarios for this content. [Dr. Laban, Aug 5, 2026:] I'm working with Dr. Prashad to determine what happened with the materials.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq., together with 34 C.F.R. §104.44 (academic adjustments), require that an approved accommodation be delivered as written rather than substituted with a different arrangement the institution finds more convenient. Directing a student to locate substitute materials in other, related courses does not satisfy a written requirement that the instructor provide the specific synchronous session materials to the student at least 24 hours in advance, particularly where, as here, the student and faculty member (Heather Gregg, per {{HU|HU-189}}) were both uncertain the substitute materials matched the session content. An institutional interest in accreditation authenticity and protection of retiring patient simulation scenarios, comparable in Dr. Prashad's framing to protected patient data, is a legitimate institutional interest, but is not on its face a stated exception to a written ADA and Section 504 accommodation, and the record does not reflect that Herzing offered an alternative compliant means of providing the accommodation, such as timed or supervised access, a confidentiality agreement, or redacted materials, before declining to provide the slides directly. This entry should be read together with {{HU|HU-189}}, which documents the same underlying accommodation and its failure for the August 5, 2026 session; this entry documents the preceding written exchange in which the institution's rationale for withholding the materials was first stated by Dr. Prashad and is now under review by Dr. Laban.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student was required, across at least two consecutive virtual clinical sessions, to complete graded work based on materials he states he could not read in the format and timeframe provided, notwithstanding a specific, written 24-hour advance provision requirement. The stated rationale, that disability services had not communicated his accommodations to Dr. Bell, is itself a separate internal communication failure layered on top of the substantive dispute over whether Dr. Prashad's proposed alternative, locating materials in other courses, satisfies the letter's terms at all. The matter is now under review at the Associate Vice President level as of August 5, 2026, which is a positive development, but no written resolution, corrective process, or confirmation that future sessions will comply with the 24-hour requirement has been documented as of this entry. This is not a hypothetical risk: the reporting student has already missed a scheduled virtual clinical day because he lacked the required documentation, a direct, concrete instance of the harm this entry describes rather than a projected one.

'''Notes.''' It is recommended that a written, dated resolution be requested from Dr. Laban once her review with Dr. Prashad concludes, specifically confirming: whether the 24-hour advance slide requirement will be met directly for all future virtual clinical sessions, whether the recording and transcript requirement is being met, and what caused the disability services communication failure to Dr. Bell referenced by the reporting student on July 29, 2026. This entry should be updated once that resolution is received. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-189}} (the August 5, 2026 virtual simulation session for which the required materials were not provided, and the February 3, 2026 accommodation letter establishing the 24-hour advance slide requirement), {{HU|HU-187}} (the same period's compressed examination schedule), and the broader pattern in this tracker of accommodation requirements being met with institutional-convenience-based alternatives rather than direct compliance.


=== HU-193: Herzing directed the reporting student to sign up for a 6-hour make-up clinical shift to cover 3 missed V-Sim hours ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED. The exchange is documented in the parties' own written emails
|-
! Issue type
| Open Ended Make Up Hours Requirement Tied to a Disability Accommodation; Uncredited Hours Risk; Inconsistent Instructions
! Date added
| 2026-08-10
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Heather Gregg (Clinical II faculty) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' Heather Gregg emailed the reporting student stating that Dr. Prashad had confirmed she could send him a link to sign up for additional clinical hours to supplement three missed V-Sim hours, that he should register for a six-hour shift but attend for three hours, and that Dr. Prashad would discuss further details at an already scheduled meeting. Approximately two hours later, Dr. Gregg sent a correction stating she had misread Dr. Prashad's note, which actually said the reporting student may have to stay longer than three hours depending on the case, and apologized for the confusion. The reporting student responded that he would do his best to finish in three hours, since that is the number of hours he actually needs, but stated he would be unable to stay late unless he received credit for every hour attended, and that he is not required to attend hours beyond what the term requires. He explained that while students are traditionally asked to stay late at clinicals even after completing their hours, his situation differs because the extra hours exist specifically due to a disability accommodation, and that disability accommodations cannot create additional burdens on the student who requested them. He proposed that if he exceeded the required hours for the semester, the excess should be credited toward the following semester, and offered an alternative of ending his last clinical week three hours early instead, noting that would require coordination with Dr. Rachel Powell. Dr. Prashad responded that the make-up would remain within his accommodations because virtual patient care does not end at a fixed time, so the session could run under or over three hours, and that if it ran long he would still finish before 2 PM with built-in breaks. The reporting student replied that this response did not address his core point: that unlike every other student, who attended a fixed start and end time with no possibility of running over, he alone faced an open-ended time commitment specifically because he required a disability accommodation, and that any hours beyond the required total needed to be documented and credited toward his 585-hour program requirement rather than treated as an unpaid extension of his obligation. He stated that requiring him to potentially work additional undocumented hours, when no other student who attended the original session had that open-ended requirement, itself constitutes an additional burden imposed because he sought an accommodation. He reiterated in a follow-up message that he was willing to stay late but only if every hour was documented toward his required total, comparing an uncredited extension to being asked to work without being credited or paid for it.

'''Evidence.''' Email, Heather Gregg to the reporting student, August 3, 2026 (register for a six-hour shift, attend for three hours, per Dr. Prashad). Email, Heather Gregg, August 4, 2026, 10:50 AM (correction: Dr. Prashad's note said the reporting student may have to stay longer than three hours). Email, the reporting student, August 4, 2026 (objection that he will attend three hours, is not required to attend more, and that any additional time must be credited toward his 585-hour total; proposal to instead end his final clinical week three hours early). Email, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, August 4, 2026 (response that virtual patient care does not end at a fixed time and that accommodations will still be met if the session runs past three hours). Email, the reporting student, August 4, 2026 (reply that no other student who attended the original session faced an open-ended time commitment, that this open-endedness is itself a burden tied to his accommodation, and that any additional hours must be documented and credited toward his required total). Follow-up email, the reporting student, same date (restating willingness to stay late conditioned on every hour being credited). (Source Group: email thread, subject "V-Sim Make Up," between Heather Gregg, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, and the reporting student, cc ADA, Dr. Danielle Laban, David Steele, Emilie Thompson, and Dr. Rachel Powell, August 3 through August 4, 2026.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Disability accommodations cannot lead to extra burdens on a student. Meaning I can't be assigned extra hours simply because I requested the disability accommodations... No other students who attended the vsim days had extra time they were required to stay late, I know this because I have been in contact with my friends. This would be a requirement that is added to me specifically because I requested accommodations.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq., together with 34 C.F.R. §104.44 (academic adjustments), prohibit an institution from imposing requirements on a student because of an accommodation that are not imposed on other students. The reporting student's legal theory, that an open-ended, potentially uncredited time commitment tied specifically to a disability-related make-up session is itself a disability-based burden, is a substantive and well-framed accommodation argument that should be evaluated on its own terms rather than folded into the general make-up scheduling process. Compare against the Prelicensure Student Handbook's clinical hour and make-up provisions and against Herzing's policy, referenced elsewhere in this tracker, that clinical hours be accurately logged and credited; whether hours attended beyond a stated make-up requirement are in fact credited toward the reporting student's 585-hour total, or toward a future semester as he proposed, has not been confirmed in writing by Herzing in the material reviewed.

'''Impact.''' If the reporting student's make-up session runs beyond three hours without those additional hours being credited toward his required total, he will have performed clinical work without corresponding academic credit, a burden the record does not show was imposed on any other student who attended the original V-Sim session on a fixed schedule. The dispute also reflects a communication reliability problem: Dr. Gregg's initial instruction was itself incorrect and required a same-day correction, adding uncertainty to an already accommodation-sensitive scheduling matter.

'''Notes.''' It is recommended that the reporting student obtain written confirmation from Dr. Prashad or Dr. Powell, before the August 22, 2026 make-up session, of exactly how any hours beyond three will be credited, whether toward his current 585-hour total or a future semester as he proposed, so the matter is resolved in writing before the session occurs rather than disputed afterward. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-189}} and {{HU|HU-192}} (the underlying missed V-Sim materials and session giving rise to this make-up requirement), the existing {{HU|HU-135}} cluster (eight-hour clinical shift accommodation and hour-count disputes in the same course), and {{HU|HU-191}} (the separate one-hour clinical shortfall and undocumented verbal assurance pattern, illustrating a recurring concern about clinical hours not being reliably documented in writing).


=== HU-197: During a severe asthma flare-up in September 2026, Herzing offered a one-time testing courtesy rather than a disability accommodation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED as to the full email exchange and its content; the reporting student's characterization of the university's conduct as disability discrimination and retaliation is his own stated legal position, presented here as stated rather than as an adjudicated finding
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Request Characterized as a Discretionary Courtesy Rather Than an ADA Accommodation; Incomplete Grade Policy Deadline Applied During Acute Illness; Retaliation Concern Raised by Student; Resignation from Elected Office
! Date added
| 2026-09-13
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Herzing's ADA office
|}
'''Finding.''' On September 4, 2026, the reporting student notified Dr. Laban and Dr. Prashad that he needed to cancel two scheduled exams due to multiple asthma attacks in the preceding 24 hours, that his doctor had started him on a steroid that could take up to five days to take effect, and he attached supporting medical documentation. Dr. Laban responded the same day that she would work with the team to reschedule the exams in ProctorU once he was ready. On September 8, 2026, the reporting student provided an update that he had also developed a severe asthma flare-up following a cold, was using his inhaler and nebulizer daily, and asked to be dropped from an optional Scholarly Practice course to push it to a future semester given the need to make up his remaining final exams; he copied his instructors on his health update. On September 9, 2026, still recovering, moving apartments that week, and scheduled to present to new student orientation, the reporting student proposed taking his two remaining exams the following Thursday and Saturday, and asked that ProctorU be told he might have moving boxes in his testing space. Dr. Prashad responded that grades needed to be entered by the following Friday given that this involved an Incomplete, and recommended the exams be taken earlier in the week, stating this was not intended to discount his illness. The reporting student replied that he works during the week, that these were the first available days he had, that he did not think it fair to be rushed while recovering from technical issues Herzing had caused with four of his exams over the prior two classes, and that asthma is a documented disability; he questioned whether a proctor would object to him being close to the screen while also not permitting a nebulizer. On September 11, 2026, Dr. Laban responded that Herzing would add a one-time note to his ProctorU account permitting moving boxes in his testing environment and use of his prescribed inhaled asthma medication during testing, but stated explicitly that this was a one-time courtesy and not considered an ADA accommodation, and that any accommodation would need to go through the university's formal ADA process. She then explained that under Herzing's Incomplete Grade Policy, because NSG 523 and NSG 524 are both prerequisites for all three of his fall semester courses, he had two options: complete the outstanding exams by Friday, September 18, 2026, or request an extension, which would place him on an Approved Break until the incomplete was resolved, delaying his return to coursework requiring those prerequisites until the spring term. The reporting student responded that he would proceed with the proposed Thursday and Friday schedule under protest, stated he would file a third complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, and stated he was bcc'ing the Department of Education on that email. He stated the university had documented his asthma as a disability since August 2025, that he could barely breathe and had been unable to get out of bed from coughing, that he had only asked for a 24-hour extension, and that he had confirmed asthma is a covered disability under the ADA. He stated he would use his nebulizer during testing and would set up a separate camera recording the room in case the proctor raised any objection. In the same email, the reporting student told Dr. Prashad he would not present to new student orientation that day and resigned his position as President of the Student Nursing Association, stating he did not believe he could freely speak his mind while serving in a leadership role and intended to remain a member and continue serving at the national level.

'''Evidence.''' Email, the reporting student, September 4, 2026, subject "Sick," with attached medical documentation. Email, Dr. Laban, same date: agreement to reschedule the exams in ProctorU. Email, the reporting student, September 8, 2026, subject "Update": description of the asthma flare-up, daily inhaler and nebulizer use, and request to drop the optional Scholarly Practice course. Email, the reporting student, September 9, 2026, subject "Exams": proposed Thursday/Saturday exam schedule and request to document possible moving boxes. Email, Dr. Prashad, September 9, 2026: recommendation to take exams earlier in the week given the Friday grade-entry deadline, with a statement that this did not discount his illness. Email, the reporting student, September 9, 2026: description of his work schedule, the technical issues affecting four prior exams, and reference to asthma as a documented disability. Email, Dr. Laban, September 11, 2026: the one-time courtesy regarding moving boxes and inhaled medication, express statement that this is not an ADA accommodation, a citation to Herzing's disability services page, a citation to the Incomplete Grade Policy in the online catalog, and the two stated options, complete by September 18, 2026 or take an Approved Break until spring. Email, the reporting student, September 11, 2026: agreement to the Thursday/Friday schedule under protest, statement of intent to file a third OCR complaint with a bcc to the Department of Education, his account of the severity of his symptoms, his position that the university failed to engage in required interactive collaboration, his plan to use a nebulizer and a second recording camera during testing, and his resignation as Student Nursing Association President. (Source Group: email, the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban and Dr. Raywattie Prashad, subject "Sick," September 4, 2026; email, the reporting student to Dr. Laban, Emilie Thompson, ADA, cc Dr. Prashad and others, subject "Update," September 8, 2026; email thread, subject "Exams," between the reporting student, Dr. Laban, and Dr. Prashad, cc ADA and Emilie Thompson, September 9 through 11, 2026.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Please note this is a one time courtesy, and is not considered an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Any accommodation to that extent will need to be requested and reviewed through the University's formal ADA accommodation process. [Dr. Laban, Sep 11, 2026] ... Please take notice that I will be submitting this to the Department of Education for a third Office of Civil Rights complaint given the fact that the university is forcing me to take two exams in one week when you know that I am sick due to a disability that I have documented with the university since August of 2025. [The reporting student, Sep 11, 2026]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq., together with 34 C.F.R. §104.44 (academic adjustments), require an interactive process and individualized consideration when a student raises a disability-related barrier, rather than resolution solely through a general institutional policy deadline. Herzing's own framing draws a sharp line between the informal testing accommodations it granted, which it expressly stated were not ADA accommodations, and the formal ADA process it directed the reporting student to use instead; whether that formal process was engaged during this acute episode, given the compressed timeline, is not established in this entry and should be confirmed. Asthma is a recognized disability under the ADA when it substantially limits a major life activity such as breathing, consistent with the reporting student's own cited understanding. The ADA's anti-retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. §12203, is potentially implicated by the reporting student's own characterization of the university's posture as retaliatory; that characterization is his stated position and is not independently verified in this entry. His resignation from an elected student leadership role, citing an inability to freely speak his mind while serving in that capacity, is documented as his stated reason and should be read as evidence of the effect these events had on him, not as an institutional action taken against him.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student faced a choice between testing while acutely ill, by his account barely able to breathe and unable to get out of bed, or accepting an Approved Break that would delay his return to required coursework until the spring term, given that NSG 523 and NSG 524 are prerequisites for his entire fall course load. This is a materially different and higher-stakes consequence than the grade appeals and rescheduling disputes documented elsewhere in this tracker, because the standard institutional remedy for an unresolved Incomplete, an Approved Break, itself operates as a significant academic and financial aid consequence for a student citing an acute disability-related barrier. The reporting student's resignation from the Student Nursing Association presidency is a direct, documented personal and professional consequence of this dispute.

'''Notes.''' IMPORTANT: this entry references a stated third OCR complaint. The two OCR complaints already drafted in this project cover the ProctorU/Elsevier testing accommodation failures and the Fall 2026 Intensive II location dispute; this asthma-related episode is a third, distinct factual basis and would need its own complaint or a supplemental filing rather than being folded into the existing two. It is recommended that the reporting student confirm whether this third complaint was in fact filed, and if so, that the same OCR Electronic Complaint Submission confirmation documentation used for the first two be obtained. It is also recommended that written confirmation of the outcome of the September 11 through 18, 2026 exam window be requested, and whether the Incomplete was resolved within the standard policy timeframe or whether an Approved Break was ultimately taken. Given the June 22, 2026 reference to an updated psychological evaluation prepared for an OCR investigator, a separate entry or review may be warranted to determine whether that evaluation and this asthma-related episode should be cross-referenced in any future filing. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-175}} and {{HU|HU-195}} (the ongoing, unresolved zoom and text reader accessibility failure the reporting student cites as the underlying cause of his compressed exam schedule; his September 9, 2026 email states the issue still does not work), {{HU|HU-187}} and {{HU|HU-192}} (the same compressed scheduling and materials-access pattern from August 2026), the June 22, 2026 correspondence in which the reporting student informed Dr. Laban of an updated psychological evaluation obtained in anticipation of an OCR investigator's request, which should be reviewed and reconciled with this entry and with the two already drafted OCR complaints.


=== HU-198: The reporting student informed Herzing that a Department of Education investigator had requested updated psychological evaluation documentation, and that his updated diagnosis newly includes Autism Spectrum Disorder ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED as to the content and transmission of this email; the underlying claim that an OCR investigator requested the evaluation, and the content of the attached evaluation report itself, have not been independently reviewed in this entry
|-
! Issue type
| Active OCR Investigation Involvement; Updated Disability Diagnosis Disclosed; Additional Complaint Under Consideration
! Date added
| 2026-09-13
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs); U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (investigator identity not stated in this email)
|}
'''Finding.''' On June 22, 2026, the reporting student informed Dr. Laban, copying Herzing's ADA office, Emilie Thompson, David Steele, and Dr. Nicole Franklin, that he had obtained an updated psychological evaluation on June 19, 2026, stating this was done in anticipation of a request from an investigator on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education. He stated his updated diagnosis now includes Autism Spectrum Disorder and attached the evaluation report. In the same email, he stated he was considering filing an additional OCR complaint, citing a 180-day filing requirement, that morning's exam issue, anxiety caused by a lack of accommodations on his first exams, denial of an accommodation request on a retake, and a failure to promptly provide an exam link, and stated this had not been resolved in several weeks and continued as a result of the ProctorU issue. He asked whether the university wished to address the matter with him that day before he filed an additional complaint. This is the first indication in this tracker's records that a Department of Education investigator had directly engaged with the reporting student regarding his existing OCR complaints and requested updated documentation from him, and the first indication that his diagnostic profile has been updated to include Autism Spectrum Disorder since the diagnoses referenced in earlier entries in this tracker.

'''Evidence.''' Email, the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, cc ADA, Emilie Thompson, David Steele, and Dr. Nicole Franklin, June 22, 2026, subject "Update," with attachment, the reporting student: statement that an updated psychological evaluation was completed June 19, 2026 in anticipation of an OCR investigator's request, statement that the updated diagnosis includes Autism Spectrum Disorder, and statement of intent to consider filing an additional OCR complaint based on that day's exam issue and a pattern of unresolved accommodation failures.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>As of 19 June 2026, I had an updated psychological evaluation done in anticipation of a request from the investigator on behalf of the Dept of Ed. My updated diagnosis includes Autism Spectrum Disorder.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' This entry does not itself allege a Herzing policy violation; it documents the status of the reporting student's engagement with OCR's investigative process and a material update to his documented disability profile, both of which bear directly on the two OCR complaints already drafted in this project and on {{HU|HU-197}}'s stated intent to file a third. Section 504 and ADA analysis of any of the reporting student's accommodation requests should account for the full, current diagnostic picture, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, rather than only the diagnoses referenced in earlier entries in this tracker.

'''Impact.''' If an OCR investigator is in fact actively requesting documentation from the reporting student directly, this indicates his existing complaint or complaints have progressed to an investigative stage, which is significant given the OCR backlog concerns discussed elsewhere in this project's research. The updated Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis may be relevant to accommodation requests not previously framed in those terms, including the sensory and processing related aspects of the screen-based testing accommodation disputes documented throughout this tracker.

'''Notes.''' IMPORTANT: it is recommended that the reporting student be asked directly (1) whether an OCR investigator has in fact contacted him, and if so, which complaint or complaints that investigator is handling and what documentation has been requested or provided since; (2) whether the additional OCR complaint referenced in this June 22, 2026 email was ultimately filed, and if so, that the same confirmation records used for the two OCR complaints already documented in this project be obtained; (3) whether the attached evaluation report (the reporting student) should be reviewed and incorporated into this tracker's evidence base, since it was not reviewed in preparing this entry; and (4) whether the Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis should be reflected in the accommodation letter discrepancy already flagged in {{HU|HU-175}} and {{HU|HU-189}}. This entry should be treated as a priority follow-up given its direct bearing on active federal proceedings. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-175}}, {{HU|HU-185}}, {{HU|HU-186}}, {{HU|HU-195}}, and {{HU|HU-197}} (the accommodation and testing disputes this evaluation update and potential complaint would relate to), and the two OCR complaint drafts already prepared in this project.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Category:Herzing University

2026-09-15T16:37:17Z

Docmoates: Link the Herzing University Issue Tracker

[[Category:Topics]]

This category also indexes the [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]], a student maintained record of reported and confirmed issues within Herzing University's MSN-DE prelicensure nursing program, and its supporting topic articles in [[:Category:Herzing University Issues]].

Herzing Issue Tracker: Sources and References

2026-09-15T16:37:15Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

The following sources were reviewed in the preparation of this document. All findings are tied to specific source documents. Nothing in this document was invented or assumed.

== Institutional Documents ==
* Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026, Herzing University MSN-DE Program (SICCED09255468)
* Defense Bundle 2026-04-29, the reporting student
* Defense Bundle 2026-04-30, the reporting student
* Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials, May 2026, the reporting student
* Herzing University Official Memorandum, "Catalog and Policy Changes Effective Summer 2026 Semester," To: All Herzing University Students, May 4, 2026 (photograph shared via Facebook post)
* Herzing University Undergraduate / Graduate Catalog: [https://catalog.herzing.edu/index.php?catoid=80]
* Herzing University Licensure / Certification Disclosure Tracker, Nursing (May 6, 2024): [https://www.herzing.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Licensure_Certification_Disclosure_Tracker_Nursing_05062024.pdf]

== EthicsPoint Reports ==
* EthicsPoint Report #1, the reporting student, September 18, 2025, filed against Student G, Student AT, Student T re academic dishonesty, unauthorized recording, retaliation, 14 evidence files uploaded
* Notion Workspace (submitted as evidence with EthicsPoint Report #1): [link redacted]
* EthicsPoint Report #2, the reporting student, December 3, 2025, re AI academic dishonesty (ChatGPT tracking URLs), 13 screenshots uploaded November 27, 2025
* Email: ADA/Title IX Coordinator Emilie Thompson to the reporting student, December 2, 2025, supplement to EthicsPoint Report #2
* Email: the reporting student to Emilie Thompson and Danielle Laban, December 3, 2025, supplement to EthicsPoint Report #2
* EthicsPoint Report #3, the reporting student, May 7, 2026, Report Key [redacted], re Student G NU725-7D AI use (ChatGPT URL markers in all three references)

== GroupMe Archives ==
* MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe, September 2025 through May 2026
* Herzing Nursing 2027 GroupMe
* Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe, January through June 2025
* Health Assessment NSG121 GroupMe, January through April 2025
* Herzing ProctorU Students GroupMe
* Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025 GroupMe
* GroupMe message: Student J, NSG621 mid-week assignment additions, May 2026
* GroupMe message: Student AG, Celia Pfaff resignation forwarded, May 2026
* GroupMe message: Student AD, remediation packet zero appeal, April 28, 2026

== Microsoft Teams / Email Archives ==
* SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat, April through May 2026
* SNA Email Chain, April through May 2026
* HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026)
* SNA Membership Roster (June 2025)
* NSNA Shared Governance Document (2024)
* Student B SNA Transition Letter

== Email Correspondence ==
* Email: the reporting student to Dr. Prashad / Dr. Black / Dr. Brown / Dr. Gregg re duplicate work; Dr. Tressler reply May 5, 2026; Dr. Prashad reply May 6, 2026; Dr. Laban reply May 6, 2026, May 4 through 6, 2026
* Email chain re NSG525 Duplicate Quiz Answers, the reporting student to Dr. Gombar / Dr. Gregg; Dr. Gombar and Dr. Gregg replies, May 2026
* Email thread "duplicate answers on Week 1 Pathophysiology Review," Sandra Russell J.D. BSMT (ASCP) to Dr. Ashley Jennings DNP MSNEd APRN FNP (Adjunct Faculty); Dr. Jennings reply confirming inaccuracy sent to leadership, May 5, 2026
* Email: Celia Pfaff (cpfaffjump@herzing.edu) to Student AG re resignation effective that morning, May 2026
* Email: Christina Kennedy (chrkennedy@herzing.edu) to the reporting student re clinical placement and role transition, May 7, 2026
* Email: Ariel E. Warner, Potomac Law Group PLLC, to the reporting student re ProctorU / Meazure Learning claims and records hold, May 7, 2026
* Email: Sandy Russell J.D. BSMT to Dr. Ashley Jennings DNP re duplicate quiz answers, Pathophysiology Review, May 5, 2026
* Grade Appeal Decision, academicappeals@herzing.edu to the reporting student, April 24, 2026
* Accommodation Request email, the reporting student ([email redacted]) to ada@herzing.edu, emthompson@herzing.edu, ppitts@herzing.edu, rprashad@herzing.edu re clinical schedule as 8-hour shifts, November 9, 2025
* Accommodation Plan emails, Dr. Laban (December 2025): "250% time testing link"; ProctorU accommodation reminder (April 28, 2026): "NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam 2026 Spring C Accommodations 250%"; October 2025: 200% time on timed testing
* Financial Aid emails, fa@herzing.edu to the reporting student, July 22, 2025 and July 29, 2025 re documentation requests
* McChesney / the reporting student email chain re Grad Plus Loan backend correction, March through April 2026
* Email: the reporting student to Emilie Thompson and IT re screen reader incompatibility with Outlook and IT blocking external accessibility software, April 28, 2026
* Bookstore email thread re scrubs size issue, the reporting student and Jeanette Ward (Bookstore Admin), September 2025 through January 2026
* Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Rachel Powell / Student A / Student AA re Meeting, May 26 to 27, 2026 (clinical placement regional fragmentation, advisor misconduct, student distress)
* Email from Student A re Urgent: Clinical Rotation Assignment Still Incorrect, May 25 to 26, 2026 (communicating since 5/12/26; clinical begins 5/28/26; Group K vs Group H error; IT confirmed fix takes less than a minute)
* Herzing University Weekly Report, Week Ending May 17, 2026, the reporting student
* Enrollment emails to [email redacted], July 14, 2025
* IT Support Ticket INC0479039, July 14, 2025, IT staff notation re enrollment system access issue
* Email thread: the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, ADA, Emilie Thompson, David Steele, Shannon Bishop, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stacey Gombar, Dr. Nicole Franklin, ProctorU Compliance, and Meazure Learning, subject Exam and Fw: Exam, July 15, 2026 (proctor remote control of student device; magnification and read aloud disabled mid-exam)
* Email: Dr. Danielle Laban to the reporting student and others, July 16, 2026, 4:45 PM (Elsevier identified as probable root cause; grade appeal requirement waived)
* Written call summary: Dr. Stacey Gombar to the reporting student, July 15, 2026 (recap of same-day telephone call regarding the NSG524 Exam II disruption)
* Email thread: the reporting student, Dr. Danielle Laban, and Emilie Thompson, subject URGENT and Re: [EXTERNAL] URGENT, July 20 through July 24, 2026 (unresolved accessibility failure; Elsevier investigation; July 24 device settings explanation and the reporting student's dispute of it)
* Audio recording: New Recording 22.m4a, submitted by the reporting student July 21, 2026 (support call during which the reporting student reported a panic attack)
* Email: Meazure Learning Compliance to the reporting student, subject Fw: July 1, 2026 Exam Administration (acknowledgment of an inadvertent PRO Proctor scheduling error), with the reporting student's forwarding message listing five additional delayed exam dates
* Email thread: Meazure Learning support ticket 8041745, subject Re: Reschedule Exam, June 2026 (weather related no-show, reschedule refusal, and wrong exam reviewed)
* Email thread: the reporting student, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, and Dr. Kellie Soles, subject Re: Grade Change for NSG521 and Grade Change (Incomplete grade mechanics; instructor of record not notified of an additional HESI retake)
* Email: Dr. Nicole Franklin to the reporting student, cc Dr. Danielle Laban, subject Spring 2026 NSG521 Final Exam appeal (ProctorU admission of fault; Dr. Stephanie Black approval of a retake)
* Email: Dr. Nicole Franklin to the reporting student, subject CARES Case: Follow-up, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM, and the reporting student reply of the same date, 3:28 PM (retake request not approved; stated intent to file with OCR and state boards of nursing)
* Email: Heather Klanderman to nursing students, subject Welcome from Your New Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, July 2, 2026, 9:00 AM, and same-day retraction message
* Email thread: Intensives Online, Ilma Stipanovic, and the reporting student, subject Fall 2026, Brookfield, WI: Intensive II Registration Now Open, July 23 through July 26, 2026 (registration opened without clinical schedules or Nashville dates; service animal location accommodation dispute)
* Email: Heather Gregg to the reporting student, cc Jessica Tressler and Dr. Raywattie Prashad, subject Supplemental Materials for Sim Day, August 4, 2026, 10:02 AM (faculty states she does not have access to the session PowerPoint presentations), and the reporting student reply of the same date, 10:15 AM
* Email: the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Heather Gregg, ADA, Emilie Thompson, and David Steele, subject Sims, August 4, 2026, 9:09 PM (virtual simulation slides not provided 24 hours in advance; screen share pixelated and incompatible with screen reader and zoom)
* Email thread: Heather Gregg, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, and the reporting student, subject V-Sim Make Up, August 4, 2026 (make-up hours arrangement and accommodation applicability)
* Email thread: Starr Williams-Headen and Student A, subject Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning (employer based preceptor proposal; student request for a program secured placement), provided as screenshots by the reporting student
* Relayed email text: Student A to Starr Williams-Headen re Fall 2026 clinical scheduling, level appropriate placement, and advance site notification, relayed to the reporting student by text message

== Facebook Archive ==
* Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export, December 2022 through May 2026, Topical / Keyword Review (Volume 6)
* Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export, December 2022 through May 2026, Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 systematic passes (Volume 7)

== Canvas Screenshots and LMS Evidence ==
* NSG525 (Clinical II / Med-Surg I) Week 1 Quiz, duplicate answer choices, Questions 7 and 9, May 2026
* NSG621 (Clinical IV) Canvas Assignment List, Unit 1 mid-week additions, May 2026
* NU725-7D Discussion Post screenshots, the reporting student original posts and Student G AI-generated posts with ChatGPT URL markers, May 5 to 11, 2026
* herzing.instructure.com screenshot, Canvas scheduled maintenance / ShinyHunters breach remediation, 4:18 PM May 7, 2026
* Canvas screenshot, NSG633-7H, 2253A18 (Safety and Quality) Faculty and Course Information page, blank template, May 21, 2026
* Canvas announcement: NSG525 Synchronous Session Schedule (Dr. Gregg, posted by unknown U user, Posted on date blank), May 27, 2026; Canvas email notification from ClinicalII(NSG525-7E),2026SummerC16 to the reporting student, 9:21 AM May 27, 2026
* Clinician Nexus screenshots, Student A rotation assignments: NSG 522 Group D; NSG 525 Group H (correct) and Group K (incorrect, duplicate), May 2026

== Medical Records and Accommodation Letters ==
* Medical accommodation letter from Student A primary care provider (Allina Health MyChart), requesting priority clinical placement, structured communication surrounding clinical placement, advance notice of schedule/clinical changes, extended time, 48-business-hour faculty response requirement
* Academic Accommodations Updated letter, Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, February 3, 2026, to Dr. Rachel Powell and Dr. Kellie Soles, cc the reporting student, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, and Dr. Danielle Laban (250 percent testing time; 72 hour assignment extension on request; advance provision of synchronous session PowerPoint slides at least 24 hours prior; recording and transcription of synchronous sessions; testing environment provisions)
* Academic Accommodations Update letter, Emilie Thompson, December 2, 2025 (earlier version of the approved academic accommodations)
* Email: Emilie Thompson to the reporting student and Dr. Danielle Laban, cc Dr. Raywattie Prashad, ADA, and Dr. Stephanie Black, subject Re: Clinical Times, July 20, 2026 (clinical setting accommodations: shifts not exceeding eight hours; shifts ending by 16:30; virtual clinical day capped at eight hours)

== Legal Documents ==
* Letter from Ariel E. Warner, Potomac Law Group PLLC, on behalf of ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning, May 7, 2026, confirming records hold and planned communication with Herzing University

== Recorded Calls and Meeting Records ==
* Recorded video call and transcript, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs (joint troubleshooting isolating the accessibility failure to the legacy secure browser build; demonstration of secure browser dictionary, thesaurus, and Wikipedia exposure and desktop bypass; compatibility check calculator defect)
* Screen capture recorded by the reporting student during the August 4, 2026 call and emailed to the Elsevier representative (dictionary panel appearing in place of text to speech, and zoom failure in the legacy secure browser)

== Screenshots and Form Records, July and August 2026 ==
* Screenshot: Intensive Location Exception Request Form (Microsoft Forms), Acknowledgment and Agreement section, question 13, captured July 25, 2026, 7:16 PM, including the reporting student's verbatim typed non-consent and retaliation objection entered in the form's required response field
* Screenshots: Nursing '27 student group chat, captured July 17, 2026 (cohort member reporting a clinical instructor termination and cancellation of remaining med surg clinical sessions)
* Screenshot: Microsoft Teams group chat, the reporting student to Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Emilie Thompson, Dr. Danielle Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black, August 4, 2026, 9:17 PM (virtual simulation slides not provided; request for written confirmation of intent to comply with accommodations)
* Screenshots: Outlook thread Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning between Starr Williams-Headen and Student A, provided by the reporting student

== Regulatory Filings ==
* OCR Electronic Complaint Submission confirmations, U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, July 28, 2026, cc OCR.Denver@ed.gov (two complaints filed), and the reporting student's forwarding message to Herzing leadership of the same date
* U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Discrimination Complaint Form, completed drafts with Attachment A statements of facts, prepared 2026 (ProctorU and Elsevier testing accommodation failures; Fall 2026 Intensive II registration and location accommodation dispute)

== News and Media Sources ==
* WFTV Channel 9, Jake Jordan, "Major cybersecurity breach hits Canvas, exposing millions of students' and teachers' data," May 7, 2026: [https://www.wftv.com/news/local/major-cybersecurity-breach-hits-canvas-exposing-millions-students-teachers-data/MKZBOUHIVJE5LJ4WXW7AYGBNJA/]
* KUTV 2News, Liv Kelleher, "Cyberattack on Canvas potentially compromises millions of users' personal information," May 6 to 7, 2026: [https://kutv.com/news/local/cyberattack-on-canvas-potentially-compromises-millions-of-users-personal-information]
* SecurityAffairs, Pierluigi Paganini, "Educational tech firm Instructure data breach may have impacted 9,000 schools," May 5, 2026: [https://securityaffairs.com/191686/cyber-crime/educational-tech-firm-instructure-data-breach-may-have-impacted-9000-schools.html]

== Online Community and Petition Sources ==
* Change.org Petition, Student AN, re 45% HESI weighting, September 2024: [link redacted]
* Change.org Petition, Handle 11, re Exit HESI benchmark (3.7 GPA student, score below 900), December 20, 2025: [https://c.org/G6Dy5B2p9K]
* Change.org Petition, re removing Exit HESI benchmark, December 29, 2025: [https://www.change.org/p/remove-the-exit-hesi-benchmark-score]
* Change.org Petition, December 30, 2025, submitted to EthicsPoint, Nursing Admin, and Registrar: [https://c.org/MYjf8ymFCM]
* the reporting student Student Wiki: [link redacted]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing University Issue Tracker

2026-09-15T16:37:14Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}

The Herzing University Issue Tracker is a student maintained issue tracking database concerning Herzing University's MSN-DE prelicensure nursing program. It contains 306 entries dated from 2025 through September 2026, each tied to specific source documents (emails, Canvas and LMS screenshots, GroupMe and Facebook records, EthicsPoint reports, and institutional letters). Each entry carries the tracker's own status label, almost always CONFIRMED or POSSIBLE (one resolved entry, HU-029, is labeled RESOLVED): CONFIRMED entries are supported by documentary evidence reviewed in preparing the entry, while POSSIBLE entries are reported concerns that have not been independently verified and should be read as such. Student names have been replaced throughout with consistent pseudonyms (Student A, Student B, and so on, or numbered handles where a name was not available); the author of the tracker is referred to as the reporting student. Faculty and staff are identified by name and role as they appear in the underlying records.

This page is the index. Detailed entries are organized by topic on 19 linked articles. See [[Herzing Issue Tracker: Sources and References]] for the full source list.

== Severity definitions ==
{| class="wikitable"
! Severity !! Definition
|-
| Critical || Immediate risk of ADA violation, accreditation jeopardy, or direct harm to student academic standing.
|-
| High || Significant policy violation, ongoing harm, or pattern of failure requiring prompt institutional attention.
|-
| Medium || Policy inconsistency, process gap, or transparency concern without immediate harm but requiring correction.
|-
| Low || Minor operational issue or documentation gap with limited direct impact.
|}

== Topic articles ==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Article !! Issues !! Critical !! High !! Medium !! Low
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]] || 60 || 7 || 34 || 17 || 2
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]] || 39 || 10 || 26 || 3 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]] || 32 || 4 || 22 || 6 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]] || 27 || 3 || 19 || 5 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]] || 26 || 2 || 11 || 13 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]] || 17 || 4 || 8 || 5 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]] || 16 || 1 || 10 || 5 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]] || 14 || 0 || 2 || 11 || 1
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]] || 13 || 0 || 7 || 6 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]] || 10 || 0 || 3 || 7 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]] || 9 || 0 || 6 || 2 || 1
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]] || 7 || 4 || 3 || 0 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]] || 7 || 0 || 7 || 0 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]] || 6 || 0 || 1 || 5 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]] || 6 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance]] || 6 || 0 || 4 || 1 || 1
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation]] || 5 || 0 || 2 || 3 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]] || 5 || 0 || 4 || 1 || 0
|-
| [[Herzing Issues: Records, Privacy, and Data Security]] || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1
|}

== Full index ==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! ID !! Severity !! Status !! Title !! Article
|-
| {{HU|HU-001}} || High || CONFIRMED || Canvas LMS account not auto-provisioned at enrollment; required manual creation || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-002}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || ProctorU flagged Google Remote Desktop on student computer during NSG521 final exam, blocking completion || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-003}} || High || POSSIBLE || Google Remote Desktop flagged by ProctorU; if running due to prior IT support session, removal requirement may be misdirected at student || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-004}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || The reporting student's ADA request for advance notice of testing procedure changes not responded to before exam || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-005}} || High || CONFIRMED || Screen reader incompatibility with Herzing Outlook web email interface reported; urgency classified as 'inconvenienced' || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-006}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Disability Services email contact routes through general Admissions address (admissions@herzing.edu) || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-007}} || High || CONFIRMED || Spring 2026 clinical placement not arranged during semester; pushed to summer with late notice || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-008}} || High || CONFIRMED || Handbook states clinical site dismissal decisions are not subject to appeal through Herzing processes || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-009}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Handbook labels unlicensed nursing students leaving clinical early as 'patient abandonment' || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-010}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Exit exam benchmark scores can be changed 'at any time' without notice to enrolled students || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-011}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Student received multiple 48-hour ultimatum notices for required FA documents (MPN, Entrance Counseling) in July 2025 || [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-012}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Seven+ NSG520 assignment grades changed simultaneously within a 5-minute window on October 14, 2025 with no documented explanation || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-013}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Required clinical scrubs sent in wrong size on multiple occasions; student left without compliant clinical attire || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-014}} || High || CONFIRMED || The reporting student documented systemic inability to succeed; investigated transferring; academic crisis in Fall 2025 || [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-015}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Mandatory pregnancy disclosure to Program Chair required; raises Title IX and privacy concerns || [[Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-016}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Grade appeal response inbox is unmonitored; students explicitly told not to reply || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-017}} || High || CONFIRMED || Grade appeal approval characterized as 'one-time exception'; future similar requests pre-emptively discouraged || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-018}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Approved accommodation (sound machine) repeatedly blocked by ProctorU, causing 5+ exam reschedules across semester || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-019}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Testing time accommodation changed from 200% to 250% with no formal update letter in available evidence || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-020}} || High || CONFIRMED || University-promised ProctorU coordination meeting (March 20) never held; student rescheduled exam to wait for it || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-021}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || NSG521 course content embedded instructions in images, making them inaccessible to screen readers; student received zero on 6-hour assign... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-022}} || High || CONFIRMED || Student was told at enrollment that screen reader accommodation was not needed because all modules were WCAG compliant; representation wa... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-023}} || High || CONFIRMED || Documented pattern of inter-departmental communication failures requiring student to act as liaison between university departments || [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-024}} || High || CONFIRMED || Clinical sites assigned at 4+ hours and 2h39m from student's home despite documented medical need for proximity and prior disability serv... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-025}} || High || CONFIRMED || Student formally requested 8-hour clinical shifts instead of 12-hour intensive days; no documented response in available evidence || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-026}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: the reporting student reported Student G, Student AT, and Student T for distributing exam and EAQ answers and copyrighted textbook... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-026a}} || High || CONFIRMED || No disciplinary sanction was imposed after documented distribution of exam and EAQ answers and copyrighted textbook content; the institut... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-026b}} || High || CONFIRMED || The accused student was confirmed eligible for student council with no disciplinary sanctions on record, despite the documented integrity... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-026c}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || The EthicsPoint case closed in seven days with a generic resolution; the organization reported it could not access the Notion evidence, s... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-027}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Pervasive ChatGPT use in nursing discussion posts reported with forensic evidence (tracking parameters, hallucinated citations); universi... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-028}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Student's Graduate PLUS loan preference not processed correctly; backend team failed to note preference || [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-029}} || Low || RESOLVED || Extended scrub size (6XL) not available in bookstore system when student attempted to order || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-030}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || ProctorU falsely flagged Zoom as running during HESI final exams on Mac computers; multiple students received exam zeros; ProctorU acknow... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-031}} || High || CONFIRMED || Dr. Pannla told students clinical midterm evaluations were no longer required; Dr. Fabry confirmed they were required; students who relie... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-032}} || High || CONFIRMED || In-person clinical hours changed mid-semester without notice (~45-50 hours told by Dr. Fabry in October 2025 vs. 84 hours actually required) || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-033}} || High || CONFIRMED || Clinical III total hour requirement stated as 135 in course syllabus but Dr. Prashad announcement stated 140 hours; contradictory officia... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-034}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: Student C's HESI final exam-day failure produced three independent problems (technical lockout, a false fulfilled record, and a thr... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-034a}} || High || CONFIRMED || ProctorU/HESI technical failure blocked Student C from accessing the med-surg HESI final for the entire exam day || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-034b}} || High || CONFIRMED || The med-surg HESI final was recorded as fulfilled although Student C never took it (records integrity) || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-034c}} || High || CONFIRMED || Student C was threatened with an incomplete and dropped next-semester enrollment over the institution's own technical failure || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-035}} || High || CONFIRMED || Student (Student BC, Florida) received only 36 of 84 required in-person clinical hours because university failed to arrange placement; un... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-036}} || High || CONFIRMED || ProctorU proctors routinely made demands during HESI exams going beyond stated policies and substantially disrupting exam performance || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-037}} || High || CONFIRMED || Students systematically shared HESI exam questions, topics, and answers in real-time in GroupMe chat immediately after sitting for exams;... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-038}} || High || CONFIRMED || Student (Student E) explicitly confirmed by placement coordinator that 36 hours was total in-person requirement; completed 36 hours; disc... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-039}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Intensive clearance emails issued only 2-3 days before start of intensive sessions, after virtually all students had already purchased no... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-040}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Students who had intensive skills validation forms stamped by intensive program staff were subsequently told the stamp did not constitute... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-041}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Sherpath academic platform (Elsevier) experienced chronic and recurring failures throughout 2025-2026 academic year || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-042}} || High || POSSIBLE || Hospital administrator reportedly informed Herzing student that hospital no longer accepts Herzing students due to prior practice of send... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-043}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || At start of Clinical IV (May 4, 2026), multiple students' course appeared with instructor (Professor Celia) who then disappeared along wi... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-044}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Sherpath academic platform routinely teaches factually incorrect clinical nursing information; errors could cause patient harm if acted upon || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-045}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Lead: Student P failed Clinical I after a faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical that was submitted before the grade dead... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-045a}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || A faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical that was submitted before the grade deadline, causing a Clinical I failure by un... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-045b}} || High || CONFIRMED || Escalation to the Dean and others produced no resolution, leaving the student without effective recourse after the grading failure || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-046}} || High || CONFIRMED || Multiple students confirmed receiving assurances from Herzing staff prior to enrollment that MSN-DE program would not require synchronous... || [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-047}} || High || CONFIRMED || First HESI exam in Spring 2025 MSN-DE cohort administered without university properly configuring ProctorU to include camera and micropho... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-048}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || DOE rule effective July 1, 2026 reclassifies nurses as no longer 'professional students,' eliminating Graduate PLUS loan eligibility; stu... || [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-049}} || High || CONFIRMED || Clinical placement distances systematically excessive; documented cases include 2+ hour one-way drives; no reasonable distance standard a... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-050}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Herzing University announced tuition and fee increase mid-program; no documentation of whether enrolled students were protected or inform... || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-051}} || High || CONFIRMED || HESI exam question sharing occurs systemically across multiple Herzing cohorts and programs (MSN-DE, BSN, ASN); pattern documented across... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-052}} || High || CONFIRMED || IT tickets related to ProctorU false-flag exam incidents closed as 'resolved' without underlying student grievances addressed; student's... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-053}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: Herzing administration (Dr. Prashad) asserted operational control over the independent Herzing Online SNA, prohibiting a member dis... || [[Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-053a}} || High || CONFIRMED || Administration prohibited the SNA from maintaining a member distribution list and directed it to route communications through program cha... || [[Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-053b}} || High || CONFIRMED || Administration directed membership processes and cited bylaw requirements that board members could not locate in the governing document,... || [[Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-054}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Lead: the inaccessibility of Herzing email to the student's screen reader produced three problems (an inaccessible primary channel, a blo... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-054a}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Herzing Outlook web email is inaccessible to the student's screen reader || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-054b}} || High || CONFIRMED || Herzing IT security policy blocks the external-software workaround the student tried || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-054c}} || High || CONFIRMED || Herzing-email-only directive the student's disability makes impossible to meet, with accessible email going to spam || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-055}} || High || CONFIRMED || SNA board emails to faculty advisor Dr. Stacie Johnson went unanswered for 11 days (April 13-24, 2026); honor cord for outgoing president... || [[Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-056}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || SNA inaugural board meeting conducted without faculty advisor; quorum deficiency may require ratification of all initial votes || [[Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-057}} || High || CONFIRMED || Identical Sherpath lessons assigned in both Clinical II (NSG525) and Medical Surgical Nursing I (NSG523) with same due date but different... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-058}} || High || CONFIRMED || The 'Clinical Placement Pledge' marketed to graduate NP students appears materially misleading; multiple students confirm they are respon... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-059}} || High || POSSIBLE || Student reports Herzing imposes financial aid cap below full cost of program completion; cap not disclosed or explained at enrollment || [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-060}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Herzing student (Clarksville/Nashville campus) reported that failing a course requires paying $500 fee to retake; fee not prominently dis... || [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-061}} || High || POSSIBLE || Herzing University locks students out of courses immediately upon late or missed payment without adequate advance notice; former LPN-to-R... || [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-062}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: the Herzing New Orleans campus produced three distinct failures (curriculum taught did not match what was tested with no correct bo... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-062a}} || High || CONFIRMED || NOLA students were taught a milestone curriculum but tested on Elsevier/HESI without notice or the correct books || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-062b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || NOLA campus could not retain faculty and a lab instructor taught the students nothing || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-062c}} || High || CONFIRMED || A NOLA student received no accommodation after emergency surgery during the semester || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-063}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Herzing NP students directed toward urgent care as acceptable clinical placement; at least one student's urgent care application rejected... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-064}} || High || CONFIRMED || Herzing institutional memorandum (May 4, 2026) states updated catalogs 'supersede all previously published versions'; framework permits r... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-065}} || High || CONFIRMED || Student (Student G) recorded faculty lectures without permission after being explicitly told not to by Dr. Terri Hayden (Sept 15, 2025);... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-066}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Lead: following the student's EthicsPoint report, he reported four distinct experiences (harassment by a named student, removal from coho... || [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-066a}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The student reported harassment by Student T after raising integrity concerns || [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-066b}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The student reported being removed from the Discord and GroupMe cohort groups by Student G || [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-066c}} || Medium || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The student reported a false accusation about a cohort group photo he had permission to post || [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-066d}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The student reported conduct he characterized as stalking, including an inquiry into his enrollment status || [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-067}} || High || CONFIRMED || EthicsPoint investigation of September 2025 academic integrity complaint completed in 7 days with generic closure despite 5 categories of... || [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-068}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || EthicsPoint investigation of December 2025 AI cheating complaint closed in 5 days without individual enforcement; university acknowledged... || [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-069}} || Medium || POSSIBLE, Requires Verification || Student (Student G) shared medical images of a minor child (not her dependent) in cohort group communications, raising ethical and potent... || [[Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-070}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Herzing was unaware of Virginia Board of Nursing 500 direct-care hour requirement and adjusted hours only after a prospective student thr... || [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-071}} || High || CONFIRMED || Spring 2025 cohort: 75% of class without clinical placement two weeks before semester start (5/5/2025); institution responded by substitu... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-072}} || High || CONFIRMED || Clinical placement documentation sent to affiliated hospitals without student name, causing hospitals to not respond; institution then bl... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-073}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: two distinct retention and grievance problems (a cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing over systemic issues, and th... || [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-073a}} || High || CONFIRMED || Cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing while citing systemic failures || [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-073b}} || High || CONFIRMED || Ethics committee non-response to a five-page complaint, and a four-month re-entry delay || [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-074}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || HESI exam grade weighting escalated mid-program: 45% in Fall 2024 → 75% in late 2024 → 82% in 2025 cohort Pharmacology (gradebook screens... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-075}} || High || CONFIRMED || Sherpath grade transfer failures caused actual course failures in Spring 2025 cohort; multiple students appealing failures attributable t... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-076}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: the predecessor Realizeit LMS produced two distinct failures (grades not recorded despite completion, and a question format that di... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-076a}} || High || CONFIRMED || Realizeit failed to record grades despite screenshots of completion, requiring repeated IT escalation || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-076b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Realizeit question format did not match the HESI/NCLEX style of the high-stakes exams || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-077}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Faculty explicitly told students program is '80-20' (80% self-taught) and would not lecture; documented across multiple cohorts including... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-078}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group (1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, Dec 2022-May 2026) functions as documented forum for systematic th... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-079}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Clinical hour requirement of 135 hours is not divisible by standard 12-hour nursing shifts; institutional policy requires students to wor... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-080}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Mid-rotation clinical requirement changes documented across multiple semesters: mental health hours retroactively required to be with soc... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-081}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Lead: two distinct clinical-communication failures (a major assignment given with no guidance, and preceptors not briefed so students had... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-081a}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || 18-page care plans assigned with no guidance or even mention || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-081b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Preceptors were not briefed, so students had to define their own clinical scope || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-082}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Spring 2025 system-wide grade transfer crisis, affecting 'hundreds of students'; recurring problem across multiple semesters with ZERO in... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-083}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Milestones assessment regime eliminated September 2024 with no retake option; finals escalated to 45%; enrolled students never consented... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-084}} || High || CONFIRMED || OB/Pediatric clinical observation hours fulfilled at public library children's section; institutional validation of pedagogically inadequ... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-085}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Lead: multi-state Board of Nursing and enrollment problems (Alabama clinical-hour enforcement blocking NCLEX, a six-state enrollment free... || [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-085a}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Alabama Board of Nursing enforcement of insufficient in-person clinical hours required final-semester Alabama students to complete 24 add... || [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-085b}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Herzing froze new prelicensure nursing enrollment from six states (Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota), citing full... || [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-085c}} || High || CONFIRMED || Georgia prelicensure enrollment was paused by April to May 2026 || [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-085d}} || High || CONFIRMED || Licensure-disclosure concerns in additional states (Virginia, Florida, New York, California) about whether completing the program satisfi... || [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-086}} || High || CONFIRMED || Open-book, unproctored prerequisite test-outs ($100/exam) create foundational academic integrity concern; students confirmed passing with... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-087}} || High || CONFIRMED || Cohort attrition documented at 63-71% for Cohorts 1 and 2; NCLEX pass rates calculated on survivors only, artificially inflating reported... || [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-088}} || High || CONFIRMED || HESI final examinations cover content not taught in courses; documented across multiple cohorts with direct student testimony and faculty... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-089}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Faculty edited student discussion board post without consent; documented across multiple instances; potential FERPA and academic integrit... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-090}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Recurring Change.org petitions across multiple class years ignored; institutional 'formal complaint process' response characterized as di... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-091}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Lead: two unrelated faculty/administrative incidents (an NI contract issued to the wrong student, and improper conduct during intensive c... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-091a}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Needs Improvement contract issued to the wrong student (Student C); a full day of anxiety before the instructor admitted the error || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-091b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Faculty check-off policy violations during intensives caused fails; appeal granted a redo (Handle 1) || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-092}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Compliance system failures May 2026: Complio-to-MyClinicalExchange integration not transferring documents with clinical deadline imminent... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-093}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Mass clinical placement crisis email December 2024, institution had 5 months advance knowledge of Spring 2025 crisis; Detroit contracts l... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-094}} || High || CONFIRMED || Authorization to Test (ATT) wait times exceeding 90 days in Alabama post-graduation; Student AH (veteran) documented 90+ day wait; delays... || [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-095}} || High || CONFIRMED || Two-fail dismissal policy with 4-month delay per failure; re-entry appeal process documented as opaque; Student M lost $27,000 with no de... || [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-096}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: extreme and unpredictable assignment workload (very high weekly volume incompatible with marketed flexibility, last-minute same-day... || [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-096a}} || High || CONFIRMED || Weekly assignment volumes of roughly 90 to 100 assignments, and up to 50 hours of classwork in a single week, incompatible with marketed... || [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-096b}} || High || CONFIRMED || 14 to 19 assignments posted and due the same evening, with students given only hours of notice || [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-096c}} || High || CONFIRMED || Students failed within the first three days of a class with no missing assignments, described by students as a weed-out structure || [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-097}} || High || CONFIRMED || Synthesis I/II capstone mentor requirement not disclosed until course start; students must independently find MSN/terminal-degree mentor... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-098}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Spring 2026 graduation and pinning ceremony emails not delivered to Florida and Tennessee graduates despite promised March 2 delivery dat... || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-099}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Discussion board '3 separate calendar days' posting rule results in zero credit for substantively correct posts submitted on same day; ar... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-100}} || High || CONFIRMED || EAQ (Elsevier Adaptive Quizzing) questions documented incorrect; grade conversion ratio mismatch: 95% EAQ score appears as 18/20 in Canva... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-101}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || HESI exam structure changed for Spring 2026 final semester: now three graded HESI exams (diagnostic, midpoint, exit) all counting toward... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-102}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || No physical textbooks provided in MSN-DE program; students receive modules only; required to purchase outside study resources (YourBestGr... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-103}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: high faculty turnover and inconsistent instruction quality across cohorts (instructors lost mid-program, and large variation in tea... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-103a}} || High || CONFIRMED || High faculty turnover and loss of instructional continuity, including a Clinical IV instructor who disappeared on day one and a mental-he... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-103b}} || High || CONFIRMED || Inconsistent instruction quality across cohorts, with some students receiving minimal lectures and being left to self-teach || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-104}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || VSIM virtual clinical sessions scheduled during business hours on weekdays; not all available on weekends; 50 hours of required VSIM hour... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-105}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Chilling effect on student speech: students documented fear that Herzing monitors the Facebook group and that speaking out results in ins... || [[Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-106}} || High || CONFIRMED || External actors actively targeting Herzing students with paid exam-answer sales ($200/exam); documented in Facebook group October 2024; i... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-107}} || High || CONFIRMED || Academic ghostwriting service (homeworkhubwriters.com) advertised directly in Herzing MSN-DE Facebook group January 2025 by Lauren Wangu;... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-108}} || High || CONFIRMED || 3rd semester on-site clinical hours reduced 50% mid-program (90 hours → 45 hours) without student consent; virtual hours substituted; stu... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-109}} || High || CONFIRMED || Clinical affiliation agreement requests from students routinely denied; Student H tried 'many times with no success'; one successful case... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-110}} || High || CONFIRMED || Alabama clinical network: single preceptor for entire state as of December 2024; that preceptor considering leaving; single point of fail... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-111}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || MSN capstone project 'not actually implemented, just theoretical'; presented to classmates and professors via Zoom only; raises questions... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-112}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: NSG525 and Pathophysiology Review Week 1 quiz content errors (duplicate identical answer choices across at least two courses, wrong... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-112a}} || High || CONFIRMED || Quiz questions contain duplicate identical answer choices that make the keyed answer undefined, across at least two Week 1 courses (NSG52... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-112b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Quiz reference values are labeled with incorrect clinical units (pH and PaCO2 both labeled mEq/L) and contain a typographical error, teac... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-112c}} || High || CONFIRMED || The institutional remediation (manual grading, no extension, and no restoration of lost quiz attempts) shifted the burden of the quiz err... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-113}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Identical assignment questions appearing in two separate concurrent credit-bearing courses (Clinical II and MedSurg I, Week 1, May 2026);... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-114}} || High || CONFIRMED || Conflicting chain-of-communication directives: AVP Danielle Laban (May 6, 2026) told the reporting student to cc her and Dr. Franklin on... || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-115}} || High || CONFIRMED || EthicsPoint report filed May 7, 2026 by the reporting student reporting Student G for AI-assisted discussion post submission in NU725-7D;... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-116}} || High || CONFIRMED || Two assignments added to Clinical IV (NSG621) Week 1 mid-week after semester start; Student J alerted cohort via GroupMe Saturday; adds 1... || [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-117}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Clinical IV (NSG621) Adjunct Professor Celia Pfaff resigned 'effective this morning' at the start of Week 1 of the current semester; Herz... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-118}} || High || CONFIRMED || Student AD received zero on Fundamentals I remediation packet for screenshot submission issue despite scoring 93 on exam; appeal denied;... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-119}} || High || CONFIRMED || ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning retained outside counsel (Potomac Law Group, PLLC) in response to the reporting student's April 28,... || [[Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-120}} || Critical || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Lead: the Canvas/Instructure ShinyHunters breach (May 2026) exposed student PII and private messages, Herzing had not notified students a... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-120a}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || The Canvas/Instructure breach exposed user PII (names, emails, student IDs) and billions of private messages; the May 7 herzing.instructu... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-120b}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Herzing had not notified its students of the Canvas breach as of May 7, 2026, raising FERPA breach-notification concerns || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-120c}} || High || POSSIBLE (qualified) || HIPAA risk if MSN-DE clinical discussion messages containing patient information were among the exposed Canvas messages || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-121}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: Christina Kennedy's May 7, 2026 email disclosed two distinct problems (no onsite clinical faculty finalized at Week 1, and the plac... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-121a}} || High || CONFIRMED || No onsite Clinical Faculty Member finalized at the start of Week 1 for the reporting student; supervisory gap || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-121b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Clinical Placement Specialist (Christina Kennedy) transitioning out mid-process; future questions routed to a generic inbox || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-122}} || High || CONFIRMED || Multiple assignments visible in NSG525 gradebook and calendar marked as required but contain absolutely no content; assignments also do n... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-123}} || High || CONFIRMED || Initial Preceptor Meeting assignment due Week 1 but no clinical site has been assigned; students cannot complete a meeting with a precept... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-124}} || High || CONFIRMED || Faculty deducted points from the reporting student's NU725-7D discussion for not including working links; links were visibly present in t... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-125}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Disability accommodation (3-day extension) blocked pending Department Chair approval; Dr. Gregg cannot unlock NSG525 quiz without Dr. Pra... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-126}} || High || CONFIRMED || NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review Quiz deadline was 12:59 AM Sunday morning, not 11:59 PM Sunday evening as announced; students flagge... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-127}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Lead: the Sigma Theta Tau Alpha Beta Iota 2026 induction ceremony was disrupted by two technical failures (all attendees unmuted at the s... || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-127a}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || All attendees were unmuted at the start of the ceremony, making the proceedings inaudible (a standard Zoom host configuration error) || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-127b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || The Master of Ceremonies (Student W) lost her internet connection during the name-calling portion of the ceremony for several minutes || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-128}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Week 3 of semester: the reporting student has no clinical placement for 96 required hours; Rachel Powell confirms team still onboarding c... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-129}} || High || CONFIRMED || Sherpath LMS platform outage May 15, 2026 while the reporting student was leading a Knack Tutoring Session; platform failure during activ... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-130}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || NSG633-7H (2253A18) Safety and Quality: Faculty and Course Information page is a blank unfilled template, Instructor Name, eMail, Phone,... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-131}} || High || CONFIRMED || NSG525 synchronous session schedule posted Week 4 (May 27) after Weeks 1-3 already passed; 9-minute notice for Week 4 session; posted by... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-132}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Lead: three online MSN-DE students with parallel clinical-placement problems were split across regions so they could not meet collectivel... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-132a}} || High || CONFIRMED || Three online MSN-DE students with parallel clinical-placement problems were split across regions, so they could not meet collectively wit... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-132b}} || High || CONFIRMED || The reporter documented that the affected students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school as a result of the... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-132c}} || Medium || POSSIBLE (qualified) || The reporter reported that an advisor was disrespectful to one of the other students by phone on the morning of May 26 || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-132d}} || Medium || POSSIBLE (qualified) || The reporter referenced a prior-term harassment of him by the Director of Nursing at his clinical hospital || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-133}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Lead: Student A was left in an incorrect clinical rotation group days before her clinical start, with duplicate Clinician Nexus entries,... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-133a}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Student A remained incorrectly assigned to Group K despite a confirmed Group H assignment, uncorrected since May 12, with her clinical be... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-133b}} || High || CONFIRMED || The Clinician Nexus rotation schedule showed three simultaneous NSG 525 entries, including a duplicate Group K with no supervisor, while... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-133c}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Student A's documented medical accommodations for priority clinical placement, structured communication, and advance notice of changes we... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-133d}} || High || CONFIRMED || A coordinator entered a removal with an inaccurate reason applied to the wrong course (NSG 223 rather than NSG 525), risking an eliminate... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-134}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Lead: Dr. Powell's May 27 response to the HU-132 escalation fragmented accountability across additional leadership layers and put institu... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-134a}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Powell stated many placement determinations are outside her direct control and directed higher-level concerns to additional leadership la... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-134b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Institutional admissions on the record: a 48-business-hour response policy is confirmed, and the current regional model replaced a prior... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-135}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: the reporting student's 8-hour clinical shift accommodation was not properly implemented at Ascension via Christi St. Joseph (sched... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-135a}} || High || CONFIRMED || The clinical schedule exceeded the 8-hour accommodation limit (originally 7:30 AM to 5 PM, about 9.5 hours, then 7:30 to 4), and the stud... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-135b}} || High || CONFIRMED || Scheduling was offered as a range (7:30 to 3:30 or 8:00 to 4:00) rather than a fixed, consistent schedule, inconsistent with the consiste... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-135c}} || High || CONFIRMED || Professor Frazier stated the student may have to work past the 8-hour time frame as part of nursing, and proposed debriefs and earlier sh... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-135d}} || High || CONFIRMED || Powell's response dismissed the accommodation advocacy as students not creating their own schedule, mischaracterizing accommodation enfor... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-135e}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || The ADA Coordinator was out of office until June 3, one day before the clinical start, leaving the student without institutional accommod... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-136}} || High || CONFIRMED || Student K: Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vascular/General Surgery clinical rotation postponed June 1, 2026 because remaining items neces... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-137}} || High || CONFIRMED || Student R: clinical scheduled at Palmetto General Hospital (Hialeah, FL) with no approval confirmation; last email said not yet approved... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-138}} || High || CONFIRMED || Janel Rizo BSN RN (Adjunct Clinical Faculty) emailed students at 10:33 PM stating Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start with... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-139}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Student AS: HESI exam would not load and repeatedly locked her out during intensive week; placed on hold with support for two hours with... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-140}} || High || CONFIRMED || Prospective student told three contradictory things about the Oklahoma program: pending acceptance, the program is full, and there is NO... || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-141}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || Lead: Student A's prolonged clinical-placement struggle (May 5 to 22, 2026), including an 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout,... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-141a}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || An 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout, despite being told she was added, with Nexus support confirming she was never actually... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-141b}} || High || CONFIRMED || Repeated failed fix attempts and a records-integrity failure: the coordinator stated records showed she was added by two people while she... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-141c}} || Critical || CONFIRMED || A credential-type hours mismatch: 90 Med-Surg hours scheduled when NSG 525 requires 60 Med-Surg and 48 mental health hours, with combinin... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-141d}} || High || CONFIRMED || 9-hour shifts and an hours shortfall, plus 24 carryover incomplete hours from Clinical 1 with an August 26 deadline || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-141e}} || High || CONFIRMED || A Memorial Day onboarding squeeze with childcare and work disruption, and a raised prospect of being penalized for not attending through... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-141f}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || The placement target changed mid-correspondence, and a South Region coordinator handled a National Online student, a regional-overlap inc... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-142}} || High || CONFIRMED || Discussion board closed for comments at the Sunday deadline, blocking the reporting student from submitting his second peer reply under h... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-143}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The reporting student reported to David Steele J.D. (Director of Online Academic Operations) that a Herzing MSN student (Student E) publi... || [[Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-144}} || High || CONFIRMED || Student A and Student Q: Group K clinical rotation (Vicki K, MCY 5E) cut from 10 days/90 hours to 6 days/54 hours after instructor cancel... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-145}} || High || CONFIRMED || Eight-hour clinical accommodation characterized by staff as conditional (when possible) and tied to course-failure risk in the June 4, 20... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-146}} || High || CONFIRMED || Staff suggested the reporting student may have to take an approved break (sit out) and made continued progression contingent on whether a... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-147}} || High || CONFIRMED || Accommodation request reframed by staff as a concern about the reporting student's patient-safety fitness for the clinical site || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-148}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Clinical schedule changed four times in one week before clinicals even began (June 4, 2026 meeting account; expands HU-135) || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-149}} || High || CONFIRMED || No clinical location or meeting point provided less than 24 hours before the clinical start (June 4, 2026 meeting) || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-150}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Less than one week notice to begin clinicals (June 4, 2026 meeting account) || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-151}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Student CC'd on unresolved staff email back-and-forth and replanned his schedule off non-final messages; AVP acknowledged poor student ex... || [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-152}} || Low || CONFIRMED || Student's request to transcribe the June 4, 2026 accommodations meeting (Otter.ai) was denied || [[Herzing Issues: Records, Privacy, and Data Security]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-153}} || High || CONFIRMED || Discrepancies between the June 4, 2026 recorded accommodation meeting and Emilie Thompson's written follow-up: the email states we confir... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-154}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Lead: the evening before clinical, two officials gave conflicting start times four minutes apart, and the correction was not sent reply-a... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-154a}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Two officials gave conflicting clinical start times four minutes apart the evening before clinical (Dr. Powell 6:45 am at 4:49 PM; Profes... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-154b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || The corrected start time was sent only to the reporting student, not reply-all, leaving the ADA office and other staff with the 6:45 star... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-155}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Exam retake request for the NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C) reviewed by Dr. Stephanie Black and not approved; no r... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-156}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Exam proctoring support: assigned-proctor request not available (ProctorU unavailable, only ProProctor), ProctorU pre-test not viable; th... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-157}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Lead: the CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, and that acknowledged the stud... || [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-157a}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || The CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, with the listed items largely unreso... || [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-157b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || The closure email acknowledged the student's legal-hold (litigation-preservation) request, with the CARES closure occurring contemporaneo... || [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-158}} || Low || CONFIRMED || Dean of Prelicensure Nursing Dr. Stephanie Black, the official who reviewed and denied the Fundamentals final retake, is out on PTO until... || [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-159}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Official Herzing transcript dated 04/23/2026 documented a grade of A in NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment and a 4.00 cum... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-160}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Clinical hours documentation requirement applied inconsistently between NSG 522 (Clinical I) and NSG 525 (Clinical II); current-term facu... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-161}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Cohort-level faculty instability and unclear faculty-change communication during 2026 Summer C16: another student's NSG 523 Medical Surgi... || [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-162}} || Medium || POSSIBLE (qualified) || Use of Turnitin to screen student work and retention of student submissions in Turnitin's third-party repository, without disclosed prior... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-163}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: a documented weather emergency on June 6, 2026 blocked the accommodated NSG524 Mental Health exam, which the vendor then marked a n... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-163a}} || High || CONFIRMED || The student could not reschedule the accommodated NSG524 exam to the remaining in-window date during a documented weather emergency: no P... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-163b}} || High || CONFIRMED || The exam was marked a no-show despite the student's documented contemporaneous contact about the weather and internet outage before the w... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-163c}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || ProctorU support runaround: a non-answer that documented the concern without resolving it, a re-request for information the student had a... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-163d}} || High || CONFIRMED || Contradictory explanations and vendor-institution ping-pong: the vendor said the testing window and any extension are institution-control... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-163e}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || The burden was shifted to the student through an appeals and makeup process requiring a Herzing IT ticket and weather documentation, for... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-164}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Lead: a former student (reporter Student I) describes a sequence of academic-advising and enrollment-process failures, an automatic re-en... || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-164a}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Reported automatic re-enrollment in a class while a grade appeal was open, which the reporter states was unnecessary (not a prerequisite... || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-164b}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Reported repeated failure by the advisor to recall or act on the reporter's documented situation, including telling her not to engage in... || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-164c}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Reported repeated misdirection to file a grade appeal that the reporter states was already open, including when she later raised the SAP... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-164d}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Reported drop delayed past the refund window, which the reporter attributes to drops routing through academic advising and to her advisor... || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-164e}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Reported failure to update the GPA after the grade appeal was approved, placing the reporter on Satisfactory Academic Progress status, wi... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-165}} || High || POSSIBLE || Lead: an anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443) describes a scheduling and resource failure at the NSG 122 nursing intensive in Nashvi... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-165a}} || High || POSSIBLE || Reported structural scheduling and resource failure at the nursing intensive: required simulation activities occupied the reporter's fina... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-165b}} || High || POSSIBLE || Reported denial of accommodation requests to complete the remaining validations: the reporter states she asked to stay a little longer or... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-165c}} || High || POSSIBLE || Reported course failure and mandatory course and intensive repeat imposed because the two validations were not completed before the inten... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-165d}} || High || POSSIBLE || Reported denial of the circumstances appeal submitted by the reporter to explain why the two validations were not completed before the in... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-165e}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Reported financial impact: the reporter pays for school out of pocket as a single mother and now faces additional tuition to repeat a cou... || [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-166}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: the NSG524 grade-appeal email thread contains a direct conflict within the same thread -- Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services A... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-166a}} || High || CONFIRMED || Conflicting appeal-status instructions delivered within the same email thread: Shannon Bishop told the reporting student the appeal was i... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-166b}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Shannon Bishop shifted her stated rationale for the IT communication requirement within the same thread: initially citing it as required... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-166c}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Herzing IT communication required as a blocking condition for an appeal about a non-technical weather and vendor failure, with no documen... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-167}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: on Saturday June 13, 2026, no ProProctor was available for the reporting student's NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 (250% accommoda... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-167a}} || High || CONFIRMED || No ProProctor was available for the NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 on Saturday June 13, 2026: the ProctorU agent (Gedela T.) was a regu... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-167b}} || High || CONFIRMED || The reporting student was unable to begin the NSG523 exam for over one hour and fifteen minutes after logging in, made three failed ProPr... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-167c}} || High || CONFIRMED || ProProctor unavailability on weekends, combined with the reporting student's Thursday and Friday clinical schedule, effectively narrows h... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-167d}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Nicole Franklin and Stephanie Black, two of the six institutional contacts the reporting student emailed during the active accommodation... || [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-168}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: the NSG523 HESI Exam 1 completed by the reporting student on June 13, 2026 (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) produced a grading and su... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-168a}} || High || CONFIRMED || The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 score (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) is present in the Elsevier Testing and Remediation system as of June 13, 2026... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-168b}} || High || CONFIRMED || Canvas shows Grade 0/100 and No Submission for NSG523 Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, with an instructor Canvas comment stating no score for exam, d... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-168c}} || High || CONFIRMED || The NSG523 course grade dropped from 95.01% to 25.91% -- approximately 69 percentage points -- as documented in two Canvas dashboard scre... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-168d}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated in her June 15 email that she had sent an email weeks earlier about the required screenshot not showing the ex... || [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-169}} || High || POSSIBLE || Lead: reporter Student CK describes the same accommodation exam score-transmission failure the reporting student experienced (HU-168) acr... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-169a}} || High || POSSIBLE || Reporter Student CK describes her pathophysiology instructor giving her a zero for an accommodated exam despite her having a score in Els... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-169b}} || High || POSSIBLE || Reporter Student CK describes the same score-transmission failure recurring on a Fundamentals exam taken on a Friday; she emailed her ins... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-169c}} || Medium || POSSIBLE || Reporter Student CK reports that her instructor confirmed her name did not appear on the instructor's Elsevier report list, and ProctorU... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-170}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: Professor Heather Gregg blocked approval of the reporting student's clinical hour submissions for at least two weeks pending a prec... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-170a}} || High || CONFIRMED || Professor Heather Gregg blocked approval of the reporting student's clinical hour submissions for at least two weeks pending a preceptor... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-170b}} || High || CONFIRMED || The preceptor agreement requirement as applied by Professor Gregg this term is inconsistent with the practice last term, when Dr. Rachel... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-170c}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Clinical preceptors at the reporting student's facility are typically assigned the morning of each shift, making it structurally impossib... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-170d}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || The reporting student describes communications from Professor Heather Gregg as implying he was irresponsible, stating she did not care th... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-171}} || High || CONFIRMED || The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 score (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99), absent from the instructor-facing Elsevier (Evolve) view as documented in HU... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-172}} || High || CONFIRMED || Lead: Dr. Tanetshia Brown's 4:26 PM email confirms she cannot determine why the Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure occurred and... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-172a}} || High || CONFIRMED || Dr. Tanetshia Brown's 4:26 PM email explicitly states she is unable to determine why the Elsevier (Evolve) system behavior occurred and r... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-172b}} || High || CONFIRMED || The Herzing IT Service Desk closed INC0562442 without root-cause investigation: the resolution note by Andrew Cox states only that the pr... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-173}} || High || CONFIRMED || The Herzing IT Service Desk issued updated resolution notes for INC0562442 stating it could not determine whether a system issue occurred... || [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-174}} || High || CONFIRMED || Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor, NSG524) forwarded the reporting student the ProctorU link for the NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-175}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || ProctorU proctor took unilateral remote control of the reporting student's computer during the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II session and d... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-176}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Herzing identifies Elsevier as the probable root cause of the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II software failure documented in HU-175 and waiv... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-177}} || Medium || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Institutional leadership gave contemporaneous, conflicting instructions on whether a grade appeal was required for the July 15, 2026 Exam... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-178}} || High || POSSIBLE (qualified) || An unidentified, unsaved-contact cohort member in the Nursing '27 group chat reported that her clinical instructor was fired and all of h... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-179}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Following the June 5, 2026 CARES case denial documented in HU-155 and the reporting student's stated intent to file an OCR complaint, Dr.... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-180}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Herzing's multi-step grade-change process, requiring an interim Incomplete grade before a Canvas roll and registrar sync, combined with a... || [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-181}} || Low || CONFIRMED || A newly assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator sent a welcome email to students outside her assigned population and retra... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-182}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The reporting student's July 1, 2026 exam started over an hour late due to a ProctorU/Meazure Learning staffing error, which he identifie... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-183}} || Medium || CONFIRMED || Fall 2026 Intensive II registration opened without students knowing their clinical schedule and without Nashville specific session dates... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-184}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Herzing's Intensive Location Exception Request process treated the reporting student's request for a disability related location accommod... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-185}} || Critical || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The HESI secure examination browser permits in-exam access to dictionary, thesaurus, and full Wikipedia article content, and permits a co... || [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-186}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The click gesture the reporting student uses to trigger text to speech read aloud now opens a dictionary panel instead, creating a risk t... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-187}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Cumulative vendor caused examination disruptions have compressed a semester of examinations into approximately three weeks, with a fourth... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-188}} || Medium || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The calculator within the HESI compatibility check returned an incorrect arithmetic result during joint testing || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-189}} || Critical || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Herzing failed to provide virtual simulation presentation slides at least 24 hours in advance as required by the reporting student's writ... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-190}} || High || POSSIBLE (qualified) || For the Fall 2026 family nursing clinical rotation, a Herzing clinical coordinator directed a student to secure her own placement through... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-190a}} || High || POSSIBLE (qualified) || Student A's Fall 2026 planning email to Starr Williams-Headen requesting schedule stability, level appropriate clinical placement, and ad... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-191}} || Medium || POSSIBLE (qualified) || The reporting student is recorded as one clinical hour short for NSG525 Clinical II, and his clinical instructor told him verbally on the... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-192}} || Critical || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Dr. Raywattie Prashad told the reporting student he could access his required 24 hour advance virtual clinical materials only through NSG... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-193}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || Herzing directed the reporting student to sign up for a 6 hour make up clinical shift to cover 3 missed V-Sim hours, first telling him to... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-194}} || Low || CONFIRMED (qualified) || A scheduled Student Nursing Association meeting with Dr. Raywattie Prashad did not occur and was not communicated in advance, and the rep... || [[Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-195}} || Critical || CONFIRMED (qualified) || On August 10, 2026, the reporting student was launched into an exam that Elsevier confirmed was not the exam he was scheduled to take, an... || [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-196}} || Low || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The reporting student proactively flagged a nurse strike at his clinical site, Ascension Via Christi, and Dr. Rachel Powell confirmed the... || [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-197}} || Critical || CONFIRMED (qualified) || During a severe asthma flare-up in September 2026, Herzing offered the reporting student a one time testing courtesy rather than a disabi... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|-
| {{HU|HU-198}} || High || CONFIRMED (qualified) || The reporting student informed Herzing on June 22, 2026 that a U.S. Department of Education investigator had requested updated psychologi... || [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
|}

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication

2026-09-15T16:37:13Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern workload and student communication. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article collects nine tracker records, all marked CONFIRMED, dated from 2026-05-04 to 2026-06-15. Six carry High severity ({{HU|HU-046}}, {{HU|HU-096}}, {{HU|HU-096a}}, {{HU|HU-096b}}, {{HU|HU-096c}}, {{HU|HU-116}}), two carry Medium severity ({{HU|HU-151}}, {{HU|HU-168d}}), and one carries Low severity ({{HU|HU-158}}). Recurring owners include the Program Chair, Academic Affairs, faculty in named courses, Admissions, the Dean of Nursing, and the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing.

One thread concerns enrollment misrepresentation and an unpredictable workload. {{HU|HU-046}} documents assurances given to prospective MSN-DE students that the program would not require synchronous activity during work hours, followed by mandatory Zoom sessions added mid-semester. {{HU|HU-096}} is the lead entry for a split cluster on extreme and unpredictable assignment workload, with sub-issues covering weekly volumes of roughly 90 to 100 assignments and up to 50 hours of classwork in a week ({{HU|HU-096a}}), 14 to 19 assignments posted and due the same evening with only hours of notice ({{HU|HU-096b}}), and students failed within the first three days of a class with no missing assignments ({{HU|HU-096c}}). {{HU|HU-116}} documents a current-semester instance of the same pattern, with 175 points of graded work added to Clinical IV Week 1 after the semester had begun and with no advance notice.

A second thread concerns communication process rather than workload volume. {{HU|HU-151}} documents a student left to infer his clinical schedule from an unresolved internal email exchange between staff, an arrangement the AVP acknowledged was a poor student experience. {{HU|HU-158}} documents the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing's ten-day unavailability immediately after she denied a retake request and the related case was closed. {{HU|HU-168d}} documents a faculty member's weeks-old notice about a deficient screenshot submission that was never resolved through a documented resubmission opportunity before a 0 was entered. Across both threads, the records show a pattern of students absorbing schedule and grading changes generated by internal institutional processes they were not equipped to interpret.

== Issues ==
=== HU-046: Multiple students confirmed receiving assurances from Herzing staff prior to enrollment that MSN-DE program would not require synchronous activities during work hours; mandatory Zooms added mid-semester ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Enrollment Misrepresentation / Mandatory Synchronous Requirement
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Admissions / Program Chair / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, multiple students confirmed receiving assurances from Herzing staff prior to enrollment that the MSN-DE program would not require synchronous (real-time) activities during work hours. Mandatory synchronous Zoom clinical sessions were nonetheless added mid-semester with little advance notice.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (March 3, 2025): Student CO reported three different calls with Herzing confirming Student CO would not be required to do things during work, yet five more mandatory Zooms during work hours had since been added. Student CS confirmed he was scheduled to work on four of the five mandatory Zoom days and had to find coverage. (Source Group: Multiple GroupMe Archives: Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.)

'''Reported statement.''' Student CO reported feeling frustrated that, despite three separate assurance calls from Herzing that work-hour activities would not be required, five more mandatory Zoom sessions had been added during work hours.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): institutions receiving federal Title IV funds may not make substantial misrepresentations about program requirements. Representing to prospective students that the program will not require work-time activities when mandatory synchronous sessions are subsequently required constitutes a potential misrepresentation of material program characteristics.

'''Impact.''' Students who enrolled based on representations that work schedules would not be disrupted were forced to use unpaid leave, reduce work hours, or risk clinical failures when mandatory synchronous sessions were scheduled during work hours with minimal notice.

'''Notes.''' The pattern of enrollment misrepresentation is documented across multiple cohorts and programs. This issue is distinct from {{HU|HU-022}} (WCAG compliance misrepresentation) but represents the same institutional pattern.

=== HU-096: Lead: extreme and unpredictable assignment workload (very high weekly volume incompatible with marketed flexibility, last-minute same-day postings, and early failures within three days of class start); see HU-096a, HU-096b, HU-096c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (workload volume, last-minute posting, early failure)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Faculty / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for an extreme and unpredictable assignment workload documented across cohorts. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-096a}} (weekly volumes of roughly 90 to 100 assignments, and up to 50 hours of classwork in a week, incompatible with the program's marketed flexibility and reported to prevent actual learning), {{HU|HU-096b}} (14 to 19 assignments posted and due the same evening with only hours of notice), and {{HU|HU-096c}} (students failed within the first three days of a class with no missing assignments, described as a weed-out structure). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Standards.''' See sub-issues.

'''Notes.''' One student reported the syllabus had not matched since the program started, meaning assignment volumes were not disclosed in advance. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-096}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-096a}}, {{HU|HU-096b}}, {{HU|HU-096c}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-077}} (80-20 self-teaching expectation), {{HU|HU-087}} (cohort attrition), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covers untaught content), {{HU|HU-095}} (two-fail dismissal).

=== HU-096a: Weekly assignment volumes of roughly 90 to 100 assignments, and up to 50 hours of classwork in a single week, incompatible with marketed flexibility and reported to prevent actual learning ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Unreasonable Workload Volume / Misrepresentation of Demands
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students across cohorts documented weekly assignment volumes of roughly 90 to 100 assignments and up to 50 hours of classwork in a single week, incompatible with the program's marketed flexibility for working adults. Students reported the volume prevented genuine learning, with one completing assessments by redoing them to a perfect score without reading the content and another reporting retaining nothing. One student reported leaving a corporate job for a CNA position because the workload was incompatible with full-time employment.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous member 985 (March 30, 2025); Anonymous member 395 (July 15, 2025); Anonymous member 732 (July 10, 2025) on 50 hours of classwork in a week; Student C (July 15, 2025); Student CD (July 15, 2025); Student CE (April 2, 2025) on roughly 40 assignments in a week and a syllabus that had not matched since the program started. (Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).)

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous member 985 reported completing over 90 assignments that week out of fear of missing something in a disorganized course structure, and stated there was no way to actually read through the material while still getting everything done on time.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 600.2 (credit-hour definition: credit hours must reflect a reasonable approximation of expected work); ACEN Standard 4 (curriculum must support meaningful learning); 34 C.F.R. 668.71-75 (misrepresentation, where a program is marketed as compatible with full-time employment while assigning far more work than disclosed). Lead: {{HU|HU-096}}.

'''Impact.''' Students completing assignments without reading content are not acquiring clinical competency, a downstream patient-safety concern; working students, the marketed demographic, are the most harmed.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-096}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-096b: 14 to 19 assignments posted and due the same evening, with students given only hours of notice ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Last-Minute Assignment Posting / Transparency
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students documented that 14 to 19 assignments were posted and due the same evening they were notified, having found out only just before class opened, leaving only hours to complete them.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous member 787 (July 10, 2025); Anonymous member (July 15, 2025) asking why an announcement gives students nearly 15 assignments the day before they are due. (Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).)

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous members reported that clinical started with 14 to 19 assignments due that same evening, and that they had found out about the assignments only just before class opened.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (assignment requirements must be clearly communicated and reasonably scheduled); 34 C.F.R. 600.2 (reasonable approximation of work). Lead: {{HU|HU-096}}.

'''Impact.''' Same-day posting with hours of notice prevents students, especially those with jobs, from planning their workload and sets them up to miss assignments through no fault of their own.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-096}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-096c: Students failed within the first three days of a class with no missing assignments, described by students as a weed-out structure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Early Course Failure / Weed-Out Concern
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students reported being failed within the first three days of a class with no missing assignments, and characterized the Clinical I structure as designed to weed out students.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous member 787 (July 10, 2025); Anonymous member 732 (July 10, 2025) confirming several people were failed in the first three days with no missing assignments; Anonymous member 137 (July 9, 2025) characterizing Clinical I as made to weed out students. (Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).)

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous members reported that several people were failed from a class within the first three days with no missing assignments at all, and one described the Clinical I semester as structured to weed out students.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (fair and transparent academic standards); 34 C.F.R. 668.71-75 (misrepresentation, if the structure is designed to reduce enrollment rather than promote learning). Lead: {{HU|HU-096}}. See {{HU|HU-087}} (attrition), {{HU|HU-095}} (two-fail dismissal).

'''Impact.''' Failing students within three days for reasons unrelated to missing assignments, if part of a weed-out structure, contributes to documented high attrition and significant financial losses.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-096}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-116: Two assignments added to Clinical IV (NSG621) Week 1 mid-week after semester start; Student J alerted cohort via GroupMe Saturday; adds 175 points of graded work (100 pt Clinical Application Activity + 75 pt Clinical Application Quiz) to an already-loaded Week 1; extends HU-096 with current-semester documented instance ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Week Assignment Addition / No Advance Notice
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | NSG621 Faculty / Program Chair / Dr. Tressler / Dr. Prashad
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student J posted in the Herzing MSN-DE cohort GroupMe on a Saturday alerting the cohort that two more assignments had been added to Clinical IV Week 1. The accompanying Canvas screenshot of NSG621 (Clinical IV: Role of the Acute Care Nurse) Week 1 shows the following assignments all due May 10: Unit 1: Student Professionalism Agreement (0 pts), Unit 1: Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement (0 pts), Unit 1 Medical-Surgical Clinical Application Activity (100 pts), and Unit 1 Clinical Application Quiz (75 pts). The two newly added assignments represent 175 points of graded work dropped into Week 1 after the semester had already begun, with no advance notice to students. This is a current-semester instance of the pattern documented in {{HU|HU-096}} (14 to 19 assignments posted same day due; students failed within three days of class start; assignments added without notice). The GroupMe post received two heart reactions, indicating multiple students were affected. Student E and Student J are also discussing October 9 graduation walk dates in the same thread, confirming both are in a final or near-final semester cohort.

'''Evidence.''' GroupMe message from Student J (Saturday, May 2026, 11:57 AM). Student J shared a Canvas screenshot showing the NSG621 Unit 1 assignment list: Unit 1: Discussion - Introduction (May 6, 5 pts); Unit 1: Student Professionalism Agreement (May 10, 0 pts); Unit 1: Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement (May 10, 0 pts); Unit 1 Medical-Surgical Clinical Application Activity (May 10, 100 pts); Unit 1 Clinical Application Quiz (May 10, 75 pts). The post received two heart reactions from cohort members. (Source Group: GroupMe, Herzing MSN-DE Cohort Chat, Saturday, May 2026; Canvas NSG621 Assignment List Screenshot provided by Student J.)

'''Reported statement.''' Student J alerted the cohort that two more assignments had been added to Clinical IV Week 1.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §600.2 (credit hour): course assignments must be disclosed in advance so students can plan their workload; mid-week addition of graded assignments violates reasonable notice expectations. ACEN Standard 4: curriculum must be organized and communicated clearly to students. Adding 175 points of graded assignments (100 pt plus 75 pt) to an already-running week without advance notice is inconsistent with any reasonable syllabus disclosure standard. The NSG525 (Clinical II / Med-Surg I) Week 1 quiz issues documented in {{HU|HU-112}} and the NSG621 (Clinical IV) mid-week assignment additions documented here both occur in Week 1 of the same semester (May 2026), establishing that the pattern of last-minute assignment additions spans multiple concurrent courses in the same week.

'''Impact.''' Students who planned their Week 1 workload based on the original assignment list must now absorb 175 additional points of graded work, including a 100-point Clinical Application Activity and a 75-point Clinical Application Quiz, with reduced preparation time. In a program where the three-day discussion board rule ({{HU|HU-099}}) already penalizes students for timing, and where students document 90 to 100 assignments per week ({{HU|HU-096}}), mid-week additions with May 10 deadlines give students only the remaining days of the week to complete substantial graded work. The May 10 deadline (Sunday) for all new assignments suggests an extremely compressed completion window from the Saturday alert.

'''Notes.''' Student J is also documented in {{HU|HU-086}} (open-book test-outs) and other Facebook archive entries as an active, credible cohort voice. The October 9 graduation walk date context (Student E and Student J both walking October 9) places this in the Spring 2026 semester for students in a late clinical cohort. This instance should be cross-referenced with {{HU|HU-096}} (extreme workload / last-minute posting), {{HU|HU-089}} (workload incompatibility with employment), and {{HU|HU-113}} (duplicate work same week in NSG525). All three document Week 1, same semester, same student population.

=== HU-151: Student CC'd on unresolved staff email back-and-forth and replanned his schedule off non-final messages; AVP acknowledged poor student experience ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Student Looped Into Internal Back-and-Forth / Mistook Non-Final Emails for Instructions
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Tiffany Poyner (Ascension clinical placement coordinator)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, in the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student explained that he had been copied on an email back-and-forth between the professor (Troy Frazier), the professor's supervisor, and the Ascension clinical placement coordinator (Tiffany), and that he kept adjusting his schedule to what he believed were instructions, when in fact the staff were still working out the schedule among themselves. He stated he only realized, after reading the chain the night before and using ChatGPT to interpret the context, that the messages were internal coordination rather than directives to him. Dr. Danielle Laban acknowledged this was not a good student experience and was so confusing, and said she would share feedback with Dr. Rachel Powell that, going forward, copying students on that back-and-forth should be avoided. This documents a communication-process failure in which the student was left to infer his obligations from internal staff emails.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student described being cc'd in email communication with the professor, his supervisor, and the clinical placement coordinator while they were still figuring out the schedule among themselves, and stated he kept adjusting to different times as he understood them from the exchange. He said he would have preferred to be told the time and days directly rather than seeing that worked out over email, and that after entering the chain into ChatGPT for context, he learned the clinical coordinator at Ascension and the professor were still figuring things out while he was being cc'd and making his own plans without realizing that context. Dr. Danielle Laban stated she would work to prevent that back-and-forth happening with students cc'd, said she did not think that was a good student experience and that overall it was confusing, and said the reporting student could share that feedback with Rachel. (Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I am being cc'd on all these emails, making my plans not realizing [the staff were still] figuring all that out.</blockquote><blockquote>[Laban]: I do not think that is a good student experience, overall it is so confusing.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must communicate clearly with students regarding their academic obligations. Copying a student on unresolved internal scheduling negotiations, such that the student mistakes draft coordination for instructions, is a communication-process failure. The AVP's acknowledgment that this is not a good student experience confirms the concern. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-148}}, {{HU|HU-149}}.

'''Impact.''' Because the reporting student could not distinguish internal coordination from directives, he repeatedly changed his plans based on non-final information, compounding the schedule instability and planning burden. The reliance on an outside tool (ChatGPT) to interpret institutional emails underscores that the communication was not clear on its face.

'''Notes.''' Tiffany identified as Tiffany Poyner, the Ascension (Via Christi St. Joseph) clinical placement coordinator referenced in {{HU|HU-135}}. Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP) committed to relay feedback to Dr. Rachel Powell to stop CC-ing students on the back-and-forth. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-148}}, {{HU|HU-149}}, {{HU|HU-135}}. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).

=== HU-158: Dean of Prelicensure Nursing Dr. Stephanie Black, the official who reviewed and denied the Fundamentals final retake, is out on PTO until Monday 6/15 per an automatic reply to the CARES follow-up ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Low
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Decision-Maker Unavailable for Follow-Up Immediately After Denial / Case Closure
! Date added
| 2026-06-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, an automatic reply from Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, sent in response to the CARES Case: Follow-up thread on June 5, 2026, stated that she is out of the office on PTO and will respond as soon as possible upon her return on Monday 6/15. Dr. Black is the official identified in the CARES follow-up as having reviewed and denied the reporting student's Fundamentals final retake request ({{HU|HU-155}}). Her unavailability until June 15 means that, at the same time the CARES case was closed ({{HU|HU-157}}) and the retake was denied, the decision-maker who made that determination is not available for follow-up for roughly ten days. This is logged as a low-severity availability and timing concern: the student cannot readily seek clarification or reconsideration from the deciding official during that window.

'''Evidence.''' Automatic reply, Stephanie Black (June 5, 2026), signed Stephanie Black RN, DNP, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, steblack@herzing.edu, subject line "Automatic reply: [EXTERNAL] Re: CARES Case: Follow-up." (Source: Automatic reply from Stephanie Black, June 5, 2026. Source Group: Automatic reply email from Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) in response to the CARES Case: Follow-up thread, June 5, 2026; provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I am out of the office on PTO. I will respond to your message as soon as possible upon my return on Monday 6/15.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' General responsiveness and complaint-handling expectations: where a decision-maker denies a student request and the related case is closed, the student should have a reasonably timely avenue for clarification or appeal. A roughly ten-day unavailability of the deciding official, coinciding with case closure, is logged as a minor timing concern rather than a violation. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-155}} (Black denied the retake), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES closure), {{HU|HU-135}} (a prior instance of an ADA/Title IX coordinator being out of office around a key deadline).

'''Impact.''' The reporting student cannot promptly seek clarification or reconsideration of the denied retake from Dr. Black until June 15, during the same period the CARES case was closed. The practical effect is a delay in any follow-up on the denial. Severity is low because the unavailability itself is routine PTO; the concern is the timing relative to the denial and closure.

'''Notes.''' Confirms Dr. Stephanie Black's full title and contact: Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, steblack@herzing.edu. Pattern note: this is the second documented instance of a key official being unavailable around a critical juncture (compare {{HU|HU-135}}, Emilie Thompson out of office before the clinical start). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-155}}, {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-135}}. Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-158}}).

=== HU-168d: Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated in her June 15 email that she had sent an email weeks earlier about the required screenshot not showing the exam date as instructed, but no documented resubmission opportunity or deadline extension was established before the exam was graded at 0 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Weeks-Old Screenshot-Requirement Notification Not Resolved Before Grade Entry
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, in her June 15 email, Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated that she had sent an email weeks earlier regarding the screenshot upload requirement: the screenshot submitted by the reporting student did not show the date of the exam as instructed on the assignment. Despite this weeks-old communication, no documented resubmission opportunity, corrective deadline, or grace period appears to have been established before Dr. Brown entered the 0 on June 15. The HESI report confirms the exam was taken on June 13, 2026, before the June 14 due date. The assignment required a screenshot showing the exam date as a separate deliverable from the Elsevier score. The student apparently submitted a screenshot but it did not satisfy the date-visibility requirement. The absence of a documented opportunity to correct and resubmit this administrative deliverable before the 0 was recorded is a fair-process concern.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Tanetshia Brown email (6/15/2026 1:13 PM). (Source Group: Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I also sent you am email weeks ago about uploading the date that you were planning to take the exam as the screenshot that you uploaded did not show the date of the exam as instructed on the assignment.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (fair and clearly communicated academic standards and processes); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability). Where an instructor is aware weeks in advance that a deliverable is deficient but a 0 is entered without an opportunity to cure, the process raises a fairness and notice concern, particularly where the underlying exam was completed and scored at the maximum Conversion Score. Lead: {{HU|HU-168}}.

'''Impact.''' The 0 on a 100-point assignment for a weeks-old unresolved screenshot issue, rather than for non-completion of the exam, is the proximate cause of the 69-percentage-point course grade drop documented in {{HU|HU-168c}}.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-168}} (lead). CONFIRMED that the weeks-old notification existed (per Dr. Brown's email) and that the 0 was entered without a documented resubmission opportunity. Whether the reporting student received and had the opportunity to act on the prior email is not established from the available evidence; the concern is documented at the institutional process level. Documented 2026-06-15.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing

2026-09-15T16:37:12Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern student withdrawal patterns, program retention, and the wellbeing of students working through the MSN-DE program. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers seven tracker entries, all rated High severity and all CONFIRMED: {{HU|HU-014}}, {{HU|HU-023}}, {{HU|HU-073}} (split into {{HU|HU-073a}} and {{HU|HU-073b}}), {{HU|HU-087}}, and {{HU|HU-095}}. The entries were added between 2026-04-30 and 2026-05-05, with {{HU|HU-073}} split into its two sub-issues on 2026-06-06. The underlying evidence spans a wider window, from student emails in late 2025 back through Facebook group posts dated as early as June 2023, and forward to member posts through early 2026.

Two entries, {{HU|HU-014}} and {{HU|HU-023}}, document a single reporting student's own wellbeing crisis: a documented inability to succeed under the program's structure, an investigated but impractical transfer, and a pattern of inter-departmental communication failures that left the student acting as the liaison between clinical faculty, the ADA coordinator, and appeals staff. The remaining five entries trace a broader retention pattern across the wider student body: a cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing while citing systemic failures rather than academic difficulty ({{HU|HU-073a}}), the ethics committee's non-response to a formal five-page complaint and a four-month re-entry delay ({{HU|HU-073b}}), cohort attrition documented at 63 to 71 percent with NCLEX pass rates calculated only on the students who remained ({{HU|HU-087}}), and a two-fail dismissal policy paired with a rigid 80 percent threshold that compounds financial harm ({{HU|HU-095}}).

The recurring owners across this topic are the Dean of Nursing, Academic Affairs, Student Retention, the Ethics Committee, the Provost, Student Services, Institutional Research, and the Registrar. The entries cross reference each other heavily, and several also point outward to appeals handling, complaint investigation, faculty instruction, grading, and financial aid, indicating that the withdrawal and retention pattern is treated in the tracker as downstream of failures documented elsewhere.

== Issues ==
=== HU-014: The reporting student documented systemic inability to succeed; investigated transferring; academic crisis in Fall 2025 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Ethical Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Services / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student documented a systemic inability to succeed in the program, investigated transferring to another institution, and experienced an academic crisis in Fall 2025.

'''Evidence.''' Student email (2025-10-10): "I do not believe that I can be successful with the way the setup is at the moment." The reporting student investigated transferring to another institution and found it would require moving states and adding three semesters. Source group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I'm trying to be as respectful as possible, but I have to tell you that this university is stressing me out and I have never experienced anything like this since I've been in college and I have gone to many different schools and completed eight different college programs.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Mission: "educate, support, and empower all students for success." ACEN Standard 5: student learning environment must be supportive. A student expressing systemic barriers to success warrants a documented institutional response and support plan.

'''Impact.''' A student with documented disabilities experiencing systemic program barriers, consistent communication failures, and compounded stress. The pattern poses risk of academic harm and potential attrition.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student also requested an IT loaner laptop for exam support in October 2025. Associate Dean Steele said he would check, but the outcome is unconfirmed in available evidence.

=== HU-023: Documented pattern of inter-departmental communication failures requiring student to act as liaison between university departments ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Systemic Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Program Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, a documented pattern of inter-departmental communication failures required the student to act as liaison between university departments.

'''Evidence.''' Student email to Dr. Laban (2026-04-10): "I'm constantly having to do the communication between staff members because things are not being properly communicated." Source group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>My point is that I'm constantly having to engage in communication because I feel like different departments at the university are not communicating with each other and that adds a significant amount of stress to me as a student. I should be able to login, do my coursework, have my appropriate assignments, and take my exams without fault.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5; ADA duty of care. Inter-departmental communication failures that place the burden on the student, particularly a student with multiple documented disabilities, constitute a systemic institutional failure. ADA requires proactive institutional coordination, not reactive student advocacy.

'''Impact.''' The student was required to explain his own accommodation status and disability services communications to faculty, appeals staff, and the clinical team repeatedly. This adds documented burden to a student with anxiety, panic disorder, and cognitive disabilities.

'''Notes.''' Specific documented failures: (1) a clinical professor unaware the student needed an incomplete; (2) the ADA coordinator unaware of the screen reader situation; (3) appeals staff unaware of the accommodation details. This is described as a systemic, not isolated, issue.

=== HU-073: Lead: two distinct retention and grievance problems (a cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing over systemic issues, and the ethics committee's non-response to a formal complaint); see HU-073a, HU-073b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Ethics Committee / Provost / Student Retention
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for two distinct problems documented in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group export: {{HU|HU-073a}}, a cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing while citing systemic program failures rather than academic difficulty, and {{HU|HU-073b}}, the ethics committee's non-response to a five-page formal complaint, and a re-entry process that told a returning student to wait four more months. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-073}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-073}} resolve to this lead. Verification recommended: institutional withdrawal data, GPA-at-withdrawal statistics, and ethics committee response rates. Involves multiple withdrawing students (Student M, Student BA, Student BB, and others), documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-073a}}, {{HU|HU-073b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-014}}, {{HU|HU-016}} (unmonitored appeals inbox), {{HU|HU-067}} (EthicsPoint investigation adequacy), {{HU|HU-077}} (no response to withdrawal complaints).

=== HU-073a: Cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing while citing systemic failures ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Retention Indicator: High-GPA Students Withdrawing Over Systemic Issues
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Student Retention / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, multiple students with strong records withdrew citing systemic program failures rather than academic difficulty: Student M (withdrew September 2024 with a 3.6 to 3.7 GPA), Student BA (withdrew with A's), Student BB (dropped the second cohort and transferred to a local program), an anonymous student lost because no clinical placement could be secured, and a report of at least three drops in a few weeks between 2023 and 2025.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook posts: Student M (September 26, 2024) describing withdrawing with A's and a 3.6 GPA after teaching himself the material amid platform and organization failures; Student BA (September 27, 2024) describing withdrawing with A's; an anonymous post (June 20, 2023) that a student was lost because no clinical placement could be secured; Student AJ (July 12, 2023) reporting at least three drops in recent weeks; Student BB (July 12, 2023) confirming she dropped the second cohort.

'''Reported statement.''' One withdrawing student states that despite earning A's, the constant errors, the read the directions comments, and the 80-20 comment made the program impossible to continue with, and that paying for the program should not mean having to independently find 80 percent of the information.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: students must have retention support; a pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing rather than failing is itself a retention indicator that should trigger institutional review. Lead: {{HU|HU-073}}. Compare {{HU|HU-014}}, {{HU|HU-045}}.

'''Impact.''' Students were left with significant loan debt and no degree; cross-cohort consistency from 2023 to 2025 indicates persistent rather than resolved issues.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-073}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Involves Student M, Student BA, Student BB, and others, documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-073b: Ethics committee non-response to a five-page complaint, and a four-month re-entry delay ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Grievance Process Failure: Non-Response to Formal Complaint
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Ethics Committee / Dean of Nursing / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student M wrote a five-page complaint to the ethics committee and received no response after three weeks; the institution did not respond to a single concern at withdrawal and had no retention process; when later invited back, he was told he would have to appeal and wait four more months, and he declined after spending about 27,000 dollars with nothing to show.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook posts by Student M: October 20, 2024, stating he wrote a five-page complaint to the ethics committee with no response after three weeks and that Herzing did not respond to a single concern at withdrawal; February 14, 2025, stating he went back through re-entry only to be told he would need to appeal and wait four more months, and that he was about 27,000 dollars in with nothing to show.

'''Reported statement.''' Student M states that he wrote a five-page complaint to the ethics committee and received no response after three weeks, and that Herzing did not respond to a single concern when he withdrew and put no retention effort into place.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 602.16: accreditation requires institutional response to student grievances. Non-response to a formal five-page complaint reflects a grievance-procedure failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-073}}. Parallel to {{HU|HU-016}}, {{HU|HU-067}}, {{HU|HU-077}}.

'''Impact.''' Failure to respond to formal complaints prevents systemic learning and leaves documented financial harm uncorrected.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-073}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Concerns Student M, documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-087: Cohort attrition documented at 63-71% for Cohorts 1 and 2; NCLEX pass rates calculated on survivors only, artificially inflating reported outcomes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Cohort Attrition / Outcome Reporting
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Institutional Research / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student AJ (January 24, 2025) reported that many cohorts went from 70-plus students down to the 20s. Student AY (January 26, 2025) reported that the program's high success rates reflect only the 26 of more than 70 students who made it. Anonymous member 638 (December 31, 2025) reported that the HESI pass rate reflects only the few students who actually take it, and that applying the actual pass-fail rate across the full cohort would deter enrollment. Student V (September 14, 2024) documented more than 90 students entering Cohort 3, down to 50 by semester five or six, approximately 44 percent attrition. The highest documented attrition, for Cohorts 1 and 2, is 63 to 71 percent. This significantly extends {{HU|HU-073}}.

'''Evidence.''' Student AJ (January 24, 2025): cohorts went from 70-plus students down to the 20s, so a high NCLEX pass rate does not mean high student success, and the programs are getting bigger without more help for held-back students. Student AY (January 26, 2025): the high success rate is based on the 26 of more than 70 who made it. Anonymous member 638 (December 31, 2025): the HESI pass rate reflects only the few students who actually take it, and applying the actual pass-fail rate across the cohort would deter enrollment. Student V (September 14, 2024): roughly 90 students entering first semester, down to around 50. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AJ states that many cohorts dropped from more than 70 students to the 20s, so a high NCLEX pass rate does not reflect a high student success rate. Student AY states that the reported high success rate reflects only the 26 of more than 70 students who made it through.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR Section 668.41 (institutional disclosures): institutions must report graduation and completion rates accurately. IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey: completion rates must be calculated on a cohort basis, not a survivor basis. 34 CFR Sections 668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): reporting NCLEX pass rates calculated only on students who reached NCLEX, without disclosing that 63 to 71 percent of enrolled students never reached it, constitutes a potential misrepresentation of program outcomes. HLC Criteria for Accreditation 4A: institutions must demonstrate student achievement data including completion and graduation rates. ACEN Standard 6: program outcomes must include completion rates; if 63 to 71 percent of students do not complete the program, this is a required outcome reporting element.

'''Impact.''' Prospective students and their families make enrollment decisions based on advertised NCLEX pass rates. If those rates are calculated on the 26 to 37 percent of students who survive to NCLEX rather than the full enrolled cohort, they significantly misrepresent the program's actual educational effectiveness. The gap between advertised outcomes and actual completion rates affects financial planning (Grad Plus loans, {{HU|HU-048}}) and career expectations. Anonymous member 638's observation that the pass rate reflects only the few students who actually take the exam identifies the core methodological issue.

'''Notes.''' This issue extends {{HU|HU-073}} (withdrawal pattern) with quantitative attrition data. Verification recommended: IPEDS graduation rate data for Herzing's MSN-DE program, and specific cohort enrollment and completion numbers from institutional records. The expansion of cohort sizes, which Student AJ describes as the programs getting bigger and bigger, while maintaining the same resource structure increases systemic pressure on remaining students and compounds all other documented issues.

=== HU-095: Two-fail dismissal policy with 4-month delay per failure; re-entry appeal process documented as opaque; Student M lost $27,000 with no degree; 79.8% fails as completely as 60% ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Academic Standing Policy / Financial Harm
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs / Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the MSN-DE program enforces a two-fail dismissal policy: any student who fails two courses is dismissed from the program and must file an appeal for reinstatement. Each individual course failure results in a four-month delay because students must wait for the next cohort cycle to retake the failed course. Student BI (August 24, 2025) reported that only two fails are allowed before dismissal. The 80 percent passing threshold means a 79.8 percent grade, which would pass at nearly every other institution, fails completely at Herzing, triggering the four-month delay. An anonymous student (August 24, 2025) documented ending a course at exactly 79.8 percent and being told by both the professor and Dr. Prashad that nothing could be done. Student M documented investing approximately 27,000 dollars in the program with nothing to show for it: credits that do not transfer, no degree, and dismissal. Anonymous member 812 confirmed it is basically impossible for nursing credits to transfer elsewhere.

'''Evidence.''' Student BI (August 24, 2025): a fail sets a student back a semester (four months) and requires retaking the class, and only two fails are allowed before dismissal. Anonymous member (August 24, 2025): ending a class with a 79.8 percent and asking whether anything could be done, calling failing by 0.2 percent crushing. Anonymous member (August 27, 2025): emailed Dr. Prashad, who also said nothing could be done. Student AV (August 24, 2025): the grade is the grade, no extra credit given. Anonymous member 469 (August 24, 2025): was not offered extra credit with a similar score and failed. Anonymous member 989 (August 24, 2025): during their first semester, instructors were giving a few extra points on assignments so students could get over 80. Student M (September 2024): documented 27,000 dollar investment, no degree, credits not transferable. Anonymous member 331 (April 4, 2026), on failing NSG 635 twice: believes the student would be withdrawn from the program and would have to submit an appeal to be reinstated. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BI states that failing a course sets a student back a semester and that only two fails are allowed before dismissal from the program. An anonymous member states that during their first semester, some instructors added a few extra points to assignments so students could reach the 80 percent threshold.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR Sections 668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): if prospective students are not clearly informed of the two-fail dismissal policy and the non-transferability of credits, they cannot make an informed enrollment decision. Contract law principles in higher education (Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410, 7th Cir. 1992): students invest substantial funds in reliance on the program's representation that completion leads to a credential; dismissal without a degree and non-transferable credits may constitute a breach of the implicit enrollment contract. Consumer protection principles: a student who invests 27,000 dollars and is dismissed with no credential and no transferable credits has suffered material financial harm. The inconsistency in grade-bump availability, with some students receiving instructor-added points to clear the 80 percent threshold and others being denied, constitutes unequal treatment under the same academic policy.

'''Impact.''' Student M lost 27,000 dollars, has no degree, and holds non-transferable credits. Each fail carries a four-month delay plus a full semester's tuition cost (approximately 12,465 dollars per term based on documented rates). A student who fails two courses faces potential total financial loss of their entire investment with no credential. The 79.8 percent scenario, where a fraction of a point determines a 12,465 dollar retake fee and a four-month delay, is particularly severe. The inconsistent enforcement of grade-bump availability (some instructors grant it, others do not, Dr. Prashad denied it) means the outcome of a borderline grade depends on which instructor a student happens to have, arbitrary rather than policy-driven. This compounds {{HU|HU-060}} (500 dollar course retake fee, which may be in addition to tuition).

'''Notes.''' The two-fail policy interacts with every other documented issue: platform-caused grade errors ({{HU|HU-082}}, {{HU|HU-075}}) can trigger fails; NI contracts issued in error ({{HU|HU-091}}) can trigger fails; HESI content covering untaught material ({{HU|HU-088}}) can trigger fails; milestones elimination with no retake ({{HU|HU-083}}) can trigger fails. Each of these institutionally caused failure modes can contribute to a student's fail count, potentially triggering dismissal for failures not attributable to academic performance. The inconsistent grade-bump practice also warrants scrutiny. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-048}} (financial aid cap), {{HU|HU-060}} ($500 retake fee), {{HU|HU-073}} (high-GPA withdrawals and financial harm), {{HU|HU-087}} (cohort attrition).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms

2026-09-15T16:37:10Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern the learning management system, the Sherpath and Realizeit academic platforms, third-party assessment tools (EAQ, HESI, ProctorU), compliance and clinical-scheduling integrations, and the Canvas/Instructure security incident. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article gathers 32 tracker entries dated from April 30, 2026 through June 15, 2026. All 32 are CONFIRMED except one lettered sub-issue, {{HU|HU-120c}}, which is marked POSSIBLE pending verification, and the {{HU|HU-169}} cluster of four entries, which is recorded evidence-first as a reported and unverified corroborating account. By severity, the set includes 4 Critical entries, 22 High entries, and 6 Medium entries. The Critical entries are the Spring 2025 mass grade transfer crisis ({{HU|HU-082}}) and the three-part Canvas/Instructure ShinyHunters breach cluster ({{HU|HU-120}}, {{HU|HU-120a}}, {{HU|HU-120b}}).

Three recurring threads run through the set. The first is chronic unreliability in the Elsevier-owned academic platforms that carry most of the MSN-DE coursework: Sherpath's repeated failures to load lessons, preserve completed work, and transfer grades to Canvas ({{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-075}}, {{HU|HU-082}}, {{HU|HU-129}}); its predecessor Realizeit's grade-recording and exam-format problems ({{HU|HU-076}}, {{HU|HU-076a}}, {{HU|HU-076b}}); and the Elsevier Adaptive Quizzing (EAQ) content and grade-conversion errors ({{HU|HU-100}}). The second is a cluster of NSG525 Week 1 content and remediation failures in May 2026, including duplicate quiz answer choices, incorrect clinical units, empty required assignments, and a burden-shifting remediation ({{HU|HU-112}}, {{HU|HU-112a}}, {{HU|HU-112b}}, {{HU|HU-112c}}, {{HU|HU-122}}). The third, and most extensively documented, is the June 2026 NSG523 HESI Exam 1 score-transmission failure: a completed exam invisible to the instructor in Elsevier's Evolve system for over 51 hours, a 0/100 grade and a 69-percentage-point course grade swing, a resolution that depended on the student producing his own proof, and two successive IT closures that declined to identify a root cause ({{HU|HU-168}} through {{HU|HU-173}}), corroborated by a second student's account of the same failure pattern across two other courses ({{HU|HU-169}} cluster).

Ownership recurs across the IT Department, Academic Affairs, and vendor management for Elsevier and Sherpath, with individual entries also naming Instructure, the CISO, named adjunct faculty (Dr. Tanetshia Brown, Dr. Ashley Jennings, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Stacey Gombar), and the IT Service Desk (Andrew Cox). Two entries fall outside the platform-reliability and grading pattern: {{HU|HU-001}}, an enrollment-side Canvas provisioning gap at the start of the program, and {{HU|HU-043}}, the loss of a clinical instructor and course announcements on the first day of Clinical IV.

== Issues ==
=== HU-001: Canvas LMS account not auto-provisioned at enrollment; required manual creation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Enrollment
|}
'''Finding.''' Canvas LMS account not auto-provisioned at enrollment; required manual creation.

'''Evidence.''' INC0479039 (2025-07-14); IT staff notation; enrollment emails to [email redacted] dated July 14, 2025.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I'm not sure why your account wasn't created automatically. I added it manually... I'm going to get this ticket escalated to get the rest of your initial enrollments processed. Sorry for the inconvenience!</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.5 states students are expected to access LMS from program start. Enrollment systems failure contradicts published student access expectations.

'''Impact.''' Delayed access to orientation, initial courses, and required onboarding materials. Risk of missed deadlines at program start.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student filed INC0479039. Account created manually by Myrddin Emrys. Course enrollments required secondary ticket to fully resolve.

=== HU-041: Sherpath academic platform (Elsevier) experienced chronic and recurring failures throughout 2025-2026 academic year ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Systemic Platform Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management (Elsevier/Sherpath)
|}
'''Finding.''' The Sherpath academic platform (Elsevier) experienced chronic and recurring failures throughout the 2025-2026 academic year, including failure to load lessons, displaying completed assignments as incomplete, losing student work, and kicking students out mid-assignment.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (multiple dates, September 2025 to April 2026): Students reported Sherpath failures on at least 10 separate occasions. Student C (February 25, 2026) reported being kicked out of the platform mid-quiz immediately after clicking next. Student C (January 14, 2026) reported that a full week of completed Sherpath work had reverted to showing as past due, as if never done.

'''Reported statement.''' Student C stated that reaching out to Sherpath support was a lost cause, reported that a full week of completed Sherpath work had reverted to showing as past due as though never submitted, and later noted that Sherpath support did manage to locate a missing lab pass.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology resources must support student learning. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794d): digital learning platforms must be accessible and functional. Handbook p.5: students cannot be penalized for institutional technology failure.

'''Impact.''' Recurring Sherpath failures caused anxiety, required students to redo work, resulted in assignments incorrectly marked as incomplete, and placed students at risk of grade penalties for institutionally caused platform failures.

'''Notes.''' Sherpath is the primary academic platform for nursing coursework, EAQs, and simulation activities. Its repeated failure represents a foundational infrastructure concern. See also {{HU|HU-001}} and {{HU|HU-044}}.

=== HU-043: At start of Clinical IV (May 4, 2026), multiple students' course appeared with instructor (Professor Celia) who then disappeared along with all course announcements ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap / Student Communication Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' At the start of Clinical IV (May 4, 2026), multiple students' course appeared with an instructor (Professor Celia) who then disappeared along with all course announcements; students had no assigned instructor at the start of a clinical course.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (May 4, 2026): Student AG, Student BD, Student BC, and Student C all confirmed their Clinical IV instructor had disappeared and announcements were deleted. Student CU asked whether anyone else had Beasley, noting her announcement from the previous day had disappeared overnight. Student J noted that the professor seen that morning was no longer listed on the course, and the announcement was gone with her.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CU and Student J described the clinical instructor's announcement disappearing overnight and expressed frustration that the professor who had posted that morning was no longer listed on the course, taking the announcement away along with the instructor.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: faculty must be sufficient in number and qualified; students must have consistent, accessible faculty for program courses. Handbook p.18 Chain of Communication. Losing a clinical course instructor on the first day of the semester, with no advance notice and deleted announcements, deprives students of the orientation, syllabus, and clinical expectations they need to begin clinical safely.

'''Impact.''' Students beginning Clinical IV had no instructor on day one, no access to course announcements, and no ability to email the prior instructor through Canvas. The loss of a clinical instructor at the start of a clinical course creates both academic and patient safety risks.

'''Notes.''' This occurred on May 4, 2026, the first day of the next semester. Multiple students in the GroupMe noted confusion about assignments and whether they had Sherpath requirements. The faculty transition was handled with no advance communication.

=== HU-075: Sherpath grade transfer failures caused actual course failures in Spring 2025 cohort; multiple students appealing failures attributable to platform errors rather than academic performance ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Platform-Caused Course Failures
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management (Elsevier/Sherpath) / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The Sherpath platform's failure to correctly transfer grades to Canvas, combined with grades being changed in Canvas without explanation, caused multiple students in the Spring 2025 MSN-DE cohort to fail courses and be required to file appeals. This represents a substantial escalation of {{HU|HU-041}}: where {{HU|HU-041}} documented platform reliability failures and student anxiety, this issue documents actual academic harm (course failures) traceable to the same platform issues.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student D (Apr 26, 2025), Spring 2025 cohort student: constant issues with grades not transferring to Canvas, grades transferring incorrectly, and course grades frequently changed with no explanation, with several cohort members reporting a course failure attributable to the issue and pursuing appeals. Student D (Feb 20, 2025): described course grades changing daily due to technology problems, completed assignments recorded as zeros, and students spending an ungodly amount of time managing the failures to protect data integrity. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D described constant problems with grades not transferring to Canvas or transferring incorrectly, course grades changing with no explanation, and said several cohort members reported failing a class because of the issue and were pursuing appeals; Student D also described grades changing daily and completed assignments being recorded as zeros, requiring students to spend excessive time managing the technology failures to protect their academic standing.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology resources must support student learning; institutionally caused platform failures cannot fairly be the basis for course failure. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794d): digital learning platforms must be accessible and functional. Handbook p.20 (grade appeal procedures). Due process principles in higher education (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961)): students must have meaningful access to academic integrity in the grading system. 34 CFR §668.14: institutional administrative capability requires functional grading infrastructure.

'''Impact.''' Students who failed courses due to Sherpath grade transfer errors face academic probation, required course retakes (with $500 fees per {{HU|HU-060}}), delayed graduation, extended tuition costs, and potential financial aid eligibility impact ({{HU|HU-048}} GradPLUS rule, {{HU|HU-059}} aid cap). The institution's burden-shifting posture, requiring students to file appeals to correct institutionally caused failures, places the cost of platform errors on the students rather than the institution or vendor. The compound effect of Sherpath failures plus the {{HU|HU-074}} escalated HESI weighting (where 82% of course grade depends on HESI exams that themselves depend on Sherpath integration) means platform failures can cascade into course failures with no recoverable remedy.

'''Notes.''' This issue is a direct extension of {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath chronic platform failures) with new evidence of actual academic harm. The Spring 2025 cohort represents a particularly severe case because it coincided with the rollout of Sherpath as the primary platform replacing Realizeit ({{HU|HU-076}}). Verification: institutional records of Spring 2025 grade appeals, the categorization of those appeals (academic vs. platform-error), and resolution outcomes. The combination of {{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-057}} (duplicate Sherpath assignments), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content), and this issue constitutes a comprehensive vendor management failure with documented student harm.

=== HU-076: Lead: the predecessor Realizeit LMS produced two distinct failures (grades not recorded despite completion, and a question format that did not match HESI/NCLEX); see HU-076a, HU-076b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for two distinct failures of the predecessor Realizeit LMS (used before Sherpath), documented in the Facebook group export: {{HU|HU-076a}} (Realizeit failed to record grades despite student screenshots of completion, requiring repeated IT escalation) and {{HU|HU-076b}} (Realizeit question format did not match the HESI/NCLEX style of the high-stakes exams). These are a separate predecessor platform, not a subset of the Sherpath issues. See each sub-issue.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-076}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-076}} resolve to this lead. The transition from Realizeit to Sherpath did not resolve LMS failures. Reported by Student AZ, Student AY, and others (2022 to 2024 cohorts); documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-076a}}, {{HU|HU-076b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath LMS failures), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath incorrect content), {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weighting).

=== HU-076a: Realizeit failed to record grades despite screenshots of completion, requiring repeated IT escalation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| LMS Failure: Grades Not Recorded Despite Completion
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management
|}
'''Finding.''' On Realizeit, a student's grade would not record, showing the quiz as not done (0/0) even though the student had screenshots proving completion, requiring back and forth with IT to fix; the student reported that numerous students had the same issue (September 27, 2023).

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student AZ (September 27, 2023): when she first started, Realizeit would not record her grade and kept saying she did not do the quiz (0/0) although she had screenshots that she did, and she had to go back and forth with IT to fix it; numerous students had the same issues.

'''Reported statement.''' Student AZ reported that when she first started using Realizeit, the platform would not record her grade and repeatedly showed a quiz as not completed (0/0) even though she had screenshots proving she had finished it, and that she had to go back and forth with IT to get it corrected, adding that numerous other students had the same problem.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology resources must support learning; records integrity requires accurate grade recording; Section 508 (functional platforms). Lead: {{HU|HU-076}}. Burden-shift pattern parallels {{HU|HU-023}}.

'''Impact.''' Students had to advocate individually with IT to have completed work recorded, a burden-shift onto students.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-076}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student AZ; documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-076b: Realizeit question format did not match the HESI/NCLEX style of the high-stakes exams ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum-Assessment Misalignment: LMS Format Unlike HESI/NCLEX
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Vendor Management
|}
'''Finding.''' Students reported that Realizeit questions were not in HESI or NCLEX style, so the high-stakes HESI exams felt like a whole new format relative to what students practiced on the LMS (September 27, 2023).

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student AY (September 27, 2023): Realizeit questions are not HESI or NCLEX style, so when it comes to those exams it is a whole new level.

'''Reported statement.''' Student AY reported that Realizeit's question format did not match HESI or NCLEX style, so encountering the high-stakes exams felt like an entirely different and unfamiliar level of difficulty.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: course content and assessment must be aligned. A format mismatch between the LMS and the exams that carry the majority of the grade is a curriculum-assessment alignment failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-076}}. The mismatch persisted into Sherpath ({{HU|HU-044}}).

'''Impact.''' Students could score well on LMS content while remaining unprepared for the differently formatted high-stakes exams.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-076}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student AY; documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-082: Spring 2025 system-wide grade transfer crisis: affecting 'hundreds of students'; recurring problem across multiple semesters with ZERO institutional communication ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mass System-Caused Course Failures
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT / Registrar / Academic Affairs / Dr. Prashad / Shannon Bishop / David Steele
|}
'''Finding.''' A system-wide grade transfer failure in Spring 2025 caused passing students to receive failing grades in Canvas and the official records system. Anonymous member 569 confirmed the crisis affected "hundreds of students." Documented individual cases include: Student B (Clinical II 86% became an F; summer classes auto-canceled); Student BM (2 A's and a B uploaded as 2 F's; withdrawn from program); Anonymous 510 (an A transferred as a B); Student AE (F from incomplete, financial aid affected); Student BN; Student BO; Student BP (still not enrolled in correct classes at next semester start). Zero official institutional communication was sent; students discovered the error only by monitoring their own grades. Student V confirmed this is a RECURRING problem: she experienced the same issue a few semesters earlier in the same class, and it was not fixed until several weeks into the new semester. Student B stated she was prepared to email the local press in Wisconsin. Escalation chain: Dr. Prashad to Shannon Bishop to Tricia Wagner to Sam (student services) to David Steele (dsteele@herzing.edu), who ultimately resolved some cases.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student B (Apr 26, 2025) asking whether others were affected by the Spring grading issue. Student BM (Apr 26, 2025) reported two A's and a B being uploaded as two F's, resulting in withdrawal. Anonymous member 569 (Apr 27, 2025) confirmed the issue affected hundreds of students and was a system error, not a syllabus issue. Student B (Apr 30, 2025) reported her grades had still not been corrected with summer classes starting the following Monday. Student V (Apr 30, 2025) confirmed the same problem had occurred to her a few semesters earlier in the same class. Student B (Apr 26, 2025) reported zero communication from administration despite the institution's promptness in emailing about late payments. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous member 569 confirmed the grading error affected hundreds of students and was a system error rather than a syllabus issue. Student B reported that, as of April 30, her grades still had not been corrected even though summer classes were starting the following Monday, and separately noted that the institution had sent zero communication about the issue despite promptly emailing students about late payments. Student V confirmed the same problem had occurred to her in an earlier semester in the same class and was not fixed until several weeks into the following term.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional grade recording infrastructure. ACEN Standard 5: technology must support student learning without causing academic harm. Due process (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150, 5th Cir. 1961): students may not be dismissed or academically penalized without meaningful process. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): students have the right to accurate educational records. Institutional failure to communicate a known system error that is causing erroneous course failures constitutes an administrative capability failure under 34 CFR §668.14. The recurring nature across multiple semesters establishes a pattern rather than an isolated incident.

'''Impact.''' Affected students experienced wrongful course failures on official transcripts, auto-cancellation of the next semester's enrollment, disruption to financial aid eligibility, delayed graduation, scholarship application harm (unofficial transcripts showing F grades), and extreme emotional distress. The zero-communication approach placed the burden of discovery and remediation on students: students had to individually email faculty, program chairs, and registrar staff to trigger corrections. Student AE reported the error caused canceled classes and financial aid issues. Student BP (May 4, 2025) reported still not being enrolled in the correct classes for the semester.

'''Notes.''' Recurring problem: Student V's statement that this happened a few semesters ago, in the same class, establishes this as an unresolved systemic issue rather than a first-time event. The institution has been aware of this failure mode for multiple semesters and has not implemented a structural fix. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath platform failures), {{HU|HU-076}} (Realizeit failures). This issue extends {{HU|HU-075}} significantly: where {{HU|HU-075}} documented a general pattern, this issue establishes the Spring 2025 mass event with named individuals, documented cascading harms, and recurring history.

=== HU-092: Compliance system failures May 2026: Complio-to-MyClinicalExchange integration not transferring documents with clinical deadline imminent and no institutional response ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Platform Integration Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Handle 2 (May 4, 2026, one day before clinical deadline) reported that none of the completed compliance documentation was transferring from Complio to MyClinicalExchange, that the deadline was the next day, and that requests for help had gone unanswered, with documents also unable to be attached directly in MyClinicalExchange. A second student in the same thread confirmed the same issue. This documents that as of May 2026, the Complio-to-MyClinicalExchange integration is failing, preventing students from demonstrating clinical compliance, and institutional support is unresponsive to urgent requests.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 2 (May 4, 2026, [post link redacted]): reported the same integration failure, an imminent deadline, no response to help requests, and no location to upload Fit Testing or orientation modules referenced in the compliance email. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Handle 2 reported that none of the completed compliance documentation was transferring from Complio to MyClinicalExchange, that the clinical deadline was the next day, and that requests for help had gone unanswered, with the system also not allowing direct attachment of documents or providing a place to upload required orientation modules.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology systems supporting clinical compliance must function reliably. Students cannot be denied clinical access for compliance failures caused by institutional platform integration failures. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional administrative infrastructure. Unresponsive support during an urgent compliance deadline with the following day's deadline approaching constitutes an administrative capability failure.

'''Impact.''' Students unable to demonstrate clinical compliance due to platform integration failures risk clinical dismissal, an outcome with cascading academic consequences (course failure, graduation delay). The unresponsiveness to help requests compounds the harm.

'''Notes.''' This is consistent with the long-standing pattern of compliance platform failures (CastleBranch/Complio issues documented since Cohort 1 in 2023). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath failures), {{HU|HU-075}} (grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-082}} (Spring 2025 grade crisis).

=== HU-100: EAQ (Elsevier Adaptive Quizzing) questions documented incorrect; grade conversion ratio mismatch: 95% EAQ score appears as 18/20 in Canvas gradebook; Student D confirmed 'SEVERAL' incorrect questions ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Third-Party Platform Content Errors / Grade Calculation Discrepancy
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management (Elsevier) / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Student D (Aug 25, 2025) documented two distinct EAQ problems. First, question content errors: she reported experiencing several EAQ questions being incorrect and stated there was definitely a content issue. Second, a grade conversion ratio discrepancy: students may score 95% on an EAQ but have it appear as 18/20 in the Canvas gradebook, meaning the gradebook score does not reflect the actual percentage earned. Student D advised students approaching course failure to review their EAQs for challengeable questions and to calculate the conversion ratio applied to the gradebook, as a potential recovery strategy. This indicates the mismatch is known, recurring, and exploitable as a grade-recovery mechanism, but only by students sophisticated enough to identify it. An anonymous student (Aug 24, 2025) documented all Sherpath assignments at 100% and all EAQs below 100%, with no ability to redo custom EAQs, ending the course at 79.8%.

'''Evidence.''' Student D (Aug 25, 2025) advised reviewing EAQs to challenge missed questions, reported experiencing several incorrect EAQ questions, and described calculating the conversion ratio applied to the gradebook: for example, a 95% EAQ score appearing as 18/20. Anonymous member (Aug 24, 2025) noted that custom EAQs below 100% could not be redone; Anonymous member 672 (Aug 25, 2025) confirmed those EAQs cannot be redone. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D reported experiencing several EAQ questions being incorrect and stated there was definitely a content issue; she added that calculating the conversion ratio applied to the gradebook could reveal cases where a 95% EAQ score appears as 18/20 in the gradebook.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: third-party platforms used for graded assessment must provide accurate content and accurate grade reporting. Elsevier EAQ incorrect questions constitute a vendor content failure that Herzing, as the contracting institution, bears responsibility for auditing and correcting. The grade conversion ratio mismatch, where a student's actual percentage is silently compressed when transferred to Canvas, is a data integrity failure: the gradebook does not accurately reflect student performance. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain accurate academic records. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): students have a right to accurate educational records; a gradebook that silently understates performance violates that right. The non-redoable nature of custom EAQs means students have no mechanism to recover from incorrect questions they answered wrong, compounding the harm.

'''Impact.''' Students who lose points due to incorrect EAQ questions cannot challenge or redo them, making the error permanent in their grade. Students who don't know to calculate the conversion ratio cannot identify the discrepancy. The 79.8% student ({{HU|HU-095}}), who ended 0.2% below the passing threshold with all Sherpath assignments at 100%, may have been pushed below the threshold by EAQ conversion ratio errors or incorrect questions. Given that even a fraction of a point triggers a 4-month delay and a course retake fee ({{HU|HU-095}}, {{HU|HU-060}}), undetected EAQ errors can have severe academic and financial consequences.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content), {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covering untaught content). The EAQ platform (Elsevier) is separate from Sherpath, but both are Elsevier products, suggesting a vendor-wide quality control issue. The fact that Student D publicly advised students to audit their EAQ conversion ratios as a grade-recovery strategy indicates this is a known workaround, not a rare anomaly. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-012}} (seven grades changed simultaneously), {{HU|HU-082}} (Spring 2025 mass grade transfer crisis).

=== HU-112: Lead: NSG525 and Pathophysiology Review Week 1 quiz content errors (duplicate identical answer choices across at least two courses, wrong clinical units with a typo, and a remediation that shifted the burden onto students); see HU-112a, HU-112b, HU-112c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (assessment content errors and remediation)
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management / Faculty / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for Week 1 quiz content errors in the May 2026 semester. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-112a}} (duplicate identical answer choices that make the keyed answer undefined, documented in NSG525 and confirmed by faculty escalation in the Week 1 Pathophysiology Review, a different course, establishing a systemic platform-level problem), {{HU|HU-112b}} (reference values labeled with incorrect clinical units, with pH and PaCO2 both labeled mEq/L, plus a typographical error, teaching clinically incorrect content), and {{HU|HU-112c}} (the institutional remediation, manual grading with no extension and no restoration of lost quiz attempts, shifted the burden onto students, with two faculty giving conflicting timelines). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' NSG525 (Clinical II / Med-Surg I) Week 1 Quiz Screenshots, the reporting student, May 7, 2026; Email thread, Sandra Russell J.D. BSMT to Dr. Ashley Jennings, May 5, 2026.

'''Notes.''' Documented May 7, 2026 by the reporting student. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-112}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-112a}}, {{HU|HU-112b}}, {{HU|HU-112c}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covers untaught content), {{HU|HU-100}} (EAQ errors), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath incorrect content), {{HU|HU-095}} (two-fail dismissal), {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).

=== HU-112a: Quiz questions contain duplicate identical answer choices that make the keyed answer undefined, across at least two Week 1 courses (NSG525 and the Pathophysiology Review) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Assessment Validity: Duplicate Answer Choices
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / IT / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Two NSG525 Week 1 quiz questions contained duplicate identical answer choices: Question 9 (a select-all-that-apply item) listed Increased body temperature as both the first and fifth choice, and Question 7 (a single-select item) listed Respiratory acidosis as both the third and fourth choice, so the student cannot know which identical option the system treats as correct. The same problem appeared in the Week 1 Pathophysiology Review, a different course, where a student raised it with adjunct faculty member Dr. Ashley Jennings, who replied that she had sent the inaccuracy to leadership and could not unilaterally throw out questions or curve the quiz, establishing the problem as systemic across at least two courses in the same week.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshots from the reporting student, May 7, 2026 (NSG525 Week 1 Canvas quiz, Questions 7 and 9). Email thread on the Week 1 Pathophysiology Review: Sandra Russell J.D., BSMT (ASCP) to Dr. Ashley Jennings DNP MSNEd APRN FNP (Adjunct Faculty), May 5, 2026, 11:02 PM, and Dr. Jennings's reply at 11:17 PM. Source group: NSG525 Week 1 quiz screenshots (May 7, 2026); Pathophysiology Review email thread (May 5, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I understand this can be frustrating and I have sent this inaccuracy to leadership. Unfortunately, I cannot make the decision to throw out questions or curve the quiz.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (assessment instruments must be accurate, valid, and clearly worded); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including quality control over graded assessment content). A question with two identical options cannot reliably measure knowledge. Lead: {{HU|HU-112}}. Extends {{HU|HU-100}} (EAQ errors) to a third assessment type, Canvas quizzes.

'''Impact.''' A student who selects the clinically correct answer may or may not receive credit depending on which identical option the system has keyed, an outcome determined by system error rather than knowledge; in a program where a fraction of a point can trigger a delay and retake, this is direct academic and financial harm.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-112}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. The clinically correct answer to Question 7 (respiratory acidosis) is identifiable from the values, but the duplicate option makes the keyed answer indeterminate.

=== HU-112b: Quiz reference values are labeled with incorrect clinical units (pH and PaCO2 both labeled mEq/L) and contain a typographical error, teaching clinically incorrect content ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Assessment Content Accuracy: Incorrect Clinical Units
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Vendor Management / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' NSG525 Question 7 labeled the pH reference range with mEq/L, although pH is a dimensionless logarithmic scale with no unit, and labeled carbon dioxide (PaCO2) with mEq/L, although the standard clinical unit for PaCO2 is mmHg; the question also contained a typographical error (rang instead of range). Teaching that pH or PaCO2 is measured in mEq/L is clinically incorrect.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot from the reporting student, May 7, 2026: NSG525 Question 7 reference values labeled pH 7.35-7.45 mEq/L and CO2 35-45 mEq/L, with Bicarbonate rang 22-26 mEq/L. Source group: NSG525 Week 1 quiz screenshots (May 7, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>pH range 7.35-7.45 mEq/L [pH has no units]. Bicarbonate rang 22-26 mEq/L.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (assessment content must be accurate); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (quality control over assessment content). Incorrect unit labels on clinical reference values teach incorrect clinical science, a patient-safety concern for nurses interpreting lab values. Lead: {{HU|HU-112}}.

'''Impact.''' Students learning that pH or PaCO2 is measured in mEq/L are being taught clinically incorrect information that could affect patient care.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-112}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-112c: The institutional remediation (manual grading, no extension, and no restoration of lost quiz attempts) shifted the burden of the quiz errors onto students, and two faculty gave conflicting timelines ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Remediation / Recourse Failure; Contradictory Faculty Communications
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' After acknowledging the duplicate-answer errors, the institution chose to manually grade the affected items but granted no extension and did not restore the quiz attempts students used while guessing among the erroneous options; the quiz allowed ten attempts, and manual grading does not return attempts spent on system errors. Two faculty gave conflicting timelines for the fix on the same day.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Heather Gregg (hgregg@herzing.edu) stated the college was aware of two duplicate-answer questions and would manually grade those items, that no extensions would be granted, and that she was applying the correct credit. Dr. Stacey Gombar stated the team was working to resolve the issue and would post an announcement. Dr. Gombar indicated grading this week while Dr. Gregg indicated grading the prior day. The reporting student documented that students do not get to retake the maximum attempts after the fix. Source group: Faculty communications to the reporting student, May 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I have verified, and no extensions will be granted. I am, however, in the process of manually grading and applying the correct credit.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 and 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (institutions must remediate assessment errors fairly). Manual grading without restoring lost attempts or granting a fair retake shifts the burden of the institution's error onto students; conflicting faculty timelines reflect inadequate coordination. Lead: {{HU|HU-112}}. See {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance), {{HU|HU-095}} (two-fail dismissal).

'''Impact.''' Students who used quiz attempts guessing among erroneous options lose those attempts permanently, and the remediation does not restore a fair opportunity to reach the maximum allowed attempts.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-112}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Institutional acknowledgments on record from Dr. Gregg and Dr. Gombar.

=== HU-120: Lead: the Canvas/Instructure ShinyHunters breach (May 2026) exposed student PII and private messages, Herzing had not notified students as of May 7, and clinical message content raises a HIPAA risk; see HU-120a, HU-120b, HU-120c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED for the breach and the exposure of PII and messages; the HIPAA exposure in HU-120c is POSSIBLE pending verification
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (data breach, notification failure, HIPAA risk)
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Instructure / Herzing IT / Herzing Administration / CISO
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for the Canvas/Instructure cybersecurity breach by the ShinyHunters extortion group on or around May 5 to 6, 2026, and Herzing's response. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-120a}} (the breach exposed user PII, names, email addresses, and student ID numbers, and billions of private messages, and the May 7 herzing.instructure.com outage labeled scheduled maintenance was active breach remediation), {{HU|HU-120b}} (Herzing had not notified its students of the breach as of May 7, 2026, raising FERPA notification obligations), and {{HU|HU-120c}} (a HIPAA risk if MSN-DE clinical discussion messages containing patient information were among the exposed messages). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot herzing.instructure.com (May 7, 2026), the reporting student; WFTV Channel 9 (May 7, 2026); KUTV 2News (May 6, 2026); SecurityAffairs (May 5, 2026).

'''Notes.''' ShinyHunters is a documented extortion group with prior breaches including AT&T, Ticketmaster, and Santander; its ransom deadline was May 6, 2026. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-120}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-120a}}, {{HU|HU-120b}}, {{HU|HU-120c}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath failures), {{HU|HU-092}} (Complio failures), {{HU|HU-102}} (modules-only, Canvas single point of failure), {{HU|HU-112}} (quiz errors), {{HU|HU-116}} (mid-week assignments), {{HU|HU-117}} (professor resignation).

=== HU-120a: The Canvas/Instructure breach exposed user PII (names, emails, student IDs) and billions of private messages; the May 7 herzing.instructure.com outage was active breach remediation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Active Cybersecurity Breach / Student Data Exposure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Instructure / Herzing IT / CISO
|}
'''Finding.''' Canvas/Instructure experienced an active breach by the ShinyHunters group on or around May 5 to 6, 2026. ShinyHunters claimed nearly 9,000 schools and 275 million individuals were affected, with several billion private messages and a breached Salesforce instance. Instructure confirmed exposed data included names, email addresses, student ID numbers, and messages among users, and responded by revoking privileged credentials, deploying patches, rotating keys, and increasing monitoring. The scheduled maintenance message at herzing.instructure.com at 4:18 PM on May 7, 2026 coincided with this remediation.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot of herzing.instructure.com (4:18 PM, May 7, 2026); WFTV Channel 9 (May 7, 2026); KUTV 2News (May 6 to 7, 2026); SecurityAffairs (May 5, 2026) reporting Instructure's confirmation and the ShinyHunters leak-site warning. Source group: herzing.instructure.com screenshot (May 7, 2026); WFTV (May 7, 2026); KUTV (May 6 to 7, 2026); SecurityAffairs (May 5, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Nearly 9,000 schools worldwide affected. 275 million individuals data. Several billions of private messages among students and teachers. Your Salesforce instance was also breached.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g): student IDs, names, and Canvas messages are protected education records; a breach implicates safeguarding and notification duties. 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including functional and secure technology). Lead: {{HU|HU-120}}.

'''Impact.''' Every Herzing MSN-DE student's Canvas data (name, email, student ID, and private messages with faculty) was potentially exposed; the billions of exposed messages may include clinical details, personal circumstances, and academic appeals.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-120}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-120b: Herzing had not notified its students of the Canvas breach as of May 7, 2026, raising FERPA breach-notification concerns ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Breach Notification Failure / FERPA
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Administration / Herzing IT / CISO
|}
'''Finding.''' As of May 7, 2026, Herzing had not notified its students that their Canvas data may have been exposed in the Instructure breach, leaving students unaware their information was compromised. The absence of timely notification is itself a compliance concern.

'''Evidence.''' No student breach notification from Herzing as of May 7, 2026, against contemporaneous public reporting (WFTV, KUTV, SecurityAffairs) confirming the breach; herzing.instructure.com showed only a scheduled maintenance message. Source group: herzing.instructure.com screenshot (May 7, 2026); contemporaneous news reporting.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Canvas is currently undergoing scheduled maintenance. Check back soon. [herzing.instructure.com, 4:18 PM, May 7, 2026]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and associated guidance on safeguarding education records and notifying affected individuals of unauthorized disclosures; institutional duty to inform students of a breach affecting their records. Lead: {{HU|HU-120}}.

'''Impact.''' Students who are not notified cannot take protective steps (monitoring, password changes, or caution about exposed communications); a labeled maintenance message in place of a breach notice leaves students misinformed about the cause of the outage.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-120}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Monitor Herzing communications for any subsequent breach notification.

=== HU-120c: HIPAA risk if MSN-DE clinical discussion messages containing patient information were among the exposed Canvas messages ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE, conditional on clinical messages containing patient information being among the exposed data
|-
! Issue type
| Potential HIPAA Breach Exposure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Administration / Compliance / Clinical Coordination
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, if MSN-DE clinical discussion posts or messages contained patient information and were among the exposed Canvas messages, the breach could trigger obligations under the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule. Whether such content was exposed is not yet established and requires verification.

'''Evidence.''' Instructure's confirmation that messages among users were exposed; the program's clinical components, in which students discuss patient scenarios, raise the possibility that some messages contained patient information. Whether any such message was in the exposed set is unverified. Source group: Instructure incident reporting; program clinical structure.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>indications are that the information involved consists of certain identifying information of users at affected institutions, such as names, email addresses, and student ID numbers, as well as messages among users.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HIPAA Breach Notification Rule (45 C.F.R. 164.400-414): notification obligations may arise if protected health information was breached. Lead: {{HU|HU-120}}.

'''Impact.''' If patient information was exposed, affected individuals and authorities may need to be notified, and the institution and its clinical partners could face additional obligations and liability.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-120}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Marked POSSIBLE pending verification of whether clinical messages containing patient information were among the exposed data.

=== HU-122: Multiple assignments visible in NSG525 gradebook and calendar marked as required but contain absolutely no content; assignments also do not appear in Sherpath; students cannot complete assignments that have no content; due dates active ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Empty Assignments with Active Due Dates / Platform Synchronization Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Heather Gregg / IT Department
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student reported to Dr. Stacey Gombar and Dr. Heather Gregg that multiple assignments in NSG525 are visible in the gradebook and on the calendar as required assignments with active due dates, but contain absolutely no content when opened. These assignments also do not appear in Sherpath. Dr. Gombar's response requested a specific example, indicating she was not aware of the extent of the issue and had not proactively identified it. Students are in a position where required graded assignments are due, are counted in the gradebook, but have no content to complete, creating a potential grade impact from an institutional platform/content loading failure. This is distinct from {{HU|HU-113}} (duplicate assignments); this issue documents assignments that exist as shells with no instructional content at all.

'''Evidence.''' Email: the reporting student to Dr. Gombar / Dr. Gregg (May 2026), stating there were several assignments in the gradebook and calendar that were required but had absolutely no content and also did not show up in Sherpath. Dr. Gombar replied asking the reporting student to provide a specific example so she could look into it. This indicates the issue was not known to faculty before the reporting student raised it. Source group: Email: the reporting student to Dr. Gombar / Dr. Gregg, May 2026; Dr. Gombar reply requesting example.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>There are also several assignments in the gradebook and on the calendar that are required but have absolutely no content. They also do not show up in Sherpath.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must ensure that graded assignments have accessible content before imposing due dates. ACEN Standard 4: curriculum must be delivered through functional, content-complete learning systems. An assignment that exists in the gradebook with a due date but contains no content is an administrative failure that places students at risk of grade penalties for work that cannot be completed. The Sherpath synchronization failure (assignments not appearing in Sherpath) adds a platform integration layer to the issue, consistent with the pattern in {{HU|HU-092}} (Complio-to-MyClinicalExchange integration failure) and {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures).

'''Impact.''' Students with empty required assignments due this week face a choice between waiting for faculty to fix the content and potentially missing the deadline, or submitting incomplete or placeholder work. Either path risks a grade penalty. In a program where 0.2% can trigger a 4-month retake ({{HU|HU-095}}), grade points lost due to empty assignments with active due dates represent a concrete institutional-caused academic harm. Dr. Gombar's request for a specific example suggests the issue was not on faculty radar, meaning other students who did not report it may be silently affected.

'''Notes.''' Dr. Gombar offered a 1:1 meeting and noted a sync session recording had been posted covering housekeeping details. This is consistent with the institutional pattern of deflecting to individual meetings rather than addressing systemic issues. The empty assignment issue in NSG525 Week 1 occurs simultaneously with duplicate quiz answers ({{HU|HU-112}}), duplicate cross-course assignments ({{HU|HU-113}}), mid-week assignment additions in NSG621 ({{HU|HU-116}}), professor resignation ({{HU|HU-117}}), and the Canvas cybersecurity breach ({{HU|HU-120}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath platform failures), {{HU|HU-075}} (grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-092}} (platform integration failures).

=== HU-129: Sherpath LMS platform outage May 15, 2026 while the reporting student was leading a Knack Tutoring Session; platform failure during active peer tutoring disrupted session ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Sherpath Platform Outage During Active Academic Session
! Date added
| 2026-05-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Sherpath (Elsevier) / Knack Tutoring Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Sherpath went down on May 15, 2026 while the reporting student was leading a Knack Tutoring Session. Knack is a peer tutoring platform used to connect students who need academic support with qualified peer tutors. The reporting student was serving as a peer tutor leading an active tutoring session when Sherpath became unavailable, disrupting the session. This documents a Sherpath outage during Week 2 of the May 2026 semester, consistent with the documented pattern of recurring Sherpath outages across multiple semesters ({{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-059}}, {{HU|HU-075}}, {{HU|HU-092}}). The outage affected not just the student's own academic work but also his ability to fulfill a peer support role for other students who were seeking tutoring assistance.

'''Evidence.''' Weekly Report week ending May 17, 2026. Source group: Weekly Report week ending May 17, 2026; the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Sherpath went down on 15 May 2026 while the reporting student was leading a Knack Tutoring Session.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology systems supporting student learning must be reliable and consistently available. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional academic technology infrastructure. A Sherpath outage during an active tutoring session disrupts both the tutor and the students being tutored. This is the fifth documented Sherpath outage event across the program ({{HU|HU-041}} documents recurring outages; {{HU|HU-059}} documents specific outage; {{HU|HU-075}} documents grade transfer failures; {{HU|HU-092}} documents Complio-MyClinicalExchange integration failures; {{HU|HU-129}} documents May 15, 2026 outage during active tutoring). The pattern establishes systemic Sherpath reliability failure rather than isolated incidents.

'''Impact.''' The Knack Tutoring Session was disrupted mid-session. Students who had scheduled time with the reporting student as their peer tutor lost that session due to the platform failure. The reporting student, who was providing a student support service, was unable to continue. In a program where students document difficulty finding adequate academic support and rely heavily on peer resources ({{HU|HU-102}}, no textbooks, modules only), a tutoring session disruption compounds existing academic support deficits.

'''Notes.''' Knack is a third-party peer tutoring platform. The reporting student's participation as a Knack tutor confirms his role as a peer academic resource within the program community, consistent with his earlier role setting up the September 2025 GroupMe and creating the student wiki. The Sherpath outage on May 15 occurred the same week as Canvas cybersecurity breach remediation ({{HU|HU-120}}, May 7), no clinical placement ({{HU|HU-128}}), accommodation blocked ({{HU|HU-125}}), and quiz deadline discrepancy ({{HU|HU-126}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-041}} (recurring Sherpath failures), {{HU|HU-059}} (Sherpath specific outage), {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-102}} (modules-only curriculum makes platform reliability critical).

=== HU-168: Lead: the NSG523 HESI Exam 1 completed by the reporting student on June 13, 2026 (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) produced a grading and submission disconnect: the instructor reported no score in Elsevier; Canvas shows 0/100 and No Submission; the NSG523 course grade dropped approximately 69 percentage points in 15 seconds as documented in sequential dashboard screenshots; and a weeks-old screenshot-requirement notification was not resolved before the 0 was entered; see HU-168a through HU-168d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect; Canvas 0/100 and No Submission; 69-point course grade drop in 15 seconds; unresolved screenshot requirement before grading)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523, Herzing University Orlando / Online MSN Direct Entry) / Herzing LMS / Elsevier-HESI
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for a cluster of grading and records issues arising from the NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I HESI Exam 1, completed by the reporting student on June 13, 2026. The HESI Assessment Results report (Elsevier Testing and Remediation, Delivery ID 905079) confirms the exam was completed on 06/13/2026 with a HESI score of 1,224 and a Conversion Score of 99.99. On June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty) emailed the reporting student (marked High Importance) stating she did not have a score in Elsevier and that a screenshot submitted weeks earlier did not show the exam date as required. Canvas shows the Unit 6: HESI Exam 1 assignment at Grade 0/100 with a No Submission status, and Dr. Brown posted a Canvas comment at 1:14 PM stating no score for exam. Sequential Canvas dashboard screenshots taken 15 seconds apart at 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM document the NSG523 course grade changing from 95.01% to 25.91%, a drop of approximately 69 percentage points. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-168a}} (HESI score present in Elsevier system but instructor reports no score, a score-transmission or access disconnect), {{HU|HU-168b}} (Canvas 0/100 and No Submission status inconsistent with exam completion), {{HU|HU-168c}} (69-percentage-point course grade drop observed in 15 seconds), and {{HU|HU-168d}} (weeks-old screenshot-requirement notification not resolved before the 0 was entered).

'''Evidence.''' Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' Exam: ONL: HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 2026 Summer C (Accommodations 250%), HESI Score 1,224, Conversion Score 99.99, Duration 98 minutes 15 seconds, Student ID p3641418, Delivery ID 905079. The HESI report was printed 6/15/2026 8:25:03 PM, after the grading issue was discovered, establishing that the score was available in the Elsevier system. The Canvas assignment due date was 06/14 at 11:59 PM; the exam was taken on 06/13/2026 (before the due date). Added 2026-06-15. Parts: {{HU|HU-168a}}, {{HU|HU-168b}}, {{HU|HU-168c}}, {{HU|HU-168d}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-167}} (NSG523 ProProctor Saturday failure, same exam context, June 13, 2026), {{HU|HU-167b}} (over 75-minute exam start delay before NSG523 exam).

=== HU-168a: The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 score (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) is present in the Elsevier Testing and Remediation system as of June 13, 2026, but Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated on June 15 that she did not have a score entered in Elsevier: a score-transmission or instructor-access disconnect ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Score-Transmission or Score-Access Disconnect Between HESI System and Instructor View
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' The HESI Assessment Results report (Elsevier Testing and Remediation, Delivery ID 905079, printed 6/15/2026) confirms the reporting student completed the NSG523 HESI Exam 1 on 06/13/2026, achieving a HESI Score of 1,224 and a Conversion Score of 99.99. In her June 15 email (1:13 PM, marked High Importance), Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated she did not have a score entered in Elsevier for that exam. These two facts are directly inconsistent: the exam was completed in the Elsevier-hosted HESI system and the results are retrievable (student printed the 16-page report on 6/15/2026), yet the instructor reports no score on her end. This points to a score-transmission failure between the HESI delivery and the instructor-facing Elsevier view, or an instructor-side access or lookup issue for this student or section.

'''Evidence.''' HESI Assessment Results report: the reporting student, Institution HERZING UNIVERSITY-ONLINE-RN, Date 06/13/2026, HESI Score 1,224, Conversion Score 99.99, Delivery ID 905079, Duration 98 minutes 15 seconds, printed 6/15/2026 8:25:03 PM. Dr. Tanetshia Brown email (6/15/2026 1:13 PM) stating she did not have a score entered in Elsevier for that exam. Source group: Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I do not have a score for you entered in Elsevier for that exam.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate academic records and functional technology systems); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement, including reliable transmission of results). A score-transmission disconnect between a HESI delivery and the instructor's gradebook view means a completed, passing exam does not count toward the student's grade. Lead: {{HU|HU-168}}.

'''Impact.''' A Conversion Score of 99.99 (the effective maximum) not reaching the instructor's view results in a 0 being recorded for a 100-point exam, with a severe downstream effect on course standing.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-168}} (lead). CONFIRMED: exam completion documented by HESI report; instructor non-receipt documented by email. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-168b: Canvas shows Grade 0/100 and No Submission for NSG523 Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, with an instructor Canvas comment stating no score for exam, despite the exam being completed on June 13, 2026 with a Conversion Score of 99.99 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Canvas 0/100 and No Submission Status Inconsistent With Exam Completion
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' The Canvas submission page for NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1 shows Grade: 0/100 and a No Submission status on the left panel, and a Canvas comment from Dr. Tanetshia Brown timestamped Jun 15 at 1:14pm reading No score for exam. The HESI report confirms the exam was completed on 06/13/2026, before the assignment due date of 06/14 at 11:59 PM. The No Submission status in Canvas is inconsistent with the exam having been completed. This may reflect a submission-type mismatch (the assignment requires a screenshot upload and a score transmission from Elsevier, and one or both may not have processed correctly), but the effect on the student's grade is the same as if the exam had not been taken at all. Dr. Brown also stated in her email that a screenshot previously uploaded did not show the exam date as required, which may have contributed to the No Submission assessment.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas submission screenshot (Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM): NSG523-7E, Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Grade 0/100, No Submission, Canvas comment by Dr. Tanetshia Brown DNP MSN RN (Jun 15 at 1:14pm) reading No score for exam. HESI report confirming exam completion 06/13/2026 with Conversion 99.99. Source group: Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>No score for exam. [Canvas comment, Dr. Tanetshia Brown, Jun 15 at 1:14pm]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate academic records); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair academic standards and processes); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement). Grading a completed exam as 0/100 with No Submission because a score did not transmit or a deliverable had a formatting issue, without providing an opportunity to correct, raises a fair-process and records-accuracy concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-168}}.

'''Impact.''' A 0 on a 100-point exam assignment has an immediate and severe effect on the course grade, as documented in {{HU|HU-168c}}.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-168}} (lead). The assignment appears to have two components: a Canvas screenshot upload and an Elsevier score transmission. Whether the No Submission reflects the screenshot upload status, the score sync status, or both is not fully resolved from the available evidence. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-169: Lead: reporter Student CK describes the same accommodation exam score-transmission failure the reporting student experienced (HU-168) across at least two of her own courses: a pathophysiology instructor gave her a zero despite a score existing in Elsevier, and the same failure recurred on a Fundamentals exam with no instructor response; the reporter's instructor confirmed her name did not appear on the Elsevier report list despite ProctorU confirming successful transmission, suggesting a systemic instructor-access or score-routing failure affecting accommodated students; reported and unverified; see HU-169a through HU-169c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (same accommodation exam score-transmission failure as {{HU|HU-168}}; reported for at least two courses; instructor confirmed name absent from Elsevier report list; ProctorU confirmed transmission; unverified third-party account)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Affairs / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing Testing and Accommodations (specific instructors not named by reporter)
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, this is a lead entry for a reported account by Student CK, a Herzing student who describes experiencing the same accommodation exam score-transmission failure documented in {{HU|HU-168}} (the reporting student, NSG523). The reporter states the problem occurred in at least two of her courses. In the first instance, her pathophysiology instructor gave her a zero; the reporter challenged this because she had her score, and she had to send the instructor a screenshot of Elsevier and a copy of her report to demonstrate completion. In the second instance, the same failure occurred on a Fundamentals exam taken on a Friday; the reporter emailed her instructor and had not received a response at the time of the message exchange. The reporter states her instructor told her the reporter's name did not appear on the instructor's Elsevier report list, which the reporter interpreted as evidence of something wrong. ProctorU confirmed to the reporter that her test was sent, her video was transmitted, and the test shows as completed successfully in ProctorU's system. The reporter speculates the problem is with instructor-level access to Elsevier and notes that her Fundamentals instructor said she was going to seek additional help but there was no known follow-up. The account is attributed to the reporter and is unverified; it is recorded here evidence-first as corroboration of a possible systemic pattern. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-169a}} (path instructor zero resolved only after reporter provided screenshot and report), {{HU|HU-169b}} (Fundamentals exam same failure, instructor non-response), and {{HU|HU-169c}} (instructor confirmed name absent from Elsevier list; ProctorU confirmed transmission; systemic pattern implication).

'''Evidence.''' Private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation.

'''Notes.''' Reporter's name as displayed in iMessage: Student CK. All statements attributed to reporter and marked POSSIBLE. The pattern, where ProctorU confirms successful transmission but the instructor does not see the student's name on the Elsevier report list, is the same mechanism described in {{HU|HU-168a}} (instructor reported no score in Elsevier despite HESI report confirming completion). If corroborated, the pattern suggests a systemic Elsevier configuration or access issue affecting accommodated students rather than an isolated per-student error. Added 2026-06-15. Reporter Student CK (Herzing student, name as displayed; specific student ID not provided). Parts: {{HU|HU-169a}}, {{HU|HU-169b}}, {{HU|HU-169c}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-168}} (the reporting student, same score-transmission disconnect for NSG523 HESI Exam 1), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect specifically).

=== HU-169a: Reporter Student CK describes her pathophysiology instructor giving her a zero for an accommodated exam despite her having a score in Elsevier; the reporter had to provide a screenshot of Elsevier and a copy of her report to demonstrate completion before the grade was corrected ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Exam Score Not Visible to Instructor; Zero Entered; Corrected Only After Student Provided Proof (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing pathophysiology instructor (name not provided by reporter) / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that her pathophysiology instructor gave her a zero for an accommodated exam. The reporter challenged this because she had her score in Elsevier. She states she had to send the instructor a screenshot of Elsevier and a copy of her report to demonstrate that she had completed the exam. This is the same pattern documented in {{HU|HU-168}}: an accommodated exam completed in the Elsevier system but not visible to the instructor, resulting in a zero that the student must correct by providing her own proof.

'''Evidence.''' According to the tracker, private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation. Source group: same private text message conversation described above.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CK reported that her pathophysiology instructor initially gave her a zero on an accommodated exam despite the score existing in Elsevier, and that she had to send the instructor a screenshot of Elsevier along with a copy of her report before the instructor would correct the grade.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate records and functional technology systems); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement); ADA Title III, examinations (42 U.S.C. 12189; 28 C.F.R. 36.309). A pattern in which accommodated students receive zeros because instructor-facing Elsevier access does not reflect completed exams, and must correct this themselves by providing proof, places an undue burden on students with disabilities and indicates a systemic accommodation-delivery failure. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Impact.''' According to the tracker, if accurate, the reporter had to spend additional time and effort demonstrating exam completion to reverse a zero, a burden not experienced by students whose scores transmit correctly. The risk is that students who do not challenge the zero may lose the grade permanently.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-169}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Autocorrect artifacts in source noted in lead. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-169b: Reporter Student CK describes the same score-transmission failure recurring on a Fundamentals exam taken on a Friday; she emailed her instructor but had not received a response at the time of the text message exchange ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Recurrence of Score-Transmission Failure on Fundamentals Exam; Instructor Non-Response (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Fundamentals instructor (name not provided by reporter) / Elsevier-HESI
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that after experiencing the pathophysiology score-transmission failure, the same thing happened on a Fundamentals exam she took on a Friday. She states she emailed her instructor about the situation but had not heard back at the time of the message exchange with the reporting student. The recurrence across two different courses and two different instructors, with no instructor response on the second instance, suggests the problem is not limited to a single course or instructor configuration.

'''Evidence.''' Private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation. Source group: same private text message conversation described above.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CK reported that the same score-transmission failure recurred on a Fundamentals exam taken the following Friday, and that she had emailed her instructor about it but had not received a response by the time she described the situation.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable technology systems and timely institutional response); HLC Criterion 2.A (clear and fair academic processes); 42 U.S.C. 12189; 28 C.F.R. 36.309. Recurrence of the same score-transmission failure across multiple courses for the same accommodated student, without a timely instructor response on the second instance, points to a systemic rather than incidental failure. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the reporter faces the same unresolved zero on a second exam, with no instructor response, placing two separate course grades at risk from the same systemic failure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-169}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-169c: Reporter Student CK reports that her instructor confirmed her name did not appear on the instructor's Elsevier report list, and ProctorU confirmed the test was transmitted and marked as completed successfully in their system: pointing to an instructor-side Elsevier access or score-routing failure affecting accommodated students ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Instructor Confirmed Name Absent From Elsevier Report List; ProctorU Confirmed Transmission; Systemic Pattern Concern (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Affairs / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing Testing and Accommodations
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that her instructor told her she did not even see the reporter's name on the list of reports in Elsevier, and that this is how the instructor and reporter determined something was wrong. The reporter states that she then contacted ProctorU, who confirmed the test was sent, her video was transmitted, and the test shows as completed successfully in ProctorU's system. The reporter speculates the issue is with instructor-level access to Elsevier, but notes uncertainty about how to fix it. Her Fundamentals instructor said she was going to seek additional help, but the reporter does not know what happened with that. This two-sided picture, ProctorU confirming successful delivery while the instructor does not see the student's name in Elsevier, is the same mechanism described in {{HU|HU-168a}} (instructor for the reporting student reporting no score in Elsevier despite a completed HESI report). If the pattern holds across multiple students, it indicates a systemic Elsevier configuration, access, or score-routing failure specific to accommodated exams rather than individual student or proctor error.

'''Evidence.''' Private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation. The reporter also noted that her instructor had sent her the special link for accommodations, which added to her confusion about the cause. Source group: same private text message conversation described above.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CK reported that her instructor told her she did not see the reporter's name on the list of reports in Elsevier, which is how she determined something was wrong, and that when she reached out to ProctorU, ProctorU confirmed her test and video had been sent and showed as completed successfully in its system.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including functional technology and vendor oversight); HLC Criterion 2.A (reliable and consistent processes for all students); 42 U.S.C. 12189; 28 C.F.R. 36.309 (accommodations for examinations must be functional and consistently available). A systemic Elsevier report-list failure that causes accommodated students' names not to appear for their instructors, while non-accommodated students' names do appear, is an equity and accommodation-delivery concern. Combined with the identical pattern in {{HU|HU-168}}, this represents a recurring institutional deficiency. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate across multiple students, the failure is not an isolated error but a systemic accommodation-delivery deficiency. Students who do not proactively challenge zeros or contact ProctorU themselves may permanently lose grades for completed exams.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-169}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. The reporter notes the instructor sent a special link for accommodations, suggesting the accommodated exam routing itself may be the point of failure in Elsevier. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-171: The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 score (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99), absent from the instructor-facing Elsevier (Evolve) view as documented in HU-168a, became visible to Dr. Tanetshia Brown only at approximately 4:14 PM on June 15, 2026, over 51 hours after exam completion on June 13, and only after the reporting student sent her a screenshot of his HESI results as proof; Canvas was then updated from 0/100; resolution required direct student intervention rather than automatic system processes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Elsevier (Evolve) Score-Transmission Delay Over 51 Hours; Resolution Requiring Manual Student Intervention
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' At 1:13 PM on June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown emailed the reporting student (marked High Importance) stating she did not have a score for him in Elsevier (Evolve) and that Canvas showed no submission. A 0/100 had been entered. The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 was completed on June 13, 2026 (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99), over 51 hours earlier. The reporting student sent Dr. Brown a screenshot of his HESI results report. At 4:14 PM on June 15, Brown replied confirming she was now able to see the grade in Evolve and that Canvas had been updated. This sequence confirms three findings. First, the Elsevier score-transmission delay extended from the June 13 exam date to at least 1:13 PM on June 15, a gap of over 51 hours during which the score was not visible to the instructor. Second, the score became visible only after the reporting student provided proof by sending the screenshot, resolution was student-initiated rather than automatic. Third, the 0/100 entered in Canvas remained for the duration of this period and was corrected only after the reporting student's direct intervention. The immediate grade harm is now resolved; the systemic process failure is documented.

'''Evidence.''' Prior email from Dr. Brown at 1:13 PM same day stating she did not have a score entered in Elsevier for that exam. HESI Assessment Results report (Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026). Source group: email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:14 PM); provided by the reporting student; update to {{HU|HU-168}} cluster.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Thank you for the screenshot of your exam results. I also am now able to see your grade in Evolve. Your grade in Canvas has been updated.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate and timely academic records and functional technology systems); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair and reliable academic processes); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate and reliable assessment of student achievement). A score-transmission system that requires a student to manually provide proof of exam completion to an instructor, over 51 hours after the exam, in order to have a 0 reversed, does not meet administrative-capability or fair-process standards. The pattern is corroborated by a second student ({{HU|HU-169}}). See also {{HU|HU-168a}} (score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-168b}} (Canvas 0/100 and No Submission), {{HU|HU-168c}} (69-percentage-point course grade drop).

'''Impact.''' The immediate harm (0/100 on a 100-point exam; NSG523 grade at 25.91%) was resolved after student intervention. Without the screenshot the reporting student provided, the 0 would likely have remained. Students who do not proactively challenge the zero, or who lack the ability to produce and send a HESI report, face permanent grade loss for completed exams.

'''Notes.''' The grade in Canvas is confirmed updated per Dr. Brown's 4:14 PM email. The term Evolve in Dr. Brown's email refers to the Elsevier Evolve platform (the same system referenced as Elsevier in {{HU|HU-168}}). Dr. Brown's phrasing explicitly links her newfound ability to see the score to receiving the screenshot, confirming the resolution was prompted by student-initiated documentation rather than automatic system correction. Documented 2026-06-15. Update to {{HU|HU-168}} cluster. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-168}} (NSG523 HESI Exam 1 grading and submission disconnect; lead cluster), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-168b}} (Canvas 0/100 and No Submission), {{HU|HU-168c}} (69-percentage-point course grade drop), {{HU|HU-169}} (reporter Student CK; same Elsevier score-transmission failure pattern).

=== HU-172: Lead: Dr. Tanetshia Brown's 4:26 PM email confirms she cannot determine why the Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure occurred and defers all investigation to IT; IT then closed INC0562442 by observing only that the professor had updated Canvas after seeing the grade; the stated resolution does not address the root cause of the accommodation exam score-transmission failure documented in HU-168 and HU-169; the systemic failure affecting accommodated students remains uninvestigated; see HU-172a and HU-172b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (institutional inability to explain Elsevier transmission failure; IT incident closed without root-cause investigation)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Andrew Cox (IT Service Desk) / Herzing IT / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry documenting the institutional response to the Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure documented in {{HU|HU-168}} and {{HU|HU-171}}. At 4:26 PM on June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown emailed the reporting student acknowledging the situation was frustrating, stating she was unable to determine why the system behavior occurred, and referring all further investigation to IT since a ticket had already been submitted. The Herzing IT Service Desk subsequently closed incident INC0562442 with a resolution note stating only that the professor had responded and noted seeing the grade and updating it in Canvas. The resolution is based entirely on the observation that the immediate symptom (the 0 grade) was corrected by the professor; it is not a technical investigation of why the accommodation exam score failed to appear in the instructor-facing Evolve view for over 51 hours. The underlying transmission failure affecting accommodated students therefore remains uninvestigated at both the faculty and IT levels. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-172a}} (Dr. Brown's admission that the system behavior cannot be explained, and deferral of investigation to IT) and {{HU|HU-172b}} (IT closure of INC0562442 without root-cause investigation).

'''Evidence.''' Email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM); Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' Dr. Brown's email at 4:26 PM follows her 4:14 PM email in which she confirmed the Canvas grade was updated. The 4:26 PM email is apparently a response to a follow-up inquiry from the reporting student about why the system failure occurred. The IT ticket short description is listed as Re: Test, suggesting the ticket was generated from or named after the email thread rather than as a formally titled incident report. Added 2026-06-15. Parts: {{HU|HU-172a}}, {{HU|HU-172b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-168}} (NSG523 HESI Exam 1 grading disconnect lead), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-169}} (reporter Student CK, same accommodation exam score-transmission pattern), {{HU|HU-171}} (51-hour delay resolved only by student-provided screenshot).

=== HU-172a: Dr. Tanetshia Brown's 4:26 PM email explicitly states she is unable to determine why the Elsevier (Evolve) system behavior occurred and refers all technical investigation to IT: an institutional admission that the accommodation exam score-transmission failure cannot be explained at the faculty or program level ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Admission of Inability to Explain Elsevier Score-Transmission Failure; Investigation Deferred to IT
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' At 4:26 PM on June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown emailed the reporting student stating she was unable to determine why the system behavior occurred. She noted that once the reporting student provided the screenshot, she was able to verify his results in Evolve and update Canvas. She directed all further investigation to IT, describing IT as the appropriate team to investigate the cause and provide clarification. This constitutes an institutional admission, at the faculty and course level, that the accommodation exam score-transmission failure documented in {{HU|HU-168a}} and {{HU|HU-171}} cannot be explained by the instructor and that no faculty-level or program-level investigation is being undertaken. The failure therefore propagates to the IT level without any concurrent academic investigation into whether accommodation exam workflows in Elsevier are correctly configured.

'''Evidence.''' Email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM). Source group: email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM); Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I am unable to determine why the system behavior occurred. Since a ticket has already been submitted to IT, they are the appropriate team to investigate the cause of the issue and provide further clarification.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including institutional ability to identify and resolve systemic technology failures); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including reliable processes for all students); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate and reliable assessment processes). An instructor's inability to explain why an accommodation exam score was absent from the instructor-facing system for over 51 hours, and the absence of any faculty or program level investigation, leaves the root cause unidentified and the systemic risk to other accommodated students unaddressed. Lead: {{HU|HU-172}}.

'''Impact.''' Without a faculty or program level inquiry into why accommodation exams may not appear in Evolve, the same failure is likely to recur for the reporting student and for other accommodated students in future terms, consistent with the pattern documented by reporter Student CK in {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-172}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party email. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-172b: The Herzing IT Service Desk closed INC0562442 without root-cause investigation: the resolution note by Andrew Cox states only that the professor saw the grade and updated Canvas, which documents the symptom resolution but not the technical cause of why the accommodation exam score failed to appear in the instructor-facing Elsevier (Evolve) view for over 51 hours ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| IT Incident Closed Without Root-Cause Investigation; Resolution Note Documents Symptom Resolution Only
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Andrew Cox (IT Service Desk, Herzing) / Herzing IT
|}
'''Finding.''' Herzing IT Service Desk incident INC0562442 (Urgency 2, Partly Blocked; Short description: Re: Test) was closed by Andrew Cox with a resolution note stating that the professor had responded and noted seeing the grade and updating Canvas. This resolution note documents that the professor updated the Canvas grade, which is the symptom fix, but contains no technical investigation into why the Elsevier (Evolve) accommodation exam score was not visible to the instructor for over 51 hours after exam completion. No root cause is identified, no system-level finding is documented, no fix or configuration change is described, and no mention is made of whether other accommodated students may be affected. The incident was resolved on the basis that the immediate grade harm was corrected, not on the basis that the underlying failure was understood or remediated.

'''Evidence.''' IT Service Desk incident closure notification: INC0562442, Urgency 2, Partly Blocked, Resolved by Andrew Cox. Dr. Tanetshia Brown email (4:26 PM) referring investigation to IT as the appropriate team to investigate the cause. Source group: email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM); Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I see your professor responded and noted seeing the grade and updating in Canvas. [IT resolution note, Andrew Cox, INC0562442]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including functional and reliable technology infrastructure and meaningful incident response); HLC Criterion 2.A (reliable processes for all students). Closing a technology incident because the immediate harm was resolved, without identifying the root cause of a 51-hour score-transmission delay affecting an accommodated student, does not constitute an adequate incident response and leaves the underlying failure available to recur. The pattern of the same failure across at least two students ({{HU|HU-168}}, {{HU|HU-169}}) further indicates a systemic issue that a symptom-only resolution does not address. Lead: {{HU|HU-172}}.

'''Impact.''' With no root-cause investigation, the Elsevier accommodation exam score-transmission failure is likely to recur for the reporting student and for other accommodated students. Future affected students will face the same 51-hour delay, a 0 grade, and the requirement to provide their own proof of completion before the instructor manually corrects the grade.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-172}} (lead). The ticket short description Re: Test suggests it was created from an email thread titled Test or Re: Test, possibly the same email subject line visible in earlier materials. CONFIRMED from IT incident closure screenshot. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-173: The Herzing IT Service Desk issued updated resolution notes for INC0562442 stating it could not determine whether a system issue occurred because troubleshooting began after the problem had already resolved; IT characterized the reporting student's documented 51-hour Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure as a possible grade matter to be handled with the instructor rather than a confirmed technology failure, and the non-finding leaves the accommodation exam transmission failure officially uninvestigated and unacknowledged at the technical level ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| IT Non-Finding on 51-Hour Elsevier Score-Transmission Failure; Troubleshooting Too Late to Observe Failure; System Failure Reframed as Grade Matter
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Andrew Cox (IT Service Desk, Herzing) / Herzing IT
|}
'''Finding.''' The updated resolution notes for INC0562442 (Andrew Cox, Urgency 2, Partly Blocked, Short description: Re: Test) provide a more detailed but still non-investigative closure. The IT Service Desk stated that the reported issue was no longer occurring by the time troubleshooting began, so it could not determine whether an issue had existed. This is an explicit institutional admission of two things. First, IT's response was too slow to observe the Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure while it was active. Second, the result is a formal non-finding: IT will not confirm a system failure occurred. The resolution notes further state that working with the instructor on the grade was an appropriate step, characterizing the 51-hour accommodation exam score-transmission failure as a grade-related matter for faculty resolution rather than a technology failure requiring technical investigation. This framing stands in direct contradiction to the documented evidence in {{HU|HU-168}} through {{HU|HU-172}}: an exam completed June 13 (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) whose score was absent from the instructor-facing Evolve view for over 51 hours, requiring student-initiated proof of completion before the grade was corrected. This appears to be a second or revised closure of the same INC0562442, following an earlier closure noted in {{HU|HU-172b}} that stated only that the professor had seen the grade and updated Canvas.

'''Evidence.''' Updated IT Service Desk incident closure notification, INC0562442, Andrew Cox, Jun 15, 2026. Source group: updated Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student. Update to {{HU|HU-172b}}; appears to be a second or revised closure following the reporting student's challenge of the first closure.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>the reported issue was no longer occurring by the time we were able to begin troubleshooting, so we cannot determine if there was an issue or not. Working with your instructor regarding your grade related matters in this case was an appropriate step.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including adequate and timely technology incident response and reliable academic records systems); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including reliable processes for all students, including accommodated students); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate and reliable assessment processes). A non-finding based on delayed troubleshooting does not constitute an adequate investigation. The documented evidence (51-hour delay, student-produced HESI report, instructor admission of inability to see the score, corroboration from a second student in {{HU|HU-169}}) establishes that a system failure occurred regardless of IT's ability to observe it in real time. Characterizing a technology failure as a grade matter deflects technical accountability and provides no protection against recurrence.

'''Impact.''' IT's non-finding means no corrective action will be taken to prevent the same accommodation exam score-transmission failure from recurring. Any future accommodated student who takes an exam through the same Elsevier delivery path faces the same risk of a 51-plus-hour score absence and a 0 grade, with the documented institutional response being to work with the instructor.

'''Notes.''' This appears to be a second or revised closure of INC0562442, with more detailed resolution notes than the first closure documented in {{HU|HU-172b}}. Both closures are by Andrew Cox. The hedge word "potentially" in the resolution notes further weakens the acknowledgment of any failure. The statement that IT could not determine whether an issue existed is directly contradicted by Dr. Brown's own admission that she could not see the score in Evolve until after receiving the screenshot ({{HU|HU-172a}}), the 51-hour timeline documented in {{HU|HU-171}}, the HESI results report (Delivery ID 905079) confirming exam completion June 13, and the corroborating pattern in {{HU|HU-169}}. Documented 2026-06-15. Update to {{HU|HU-172b}}; appears to be a second or revised closure following the reporting student's challenge of the first closure. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-172}} (IT closure without root-cause investigation; lead), {{HU|HU-172b}} (first IT closure note, professor-updated-Canvas-only), {{HU|HU-168}} (NSG523 HESI Exam 1 grading disconnect lead), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-169}} (reporter Student CK; same pattern across two courses), {{HU|HU-171}} (51-hour delay; student-intervention resolution).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance

2026-09-15T16:37:09Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Student Organizations and Governance''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern the independence and internal governance of the Herzing Online Student Nurses Association (HOSNA/SNA) and the university's dealings with it. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This topic gathers six tracker entries spanning 2026-05-04 to 2026-08-10, four rated High severity, one Medium, and one Low. Five entries are CONFIRMED (one of those, {{HU|HU-194}}, is marked as resolved within the same thread), and one, {{HU|HU-056}}, is marked POSSIBLE.

The largest cluster is the lead entry {{HU|HU-053}} and its two lettered sub-issues, {{HU|HU-053a}} and {{HU|HU-053b}}, which document Program Chair Dr. Prashad and Academic Affairs asserting control over SNA member communications and citing bylaw requirements that board members could not verify in the governing document. A second thread, {{HU|HU-055}} and {{HU|HU-056}}, concerns faculty advisor Dr. Stacie Johnson's 11-day non-response to the board's initial outreach, an unresolved honor cord for outgoing president Student B, and the resulting question of whether the board's first meeting, held without the faculty advisor present, met the bylaws' quorum requirement. The final entry, {{HU|HU-194}}, is a low-severity, self-resolving scheduling lapse involving the same program chair and faculty advisor.

The recurring owners across this topic are Dr. Prashad (Program Chair and SNA faculty advisor), Academic Affairs, and Dr. Stacie Johnson (Faculty Advisor), with the Registrar named as an owner on the honor cord delay. The evidence base is consistent throughout: the SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams chat, the SNA email chain, the HOSNA Chapter Bylaws, the NSNA Shared Governance Document, the SNA Membership Roster, and the SNA Transition Letter.

== Issues ==
=== HU-053: Lead: Herzing administration (Dr. Prashad) asserted operational control over the independent Herzing Online SNA, prohibiting a member distribution list and citing bylaw requirements that board members could not validate in the governing document; see HU-053a, HU-053b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (communications prohibition, unverifiable bylaw citations)
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Prashad (Program Chair) / Academic Affairs / University Administration
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for administrative overreach into the independent Herzing Online Student Nurses Association (HOSNA), documented in the SNA Board Leadership Teams chat (May 1 to 4, 2026) and the SNA email chain. The tracked problems are {{HU|HU-053a}} (administration prohibited the organization from maintaining a member distribution list and directed it to route communications through program chairs) and {{HU|HU-053b}} (administration directed membership processes and cited bylaw requirements that board members could not locate in the actual governing document). The board's position is that HOSNA is a completely independent organization. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat; SNA Email Chain (Apr to May 2026); HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026); SNA Membership Roster (June 2025); NSNA Shared Governance Document (2024); SNA Transition Letter (Student B).

'''Notes.''' Membership roster submitted June 2025 documents 42+ active members; the outgoing president's transition letter confirms the SNA is independent. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-053}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-053a}}, {{HU|HU-053b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-054}} (screen-reader email barrier affecting SNA communications), {{HU|HU-055}} (faculty-advisor responsiveness).

=== HU-053a: Administration prohibited the SNA from maintaining a member distribution list and directed it to route communications through program chairs, impairing the organization's core communication function ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Restriction of Independent Organization Communications
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Prashad (Program Chair) / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the faculty advisor relayed that the program chair notified the board the SNA is not allowed to maintain a student distribution list and that it should instead create a flier for the program chairs to send out. The prohibition removes the organization's direct channel to its members.

'''Evidence.''' SNA Board Leadership Teams chat (May 1 to 4, 2026), Dr. Stacie Johnson relaying the program chair's instruction. Source group: SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat; HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026); NSNA Shared Governance Document (2024).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I was notified by our program chair that we are not allowed to have a student distribution list so it's requested that we create a flier for the program chairs to send out.</blockquote> (Dr. Stacie Johnson, relaying the program chair's instruction.)

'''Standards.''' HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026), Article III, Section 1 (the organization is a separate entity from NSNA in its administration of activities); NSNA Shared Governance Bylaws, Policies and Procedures (2024) (constituent associations operate under shared governance, not university administrative authority); the university's authority is limited to appointing a faculty advisor and does not extend to controlling communications infrastructure. Lead: {{HU|HU-053}}.

'''Impact.''' Prohibiting a member distribution list and forcing communications through program chairs impairs the SNA's core function of communicating with and advocating for its members, and routes member outreach through the administration the organization is independent of.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-053}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. See {{HU|HU-054}} (screen-reader email barrier affecting SNA communications).

=== HU-053b: Administration directed membership processes and cited bylaw requirements that board members could not locate in the governing document, an apparent misrepresentation used to direct organizational behavior ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Unverifiable Bylaw Citations / Misrepresentation
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Prashad (Program Chair) / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the program chair directed specific NSNA membership processes not required by the bylaws and, on several occasions, cited or referenced bylaw requirements that the vice president could not validate when reviewing the actual document. A board director recorded that the impression of university oversight is not supported by the bylaws.

'''Evidence.''' SNA Board Leadership Teams chat (May 1 to 4, 2026): Student K (Vice President) and the reporting student (Director); SNA email chain (April to May 2026). Source group: SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat; SNA Email Chain (Apr to May 2026); HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student K, the Vice President, stated in the board chat that there had been a few instances where Dr. Prashad cited or referenced the bylaws, but that when reviewing the document, Student K was not always able to validate the specific requirement being referenced. The reporting student, a board director, added a related view based on a personal reading of the bylaws: that the organization is completely independent and controls its own finances, board, and policies.

'''Standards.''' HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026), Article III, Section 1; NSNA Shared Governance Bylaws (2024); Robert's Rules of Order (12th ed.) (organizations govern themselves through their own bylaws). Directing organizational behavior by citing requirements that do not appear in the governing document is a form of institutional misrepresentation. Lead: {{HU|HU-053}}.

'''Impact.''' Using unverifiable bylaw citations to direct membership processes and organizational decisions undermines the organization's self-governance and may mislead student leaders about their obligations.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-053}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-055: SNA board emails to faculty advisor Dr. Stacie Johnson went unanswered for 11 days (April 13-24, 2026); honor cord for outgoing president Student B unresolved days before graduation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Advisor Non-Responsiveness / Honor Cord Delay
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacie Johnson (Faculty Advisor) / Dr. Prashad / Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, SNA board emails to faculty advisor Dr. Stacie Johnson went unanswered for at least 11 days (April 13-24, 2026); Dr. Johnson's out-of-office reply was not received by the student; upon returning, Dr. Johnson imposed new communication requirements without acknowledging the disability-related email access barrier; separately, the honor cord for outgoing president Student B remained unresolved as of May 1, 2026, three days before Student B's probable graduation date.

'''Evidence.''' SNA Teams email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Johnson (late April 2026); Dr. Johnson's reply; Dr. Johnson Teams chat (May 4, 2026). Source group: SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat; SNA Email Chain (Apr to May 2026); HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026); SNA Membership Roster (June 2025); NSNA Shared Governance Document (2024); SNA Transition Letter (Student B).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I want to say respectfully, we did send an email to establish contact on 13 April 2026. This was about 11 days before our first meeting, and we did not get a response.</blockquote> (the reporting student, to Dr. Johnson, late April 2026.)

<blockquote>Your email sent on 4/13 was from an external email and was sent to my junk box therefore I never received it.</blockquote> (Dr. Stacie Johnson, reply.)

<blockquote>I have asked three different people about Student B's cords and am still waiting on an answer.</blockquote> (Dr. Stacie Johnson, Teams chat, May 4, 2026.)

'''Standards.''' HOSNA Chapter Bylaws Article V, Section 2 (Quorum): faculty advisor's 11-day non-response left the SNA without guidance at a critical organizational launch period. Honor cord recognition for student organization leadership is a legitimate student recognition matter. ADA/Section 504: the faculty advisor's requirement that the reporting student use only Herzing email (see {{HU|HU-054}}) imposes an inaccessible communication barrier on a student with a documented disability.

'''Impact.''' The 11-day gap in faculty advisor communication left the new SNA board without institutional guidance during their critical first month of operation. Decisions made during this period may be contested as potentially non-compliant with bylaw quorum requirements. Student B may not receive her honor cord in time for her graduation ceremony.

'''Notes.''' Student B's outgoing president letter formally requested ProctorU discontinuation on behalf of the student body. This advocacy work was conducted in her official SNA capacity and represents meaningful student governance activity deserving institutional recognition. See also {{HU|HU-053}} (institutional overreach into SNA operations).

=== HU-056: SNA inaugural board meeting conducted without faculty advisor; quorum deficiency may require ratification of all initial votes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Governance Validity Question, Quorum Deficiency
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | SNA Board / Faculty Advisor / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, the SNA inaugural board meeting (April 2026) was conducted without the faculty advisor present. Per Chapter Bylaws Article V Section 2, quorum for board meetings requires the president or vice president, two other board members, and one faculty advisor. Dr. Prashad raised concern about meetings held without faculty advisor. As a result, all votes taken at that meeting, including appointment of Student A, approval of Student B's honor cord, and appointment of the reporting student as delegate, may require re-validation.

'''Evidence.''' SNA Teams email chain (late April / early May 2026): the reporting student raised governance questions. HOSNA Chapter Bylaws Article V Section 2 states that a quorum for the board meetings shall be the president or vice president, two other board members, and one faculty advisor. Dr. Prashad raised concern about meetings held without the faculty advisor present. Source group: SNA Board Leadership Microsoft Teams Chat; SNA Email Chain (Apr to May 2026); HOSNA Chapter Bylaws (2026); SNA Membership Roster (June 2025); NSNA Shared Governance Document (2024); SNA Transition Letter (Student B).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Are we invalidating all actions taken at our last meeting? We would need to revote on Student A, revote on Student B and Leadership U appointment, revote on my delegate appointment. Do we need to revote everything? My understanding is that you need to be present for a quorum, but the votes would not change.</blockquote> (the reporting student.)

'''Standards.''' HOSNA Chapter Bylaws Article V, Section 2 (Quorum); Robert's Rules of Order (12th ed.) Chapter 40 (Quorum): actions taken without quorum are null and void and require ratification at a meeting where quorum is achieved.

'''Impact.''' If all initial SNA board votes are invalidated, Student B's honor cord recommendation, Student A's appointment, and the reporting student's delegate appointment are all in question. This delays SNA operations and potentially prevents Student B from receiving her graduation honor cord.

'''Notes.''' The quorum deficiency was caused by the faculty advisor's non-responsiveness ({{HU|HU-055}}) rather than by any failure of the student board. The logical resolution, a prompt ratification meeting, would preserve all organizational decisions while restoring procedural regularity. Ratification should be treated as ministerial rather than as an opportunity to revisit organizational decisions.

=== HU-194: A scheduled Student Nursing Association meeting with Dr. Raywattie Prashad did not occur and was not communicated in advance, and the reporting student had to follow up to arrange a replacement time, which Dr. Prashad promptly provided ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Low
! Status
| CONFIRMED and resolved within the same thread
|-
! Issue type
| Missed and Uncommunicated Meeting; Self Initiated Rescheduling
! Date added
| 2026-08-10
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair, SNA faculty advisor)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student emailed Dr. Prashad and Dr. Stacie Johnson noting that a previously scheduled Student Nursing Association meeting earlier in the month had not occurred and had not been communicated, and that he understood a fellow officer was separately working on scheduling a follow up meeting with Dr. Prashad, but that a meeting scheduled for that Thursday evening had no confirmed update. Dr. Prashad responded the same night that she would be happy to meet with the group Thursday, asking whether it needed to be after hours given a prior commitment, and asking for a confirmed time. The reporting student provided his availability, other officers weighed in on their own availability over the following hours, one officer indicated she would not be able to attend and deferred to the group's chosen time, and the thread concluded with the group coordinating a mutually workable time with Dr. Prashad. The matter was resolved within the same day through the officers' own follow up rather than through any proactive notice from the institution that the original meeting had been missed.

'''Evidence.''' Email, the reporting student to Dr. Prashad and Dr. Johnson, July 28, 2026: statement that an earlier scheduled meeting did not occur and was not communicated, and a request for status. Email, Dr. Prashad, same date: confirmation of availability to meet Thursday and a request for a confirmed time. Subsequent emails from the reporting student, Dr. Stacie Johnson, and other officers coordinating a specific time. Source group: email thread, subject SNA, between the reporting student, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Stacie Johnson, and cc Student AB and Student A, July 28, 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>We had a meeting scheduled for earlier this month that not only did not happen but was not communicated.</blockquote> (the reporting student.)

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including reliable communication with recognized student organizations) is nominally relevant, but this entry documents a minor, single instance scheduling lapse that was resolved the same day once raised, rather than a pattern rising to the level of a compliance concern on its own.

'''Impact.''' Minimal. The missed meeting caused a short delay in Student Nursing Association planning and required officer initiative to reschedule, but Dr. Prashad responded promptly and constructively once contacted, and a new time was set within the same thread.

'''Notes.''' Logged primarily for completeness of the governance and communication record rather than as a significant standalone concern. No further action recommended absent recurrence. This entry also concerns SNA faculty advisor Stacie Johnson, DNP, RN, CNE, as well as fellow Student Nursing Association officers Student AB and Student A, who were copied throughout. Cross-reference: this entry fits a general pattern in this tracker of meetings and commitments not being proactively communicated or confirmed by Herzing staff, though this specific instance is minor and self resolving compared to other entries reflecting that pattern.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation

2026-09-15T16:37:08Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern student conduct complaints and reported retaliation against a student who raised academic-integrity concerns. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers five tracker entries: a lead entry, {{HU|HU-066}}, and four sub-issues, {{HU|HU-066a}} through {{HU|HU-066d}}, all added on 2026-05-05 and split into their current form on 2026-06-06. The severity mix is heavily weighted toward High (four of the five entries), with {{HU|HU-066c}} marked Medium. All five entries share the same status posture: the tracker treats it as confirmed that the underlying EthicsPoint reports were made and documented, while the characterizations within those reports (harassment, exclusion, false accusation, stalking) remain the reporting student's own account rather than adjudicated findings.

The cluster follows a single narrative. After the reporting student raised academic-integrity concerns, he submitted EthicsPoint reports on September 18, 2025, a follow-up on September 22, 2025, and further materials on December 3, 2025, describing four distinct experiences involving Student T and Student G: reported harassment ({{HU|HU-066a}}), reported removal from the Discord and GroupMe cohort communication groups ({{HU|HU-066b}}), a reported false accusation about a cohort group photo ({{HU|HU-066c}}), and conduct he characterized as stalking, including an inquiry into his enrollment status ({{HU|HU-066d}}). The recurring owners across the cluster are Student Affairs, the Title IX Coordinator, and the Dean of Students, with Campus Security also named on the stalking sub-issue.

The tracker notes that the EthicsPoint investigation into these reports was closed on September 25, 2025, and that the reporter's request for protections for reporting students was not addressed in the closure response. The cluster cross-references the reporter's documented anxiety and panic disorder ({{HU|HU-004}}), the absence of disciplinary action against the reported student ({{HU|HU-026}}), and questions about the adequacy of the investigation itself ({{HU|HU-067}}).

== Issues ==
=== HU-066: Lead: following the student's EthicsPoint report, he reported four distinct experiences ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED that the reports were made and documented; the underlying characterizations are the reporter's and were submitted to EthicsPoint
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (four reported experiences following a protected report)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Affairs / Title IX Coordinator / Dean of Students
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for four distinct experiences the student reported in EthicsPoint reports dated September 18, 2025 and December 3, 2025 after raising academic-integrity concerns: {{HU|HU-066a}} (reported harassment by Student T), {{HU|HU-066b}} (reported removal from the Discord and GroupMe cohort groups by Student G), {{HU|HU-066c}} (a reported false accusation about a cohort group photo), and {{HU|HU-066d}} (conduct the reporter characterized as stalking, including an inquiry into his enrollment status). These are presented as the reporter's documented account; the legal characterizations are attributed to the reporter and the cited standards, not asserted as adjudicated findings. See each sub-issue.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-066}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-066}} resolve to this lead. The EthicsPoint investigation was closed September 25, 2025; the reporter's request for protections for reporting students is not addressed in the closure response. Parts: {{HU|HU-066a}}, {{HU|HU-066b}}, {{HU|HU-066c}}, {{HU|HU-066d}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-004}} (documented anxiety and panic disorder), {{HU|HU-026}} (no disciplinary action against reported student), {{HU|HU-067}} (investigation adequacy).

=== HU-066a: The student reported harassment by Student T after raising integrity concerns ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED that the report was made (EthicsPoint, September 18, 2025); the characterization is the reporter's
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Harassment Following a Protected Report
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Title IX Coordinator / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The student reported in his September 18, 2025 EthicsPoint submission that, after raising integrity concerns, he was subjected to harassment by Student T, including derogatory remarks about his education.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (September 18, 2025): the reporter states that after he raised concerns regarding integrity violations he was subjected to harassment by Student T, including derogatory remarks about his education.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>After I raised concerns regarding integrity violations, I was subjected to harassment by Student T, including derogatory remarks about my education.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Title IX policy and Annual Security Report prohibit retaliation against individuals who pursue or cooperate in a complaint; 34 C.F.R. 106.71 (Title IX anti-retaliation); Herzing Student Code of Conduct (harassment, unprofessional conduct). Lead: {{HU|HU-066}}. These standards are cited by the reporter; the facts as alleged are the reporter's account.

'''Impact.''' If a student who reports integrity concerns experiences harassment without institutional protection, the reporting system is chilled.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-066}} (lead). Allegation by the reporting party, documented in EthicsPoint; not an adjudicated finding. Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-066b: The student reported being removed from the Discord and GroupMe cohort groups by Student G ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED that the report was made (EthicsPoint, September 18, 2025); the characterization is the reporter's
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Exclusion From Cohort Communication Channels
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Affairs / Dean of Students
|}
'''Finding.''' The student reported that Student G removed him from the Discord and GroupMe groups titled Herzing University April 2027 Cohort, citing accusations the reporter characterizes as retaliatory in nature.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (September 18, 2025): the reporter states Student G removed him from the Discord and GroupMe groups titled Herzing University April 2027 Cohort, citing accusations that were retaliatory in nature.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Student G subsequently removed me from the Discord and GroupMe groups that are titled Herzing University April 2027 Cohort, citing accusations that were retaliatory in nature.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Title IX and Code of Conduct anti-retaliation provisions; 34 C.F.R. 106.71. Cohort communication groups are the primary informal academic channel, so exclusion isolates a student from peer support and time-sensitive information. Lead: {{HU|HU-066}}. Cited by the reporter; alleged facts are the reporter's account.

'''Impact.''' Removal from cohort groups isolates the student from peer support, study collaboration, and program information.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-066}} (lead). Allegation by the reporting party, documented in EthicsPoint. Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-066c: The student reported a false accusation about a cohort group photo he had permission to post ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED that the report was made; the characterization is the reporter's
|-
! Issue type
| Reported False Accusation (Cohort Group Photo)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Affairs / Dean of Students
|}
'''Finding.''' The student reported that he faced false accusations regarding a cohort group photo posted on Facebook, for which he states he had permission.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint submission materials: the reporter states he was the subject of false accusations about a cohort group photo posted on Facebook that he had permission to post.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>false accusations against him regarding a cohort group photo posted on Facebook (for which he had permission).</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Student Code of Conduct (false accusations, harassment). Lead: {{HU|HU-066}}. Cited by the reporter; the alleged facts are the reporter's account and the permission claim is not independently adjudicated here.

'''Impact.''' False accusations directed at a reporting student can compound social exclusion and reputational harm within the cohort.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-066}} (lead). Allegation by the reporting party. Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-066d: The student reported conduct he characterized as stalking, including an inquiry into his enrollment status ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED that the report was made (EthicsPoint follow-up, September 22, 2025); the characterization is the reporter's
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Stalking and Improper Inquiry Into Enrollment Status
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Title IX Coordinator / Dean of Students / Campus Security
|}
'''Finding.''' In a September 22, 2025 EthicsPoint follow-up, the student reported conduct he characterized as stalking by Student G, including messaging other individuals about him under the guise of mental-health concern, attempting to track his movements, monitoring his GroupMe, and asking about his enrollment status.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Follow-Up (September 22, 2025, 5:27 PM): the reporter states the situation had become harassment beyond rule-breaking, that he had become aware she was stalking him, messaging others about him under the guise of being concerned about his mental health, trying to track his movements, keeping tabs on his GroupMe, and asking about things like his enrollment status.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I have become aware that she is stalking me, messaging other individuals about me under the guise of being concerned about my mental health, trying to track my movements, as well as keep tabs on my own GroupMe.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g): inquiring about another student's enrollment status without a legitimate educational purpose implicates FERPA protections; Herzing Title IX and Code of Conduct anti-retaliation and anti-harassment provisions; 34 C.F.R. 106.71. Lead: {{HU|HU-066}}. The legal characterizations (stalking, retaliation) are the reporter's and are cited against these standards, not asserted as adjudicated findings.

'''Impact.''' The reporter has documented anxiety and panic disorder ({{HU|HU-004}}), which makes the reported conduct particularly harmful; an unaddressed report of this nature deepens the chilling effect on reporting.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-066}} (lead). Allegation by the reporting party, documented in EthicsPoint; not an adjudicated finding. Split 2026-06-06.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Records, Privacy, and Data Security

2026-09-15T16:37:08Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Records, Privacy, and Data Security''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern records, privacy, and data security. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This topic currently holds a single tracker entry, {{HU|HU-152}}, logged on June 4, 2026 and rated Low severity with a status of CONFIRMED. The entry concerns the AVP's decision to deny a student's Otter.ai transcription assistant from an accommodations meeting, and the absence of any alternative institutional record offered to the student in its place. The owner listed is Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP). The entry is part of a broader June 4, 2026 meeting group that spans {{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}, with this record logged as the transparency and recordkeeping concern arising from that same meeting.

== Issues ==
=== HU-152: Student's request to transcribe the June 4, 2026 accommodations meeting (Otter.ai) was denied ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Low
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| AI Meeting Transcription Denied / No Institutional Record Offered to Student
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP)
|}
'''Finding.''' At the start of the June 4, 2026 meeting, Dr. Danielle Laban stated that the student's Otter.ai transcription assistant was on the Forbidden list for meetings and that she had denied the student's Otter from joining, explaining that the institution stopped allowing employees to use it because it joins meetings on its own. As a result, the student's automated transcription of an accommodations meeting was not permitted. While an institution may reasonably restrict third-party bots from joining its meetings, the concern documented here is that the student was left without an agreed-upon record of a meeting concerning his disability accommodations, and no alternative institutional transcript or recording was offered to him during the meeting. This is a minor transparency and recordkeeping concern.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Danielle Laban: I know we have a set amount of time... did you want us to transcribe the meeting, because otters are on the Forbidden list... for meetings, so I denied your otter; that is exactly why we stopped allowing employees to use it, because it just joins whenever it wants. The reporting student: apparently it showed up in a Zoom meeting today and I do not even know [how]. Source group: recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026, with the reporting student, Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3), and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4), provided by the reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>otters are on the Forbidden list... for meetings, so I denied your otter.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' General recordkeeping and transparency expectations for disability-related meetings: while restricting third-party transcription bots is within an institution's discretion, where a student seeks a record of an accommodations discussion it is good practice to offer an agreed alternative (institutional minutes or a recording). No statutory violation is asserted; this is logged as a low-severity transparency item. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-145}}, {{HU|HU-146}}, {{HU|HU-147}} (the substantive accommodation concerns from the same meeting).

'''Impact.''' The reporting student did not obtain his intended automated transcript of a meeting addressing his accommodations, and no alternative institutional record was offered during the meeting, leaving the student reliant on his own notes for an important accommodations discussion. (The student separately retained a recording and transcript, which is the source for this entry.)

'''Notes.''' Logged as Low severity. The restriction on Otter.ai bots may be a reasonable institutional policy; the trackable element is the absence of an offered alternative record for an accommodations meeting. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-145}}, {{HU|HU-146}}, {{HU|HU-147}}. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing

2026-09-15T16:37:06Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern the ProctorU and ProProctor remote proctoring services, the HESI and Elsevier examination platform, and related test administration failures. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article gathers 27 tracker entries dated from April 30, 2026 through August 11, 2026, all marked CONFIRMED (several with qualified status language preserved verbatim in each entry's table). The severity mix is weighted toward the high end: three entries are rated Critical ({{HU|HU-002}}, {{HU|HU-030}}, {{HU|HU-195}}), nineteen are rated High, and five are rated Medium ({{HU|HU-139}}, {{HU|HU-156}}, {{HU|HU-163c}}, {{HU|HU-176}}, {{HU|HU-188}}).

Three recurring owners appear across the set: the vendor side, ProctorU Inc. doing business as Meazure Learning together with Elsevier and its HESI examination platform; the institutional side, principally the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing (Dr. Stephanie Black), the IT Department, and academic operations staff including Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs) and Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations); and individual course faculty and program leadership who are drawn into troubleshooting and appeals. Several entries document the same failure pattern recurring across different students and cohorts: proctoring software falsely flagging permitted programs or hardware and producing exam zeros ({{HU|HU-002}}, {{HU|HU-030}}), proctors making demands beyond stated policy during HESI exams ({{HU|HU-036}}), exams administered without required camera and microphone monitoring ({{HU|HU-047}}), and IT tickets closed as resolved while a dependent grade appeal remains open ({{HU|HU-052}}).

A second thread traces a single student's exam-day cascade across the summer of 2026. A cluster beginning with {{HU|HU-034}} documents a HESI exam-access failure, a records-integrity error recording an untaken exam as fulfilled, and a threat to drop the student's next-semester enrollment, split into sub-issues {{HU|HU-034a}}, {{HU|HU-034b}}, and {{HU|HU-034c}}. A second cluster beginning with {{HU|HU-163}} documents a weather-related exam interruption misrecorded as a no-show, a support runaround, and vendor-institution ping-pong over responsibility, split into {{HU|HU-163b}}, {{HU|HU-163c}}, and {{HU|HU-163d}}. A third thread, running from {{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-195}}, follows the reporting student's exam retake denial and reversal, a proctor's unauthorized remote takeover of his computer that disabled accommodated magnification and read-aloud features, a chronic pattern of delayed exam starts, and a cumulative compression of an entire semester's examinations into roughly three weeks.

Grade-appeal and accommodation-delivery questions recur throughout: retake denials issued without a stated reason ({{HU|HU-155}}), proctoring accommodation supports (an assigned proctor, a pre-test check) declined as unavailable ({{HU|HU-156}}), and a vendor-side software fix that Herzing represented as resolving an accessibility failure but that recurred days later ({{HU|HU-175}}, {{HU|HU-195}}).

== Issues ==

=== HU-002: ProctorU flagged Google Remote Desktop on student computer during NSG521 final exam, blocking completion ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Technical Issue
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / IT
|}
'''Finding.''' ProctorU flagged Google Remote Desktop on student computer during NSG521 final exam, blocking completion.

'''Evidence.''' INC0552394 (2026-04-28); Grade Appeal Decision email from academicappeals@herzing.edu dated 2026-04-24.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Based on IT ticket, there was a software that was located. [Decision:] Please remove software since this is a one-time approval with the knowledge that the software was removed.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.22-23: policy denies retakes for "personal device incompatibility." However, Google Remote Desktop may have been left running from a prior IT support session. Policy does not distinguish institutional vs. student-caused software conflicts.

'''Impact.''' Student unable to complete NSG521 Final Exam on scheduled date. Required grade appeal process; significant added stress for student with documented anxiety and disability.

'''Notes.''' User confirmed flagged software was Google Remote Desktop. Student had active IT support throughout semester. See {{HU|HU-017}} for one-time exception language. See {{HU|HU-018}} for sound machine blocking pattern.

=== HU-017: Grade appeal approval characterized as "one-time exception"; future similar requests pre-emptively discouraged ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Policy Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Grade appeal approval characterized as "one-time exception"; future similar requests pre-emptively discouraged.

'''Evidence.''' Grade Appeal Decision email (2026-04-24) from academicappeals@herzing.edu.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Please note that this approval is a one-time exception. Future requests of a similar nature will likely not be considered. Any further software issue or incompatibility on student's side may not be approved.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504; Handbook p.20-21 appeals procedures. Blanket pre-emptive denial language for future appeals may chill legitimate requests, particularly for a student with documented disabilities.

'''Impact.''' Student with disabilities may be deterred from reporting legitimate technical failures or seeking accommodations in future exams, knowing future appeals pre-characterized as unlikely to succeed.

'''Notes.''' Student has documented disabilities including test anxiety, GAD, panic disorder, and multiple other conditions (see {{HU|HU-021}}). The combination of this language with those disabilities creates a documented chilling-effect concern.

=== HU-020: University-promised ProctorU coordination meeting (March 20) never held; student rescheduled exam to wait for it ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Associate VP Student Affairs (Dr. Laban)
|}
'''Finding.''' University-promised ProctorU coordination meeting (March 20) never held; student rescheduled exam to wait for it.

'''Evidence.''' Student email to Dr. Danielle Laban (2026-04-13): "You had mentioned setting this meeting up on March 20th and we are coming up on nearly a month. Do you have any updates on this? I have rescheduled my exam which was supposed to be for tomorrow in favor of your response."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I am really struggling with the lack of consistency with both Proctor U and Herzing... due to Proctor U ID, sound machine, etc issues, I have had to reschedule my exams on 5 different occasions thereby wasting my entire day that I planned for the exam.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.18 (Chain of Communication): students directed to follow escalation chain. When university leadership makes commitments, failure to follow through undermines the process and may constitute a failure of duty of care.

'''Impact.''' Student delayed exam sitting unnecessarily; additional scheduling conflict with clinical week. Prolonged uncertainty contributing to documented student stress.

'''Notes.''' Student had already rescheduled exams 5 times due to ProctorU issues. This represents a pattern of disruption, not an isolated incident.

=== HU-030: ProctorU falsely flagged Zoom as running during HESI final exams on Mac computers; multiple students received exam zeros; ProctorU acknowledged known false positive ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| ADA Violation Risk / Technical Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / ProctorU Vendor
|}
'''Finding.''' ProctorU falsely flagged Zoom as running during HESI final exams on Mac computers; multiple students received exam zeros; ProctorU acknowledged it is a known false positive issue.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (April 21-24, 2026): Student AW, Student AX, and at least one additional student received zeros on final HESI exams. ProctorU acknowledged the false positive to Student AW (confirmed April 24, 2026). Student AW's appeal was ultimately approved.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student AW reported that when the student spoke with ProctorU, ProctorU stated that Zoom sometimes shows as running in the background even when it is not, and recommended uninstalling it before testing. The student stated that even though ProctorU admitted this, the student was still told to go through a formal investigation.

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504; 28 CFR Section 35.130(b)(1); Handbook p.22-23 Exam Retake Policy; ACEN Standard 4; Elsevier HESI licensing terms.

'''Impact.''' Multiple students received zeros on HESI final examinations, potentially failing courses, solely due to a known proctoring software false positive. Pattern suggests systemic institutional failure to vet ProctorU's Mac compatibility before deployment.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student created a ProctorU petition site and a Change.org petition. Student AW independently created a Google Form to collect reports from affected students.

=== HU-034: Lead: Student C's HESI final exam-day failure produced three independent problems (technical lockout, a false fulfilled record, and a threat to drop next-semester enrollment); see HU-034a, HU-034b, HU-034c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (three independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split into sub-issues 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for three independent problems arising from Student C's HESI med-surg final exam day (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort GroupMe, March 26 and April 19-20, 2026). The problems are tracked separately: {{HU|HU-034a}} (a ProctorU/HESI technical failure blocked exam access for the full day), {{HU|HU-034b}} (the exam was recorded as fulfilled although it was never taken, a records-integrity problem), and {{HU|HU-034c}} (the student was threatened with having all next-semester classes dropped over the institution's own technical failure). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-034}} on 2026-06-06 into a lead plus three atomic sub-issues; existing references to {{HU|HU-034}} resolve to this lead. This was the second exam-access failure for this student in one semester; Dr. Bowen asked the student to stop emailing about the first incident.

Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.

Parts: {{HU|HU-034a}}, {{HU|HU-034b}}, {{HU|HU-034c}}.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-002}}, {{HU|HU-018}}, {{HU|HU-030}}, {{HU|HU-047}}, {{HU|HU-052}} (ProctorU/HESI failures); {{HU|HU-159}} (records integrity).

=== HU-034a: ProctorU/HESI technical failure blocked Student C from accessing the med-surg HESI final for the entire exam day ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Technical Failure Blocking Exam Access
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / ProctorU (Meazure Learning) / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Student C spent an entire exam day unable to access the med-surg HESI final exam due to a ProctorU/HESI technical failure; even the proctors could not launch the exam. He began trying at 9:50 AM and lost the exam day (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort GroupMe, March 26 and April 19-20, 2026).

'''Evidence.''' GroupMe: Student C attempted to access the med-surg HESI final from 9:50 AM; even proctors could not launch it. Part of a documented pattern of ProctorU failures across multiple students and exam dates.

'''Reported statement.''' Student C reported that he had been trying since 9:50 that morning and it still would not let him into the exam.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (fair, consistent assessment) and Standard 5 (reliable assessment technology); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability; functional assessment infrastructure). Lead: {{HU|HU-034}}. Related ProctorU/HESI failures: {{HU|HU-002}}, {{HU|HU-018}}, {{HU|HU-030}}, {{HU|HU-047}}, {{HU|HU-052}}.

'''Impact.''' Loss of an entire scheduled exam day and exposure to repeated proctoring technical failures in the same semester.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-034}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-034b: The med-surg HESI final was recorded as fulfilled although Student C never took it (records integrity) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Records Integrity: Exam Recorded as Fulfilled Without Being Taken
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / ProctorU (Meazure Learning) / Office of the Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' After the failed access, the system recorded the med-surg HESI final as fulfilled at 3:18 PM although Student C never took it, creating an inaccurate academic record (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort GroupMe, 2026).

'''Evidence.''' Student C reported the exam showed as fulfilled at 3:18 PM that afternoon though he never sat for it.

'''Reported statement.''' Student C reported that the exam was showing as fulfilled at 3:18 that afternoon even though he stated he never took it.

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity; accurate records); FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99), right to accurate education records. Lead: {{HU|HU-034}}. Compare {{HU|HU-159}} (transcript/records integrity).

'''Impact.''' An exam recorded as completed without being taken misstates the academic record and can affect grading, progression, and any later dispute.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-034}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-034c: Student C was threatened with an incomplete and dropped next-semester enrollment over the institution's own technical failure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Arbitrary Academic Action: Threat to Drop Next-Semester Enrollment Over Institution's Technical Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Course Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' A course professor notified Student C that if the issue was not resolved by Wednesday he would take an incomplete and all of his next-semester classes would be dropped, a consequence imposed for the institution's own IT failure (GroupMe, April 19, 2026).

'''Evidence.''' By April 19, a course professor told Student C that if the matter was unresolved by Wednesday he would take an incomplete and his next-semester classes would be dropped.

'''Reported statement.''' Student C reported that if the issue was not resolved by Wednesday they would have to take an incomplete and all of their next semester classes would be dropped.

'''Standards.''' Arbitrary and capricious academic action; due process in higher education (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961)). Lead: {{HU|HU-034}}. Compare {{HU|HU-052}} (IT tickets closed without resolution), {{HU|HU-061}} (course lockout).

'''Impact.''' Threatened loss of subsequent-semester enrollment as a consequence of an institutional technical failure the student did not cause.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-034}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-036: ProctorU proctors routinely made demands during HESI exams going beyond stated policies and substantially disrupting exam performance ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| ADA Compliance Risk / Unreasonable Testing Conditions
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / ProctorU Vendor Management
|}
'''Finding.''' ProctorU proctors routinely made demands during HESI exams going beyond stated policies and substantially disrupting exam performance, including requirements to show under bed, cover or unplug TVs, display socks and forearms, and sit upright throughout.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (March 28, April 18-19, 2026): Multiple students reported. Student AI was kicked out twice for having mail on her bed. Student E was told to cover his TV and was flagged for being too close to camera. Student AU was asked to show socks. Student S was interrupted 10 times to change her sitting position.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, one student reported being interrupted ten times to change her sitting position and being asked to cover her TV with a sheet, which she refused; another student reported that an exam that started at 2 PM did not finish until 5 PM because proctors kept pausing it and troubleshooting was required to get back in.

'''Standards.''' ADA/Section 504: examination accommodations must be available and proctor actions must not create barriers. Repeated proctor interruptions constitute a material disruption of the examination environment. ACEN Standard 4: assessment conditions must be standardized and fair.

'''Impact.''' Students experienced extended exam durations, elevated anxiety, and disrupted concentration due to unreasonable and inconsistent proctor demands. For students with documented anxiety disorders, panic disorder, or ADHD, these disruptions have a disproportionate impact.

'''Notes.''' Pattern of proctor conduct complaints spans at least two semesters (Fall 2025 and Spring 2026) and involves multiple students in multiple states. This is a vendor management issue for which the institution bears institutional responsibility.

=== HU-047: First HESI exam in Spring 2025 MSN-DE cohort administered without university properly configuring ProctorU to include camera and microphone monitoring ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Exam Administration Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Program Chair / ProctorU Vendor Management
|}
'''Finding.''' The first HESI exam in the Spring 2025 MSN-DE cohort was administered without the university having properly configured ProctorU to include camera and microphone monitoring; students completed the exam under incomplete proctoring conditions.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (February 6, 2025): Student Student AR reported that the school had not set up Proctorio to access video and mic for the exam. Student X confirmed screen recording and audio were activated but camera was not.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student AR reported that the school did not set up Proctorio to access video and microphone for the exam, and Student X confirmed that audio and screen recording had been activated but the camera feature had not been used.

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.24 (Proctoring): "The automated proctoring solution monitors test takers via a webcam, microphone, browser, and device." The institution applied strict no-retake policies to students for device issues but administered a full-cohort exam without required proctoring components. ACEN Standard 4.

'''Impact.''' Students who completed the exam under incomplete proctoring conditions did so without the full monitoring environment described in program policies. The inconsistency between strict student-side requirements and lax institution-side exam configuration demonstrates a double standard.

'''Notes.''' The failure was identified by a student, not by institutional review. The institution's response was to fix it for the next exam rather than to formally acknowledge the configuration failure.

=== HU-052: IT tickets related to ProctorU false-flag exam incidents closed as "resolved" without underlying student grievances addressed; student's IT ticket closed while grade appeal remained open ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| IT Ticket Mismanagement / Due Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' IT tickets related to ProctorU false-flag exam incidents were closed as "resolved" without the underlying student grievances being addressed; at least one student's IT ticket was closed while her grade appeal remained open.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing Proctor U Students GroupMe (May 1, 2026): Student BQ stated that she had not heard anything back about her appeal but her IT ticket had been closed as resolved, and that she might submit a withdrawal request rather than retake the pathophysiology course.

'''Reported statement.''' Student BQ reported that she had not yet heard back about her appeal even though her IT ticket had already been closed as resolved, and stated that she was considering submitting a withdrawal request rather than retake pathophysiology.

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.20: grade appeal procedures require documented evidence. Due process principles in higher education (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961)): students must have meaningful access to evidence and procedures that determine their academic standing. Closing an IT ticket as "resolved" while a dependent grade appeal is pending forecloses the process.

'''Impact.''' Students whose IT tickets are closed before their grade appeals are resolved lose the institutional documentation that supports their appeals. In the absence of this documentation, appeal committees have no technical record to review.

'''Notes.''' This issue intersects with {{HU|HU-030}} (ProctorU false-flag zeros) and {{HU|HU-034}} (HESI exam technical failures). The combination of an inaccessible appeals inbox ({{HU|HU-016}}), IT tickets closed before appeals resolve, and no proactive institutional documentation of technical failures creates a due process environment with no effective recourse pathway.

=== HU-139: Student AS: HESI exam would not load and repeatedly locked her out during intensive week; placed on hold with support for two hours with no answer or resolution; family waiting; student warned others not to test in a hotel; two-hour unresolved support hold is the core institutional failure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| HESI Exam Disruption / Repeated Lockouts / Two-Hour Support Hold with No Resolution
! Date added
| 2026-06-02
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | HESI / Elsevier (exam platform) / Herzing Testing Support / IT
|}
'''Finding.''' Student AS, a student in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN program, posted in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group describing a HESI exam disruption while testing during her intensive week. She had signed up to take her HESI and was unable to complete it: the test would not load, she was repeatedly locked out, and she was placed on hold with support for approximately two hours without resolution or explanation. She wrote that no one could tell her why the test was not loading and that she kept being given the runaround. She attributed the issue to taking the exam on hotel WiFi (she was at intensive that week), and concluded with a warning to other students not to take the HESI in a hotel. While the student herself raised the hotel WiFi as a possible cause, the documented institutional concerns are: (1) the HESI testing platform repeatedly locked her out and failed to load, and (2) Herzing/HESI support kept her on hold for approximately two hours and could not provide any answer or resolution. The two-hour unresolved support hold during a high-stakes, time-bound exam is the core institutional failure, independent of the cause of the connectivity issue.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student AS (Rising contributor), Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, June 2026 (posted approximately 20 hours before capture). Source URL: [post link redacted].

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student AS reported being on hold with support for approximately two hours while her family waited outside the room, with no one able to explain why her test would not load; she stated she was repeatedly locked out and given the runaround, and closed her post by telling other students not to take the HESI in a hotel.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology and assessment systems supporting student learning and evaluation must be reliable and adequately supported. A HESI exam platform that repeatedly locks a student out and fails to load, combined with a two-hour support hold that produces no answer or resolution, documents a failure of both the testing technology and the support infrastructure behind it. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional academic and assessment infrastructure, including responsive support for students experiencing technical failures during high-stakes exams. While the student raised hotel WiFi as a possible contributing factor, a robust testing and support system should be able to diagnose and communicate the cause of a loading failure rather than leaving a student locked out and on hold for two hours with no explanation. This connects to the documented pattern of HESI-related and platform-reliability concerns across the program ({{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-059}}, {{HU|HU-088}}, {{HU|HU-120}}, {{HU|HU-129}}).

'''Impact.''' Student AS was unable to complete her scheduled HESI exam, lost approximately two hours on hold with no resolution, and experienced significant distress (she described herself as very upset and noted her family was waiting for her). For a high-stakes, time-bound exam that students schedule around intensive weeks and family logistics, a platform failure with no support resolution can mean a missed exam attempt, rescheduling difficulties, and added stress. The student's public warning to others (don't take it in a hotel) reflects students developing their own informal risk-avoidance guidance in the absence of clear institutional support or testing-environment requirements. If the institution requires or permits HESI testing during intensives but does not ensure adequate connectivity guidance or responsive support, students are exposed to avoidable exam disruptions.

'''Notes.''' Attributed to student Student AS (Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, Rising contributor). The student identified hotel WiFi as a possible cause; this is documented as the student's own attribution, while the institutional concerns (repeated lockouts, platform not loading, two-hour unresolved support hold) are preserved as the substantive issue. This occurred during an intensive week, when students are often traveling and testing away from home. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI content concerns), {{HU|HU-041}} (recurring platform outages), {{HU|HU-059}} (Sherpath outage), {{HU|HU-120}} (Canvas breach / platform reliability), {{HU|HU-129}} (Sherpath outage during tutoring), {{HU|HU-126}} (NSG525 quiz technical/timing issues). POSSIBLE follow-up: whether Student AS was granted a retake or accommodation for the disrupted exam attempt.

Source Group: Facebook post, Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, Student AS (Rising contributor), June 2026, [post link redacted]; provided by the reporting student.

=== HU-155: Exam retake request for the NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C) reviewed by Dr. Stephanie Black and not approved; no reason stated; underlying basis for the retake not yet documented in this tracker ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED (denial documented); OPEN ITEM (underlying reason for the retake request not yet documented)
|-
! Issue type
| Final Exam Retake Request Denied / No Stated Reason
! Date added
| 2026-06-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations)
|}
'''Finding.''' In her June 5, 2026 CARES case follow-up, Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) informed the reporting student that his exam retake request for the ONL NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C) was reviewed by Dr. Black (Stephanie Black, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) and was not approved. The email states the outcome but gives no reason for the denial. The retake had been escalated through the CARES process, and the reporting student had also requested a legal hold (see {{HU|HU-157}}). The underlying basis for the retake request, that is, the problem the reporting student experienced with the Fundamentals final exam (which would explain why a retake was sought), is not separately documented in this tracker as of this entry. {{HU|HU-019}} references this same exam, but only as an example of where the 250 percent testing-time accommodation appeared, and notes a history of ProctorU disruption (including a sound machine being blocked); it does not document a discrete exam-day failure. This entry documents the denial; the reason for the original retake request remains an open item to be substantiated with the underlying evidence.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026): the exam retake request for the ONL NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C) was reviewed by Dr. Black and was not approved. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-019}}: ProctorU reminder (2026-04-28): NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam 2026 Spring C Accommodations 250%; {{HU|HU-019}} notes a transition from 200% to 250% testing time apparently driven by ongoing ProctorU disruption issues (sound machine blocking).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Exam retake request: ONL: NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C): This request was reviewed by Dr. Black and was not approved.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) and institutional academic-appeal/grade-grievance obligations: a decision on a final-exam retake or grade appeal should be accompanied by a stated rationale and a clear appeal pathway, particularly where the student has disability testing accommodations (250% time, noise-cancelling headset, sound machine per {{HU|HU-142}}) and a documented history of proctoring disruption ({{HU|HU-019}}). If the retake was sought because accommodations were not honored or the testing platform failed, denial without addressing those conditions could implicate ADA (42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq.) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. 794). No conclusion is drawn here; the documented facts are the denial and the absence of a stated reason. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-019}} (same exam, accommodation and ProctorU disruption), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring support), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES closure and legal hold).

'''Impact.''' The reporting student's request to retake the NSG521 Fundamentals NGN final exam was denied without a stated reason, which affects his grade and progression in a foundational nursing course and forecloses a remedy he sought through the CARES process. If the retake was requested because of an accommodation or proctoring failure during the exam, the denial leaves that underlying problem unaddressed. The lack of a stated rationale limits the reporting student's ability to evaluate or appeal the decision.

'''Notes.''' New personnel: Dr. Nicole Franklin, Senior Director of Academic Operations (nifranklin@herzing.edu). Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, identified as the decision-maker (steblack@herzing.edu). IMPORTANT OPEN ITEM: the reason the reporting student requested the retake (the underlying exam-day problem) is not yet captured as a standalone issue; obtain that evidence to document the basis. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-019}} (NSG521 Fundamentals final, 250% accommodation, ProctorU disruption), {{HU|HU-156}}, {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-158}}, {{HU|HU-142}} (accommodation letter). Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-158}}).

Source: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES case follow-up, June 5, 2026.

Source Group: Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban, Nicole), subject CARES Case: Follow-up, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM; provided by the reporting student.

=== HU-156: Exam proctoring support: assigned-proctor request not available (ProctorU unavailable, only ProProctor), ProctorU pre-test not viable; the reporting student told to continue using Test-it-out and allow additional time to initiate each exam ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Proctoring Accommodation Support Limited to Workarounds / Assigned Proctor and Pre-Test Not Available
! Date added
| 2026-06-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Testing / ProctorU / ProProctor
|}
'''Finding.''' In the same June 5, 2026 CARES follow-up, Dr. Nicole Franklin addressed the reporting student's proctoring-related requests. On an assigned proctor, she wrote that she reached out to ProctorU and unfortunately, this is not an available option, that ProProctors remain the most individualized support they offer, and that all upcoming scheduled exams have been flagged for ProProctor connection. On a ProctorU pre-test option, she wrote that this is currently not a viable option and that the reporting student should continue using Test-it-out and allowing additional time to initiate each exam. The reporting student has documented testing accommodations (250% time, noise-cancelling headset, and a sound machine per {{HU|HU-142}}) and a history of ProctorU disruptions ({{HU|HU-019}} notes a sound machine being blocked). Telling the student to continue using Test-it-out and to allow additional time to initiate each exam places the burden of working around proctoring and exam-initiation problems on the student rather than resolving the cause, and the requested supports (an assigned proctor and a pre-test check) were declined as unavailable.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026): assigned proctor request declined as unavailable through ProctorU; ProProctor offered as the most individualized support available, flagged for all upcoming scheduled exams; ProctorU pre-test option declined as not currently viable, with the student directed to continue using Test-it-out and allow additional time to initiate each exam. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-019}} (ProctorU disruption, sound machine blocking; 250% accommodation), {{HU|HU-142}} (testing accommodations including noise-cancelling headset and sound machine).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Assigned proctor: I reached out to ProctorU; unfortunately, this is not an available option... ProctorU pre-test option: This is currently not a viable option. Continue using Test-it-out and allowing additional time to initiate each exam.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA (42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq.) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. 794): where a student has approved testing accommodations and a documented history of proctoring disruption, the institution should ensure the proctoring method reliably delivers those accommodations; directing the student to self-manage via Test-it-out and to allow additional time to initiate each exam, while declining an assigned proctor and a pre-test check, may leave the accommodation dependent on the student absorbing recurring technical friction. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): testing infrastructure must function for students. No violation is concluded; the documented concern is that the supports requested were declined and the remedy offered is a student-side workaround. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-019}}, {{HU|HU-142}}, {{HU|HU-155}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student is left to rely on Test-it-out and to budget extra time to initiate each exam, rather than receiving an assigned proctor or a pre-test verification that his accommodations (sound machine, noise-cancelling headset, 250% time) will function. Given the prior ProctorU disruption ({{HU|HU-019}}), this raises the risk of repeated exam-day friction and of accommodations not being smoothly delivered, which is especially consequential for high-stakes exams.

'''Notes.''' ProProctor (a ProctorU service tier) is now flagged for all upcoming scheduled exams. The distinction between ProctorU (declined as unavailable for an assigned proctor and pre-test) and ProProctor (offered) is documented as stated in the email. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-019}} (ProctorU disruption and 250% accommodation), {{HU|HU-142}} (testing accommodations), {{HU|HU-155}} (retake denial), {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-158}}. Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-158}}).

Source: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES case follow-up, June 5, 2026.

Source Group: Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban, Nicole), subject CARES Case: Follow-up, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM; provided by the reporting student.

=== HU-163: Lead: a documented weather emergency on June 6, 2026 blocked the accommodated NSG524 Mental Health exam, which the vendor then marked a no-show and would not reschedule within the open window, followed by a support runaround, vendor-institution ping-pong, and a burden-shifting appeals process; see HU-163a through HU-163e ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (in-window reschedule blocked; no-show miscategorization; support runaround; vendor-institution ping-pong; burden-shift)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Stephanie Black (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / Dr. Danielle Laban / Dr. Nicole Franklin
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for a June 6, 2026 testing failure on the NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 1 (a 375-minute, 250% accommodated exam with a testing window of June 1 to June 7, 2026). A documented severe-weather event in Kansas (NWS Wichita, scattered storms and flood warnings) interrupted the student's internet during his scheduled June 6 exam. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-163a}} (the student could not reschedule the accommodated exam to the remaining in-window date because no ProProctor was available and the vendor cited a reschedule restriction, so the 250% accommodation could not be exercised before the window closed), {{HU|HU-163b}} (the exam was marked a no-show despite the student's documented contemporaneous contact about the outage before the window closed, which then triggered the reschedule lock), {{HU|HU-163c}} (a support runaround, a non-answer, a re-request for information already provided, and review of the wrong exam), {{HU|HU-163d}} (contradictory explanations and vendor-institution ping-pong, with neither resolving the issue), and {{HU|HU-163e}} (the burden shifted to the student through an appeals and makeup process requiring a Herzing IT ticket). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Exam: ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 1 2026 Summer C (Accommodations 250%), 375 minutes, Herzing University - HESI; previously scheduled Sat June 6, 2026 2:20 PM CDT. The student states he could not test earlier in the window because of financial-aid delays for the university-requested computer (cross-ref {{HU|HU-157}}) and last-minute clinical-schedule changes (cross-ref {{HU|HU-135}}). The vendor stated its reschedule restriction inconsistently as 24 hours (live chat) and 72 hours (email). Added 2026-06-06 at the top of the date-added section (newest first).

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure Learning support thread (ticket 8041745), June 6, 2026; ProctorU live-chat screenshot (June 6, 2026, 1:46 to 1:49 PM CDT); ProctorU scheduling-page screenshot (NSG524, window 6/1 to 6/7/26, 375 minutes); NWS Wichita severe-weather screenshot (June 6, 2026, 1:40 PM CDT); email from the reporting student to Herzing faculty; provided by the reporting student.

Parts: {{HU|HU-163a}}, {{HU|HU-163b}}, {{HU|HU-163c}}, {{HU|HU-163d}}, {{HU|HU-163e}}.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-002}} (prior ProctorU exam block, NSG521), {{HU|HU-119}} (ProctorU/Meazure legal dispute), {{HU|HU-135}} (8-hour clinical accommodation; last-minute schedule changes), {{HU|HU-145}} (eight-hour accommodation characterized as conditional), {{HU|HU-155}} (NSG521 final retake denied), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring support declined), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES closure; computer funds; ProctorU pre-test).

=== HU-163b: The exam was marked a no-show despite the student's documented contemporaneous contact about the weather and internet outage before the window closed, and the no-show then triggered the reschedule lock ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| No-Show Miscategorization Despite Prior Contact
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning
|}
'''Finding.''' ProctorU stated the exam had been marked a no-show and that, as a result, it could not process scheduling within its restriction window. The reporting student documented that he had contacted ProctorU via chat from his phone before the exam, reporting that his internet was out due to the weather, so the appointment should have been set for reschedule rather than recorded as a no-show. The no-show designation then triggered the lock that prevented any in-window reschedule.

'''Evidence.''' ProctorU/Meazure email (Rahul Pradhan) stating the exam has now been marked as a no-show and scheduling cannot be processed within 72 hours; the reporting student reply asking why it was marked a no-show when he contacted ProctorU prior to the exam via chat about the internet outage; ProctorU live chat (June 6, 2026, 1:46 PM CDT).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Why was it marked as a no show? I contacted you prior to the exam in chat to let you know via my phone that my internet was out due to bad weather so it should have been set for reschedule rather than marked as a no-show.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability and accurate records, including over a testing vendor). Recording a weather-and-connectivity interruption (reported in real time) as a no-show, and then using that designation to deny an in-window reschedule, is a records-accuracy and fair-process concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-163}}.

'''Impact.''' The no-show entry, rather than a reschedule flag, is what locked the student out of his remaining in-window date and routed him into a makeup and appeals process.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-163}} (lead). Documented 2026-06-06.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure support thread (ticket 8041745); ProctorU live chat, June 6, 2026.

=== HU-163c: ProctorU support runaround: a non-answer that documented the concern without resolving it, a re-request for information the student had already provided, and review of the wrong exam (NSG523 Med Surg instead of NSG524 Mental Health) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Support Runaround / Wrong Exam Reviewed
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning
|}
'''Finding.''' Across the support thread, ProctorU (1) replied that it had documented the student's concern and that no further action was required, without resolving the scheduling problem; (2) asked the student to provide his full name, account email, exam name, and exam date, all of which he had already submitted; and (3) pulled up the wrong exam, the NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I exam set for June 10, when the student's issue concerned the NSG524 Mental Health exam due by June 7.

'''Evidence.''' ProctorU/Meazure emails: a Facilitator Specialist reply stating the concern was documented and no further action was required; a reply requesting full name, account email, exam name, and date and time (already provided by the student); and a reply quoting Exam: ONL: HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, June 10, 2026 1:00 PM CDT, Scheduled, in response to a question about the NSG524 Mental Health exam.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I can't tell if this is a joke. I already put all of this info in the form I submitted. [And, to the wrong-exam reply:] You are looking at the wrong exam. Look at the exam name I sent you and the exam name you sent back. They are not the same.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including oversight of a testing vendor); consumer-facing support-quality expectations. Repeated non-answers, re-requests for provided information, and review of the wrong exam delayed any resolution while the window closed. Lead: {{HU|HU-163}}.

'''Impact.''' The runaround consumed the limited time remaining in the testing window and left the student without a clear path to take his exam.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-163}} (lead). Documented 2026-06-06.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure support thread (ticket 8041745), June 6, 2026.

=== HU-163d: Contradictory explanations and vendor-institution ping-pong: the vendor said the testing window and any extension are institution-controlled while Herzing faculty said they cannot set up an exam and directed the student to the appeals process, leaving the issue unresolved ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Vendor-Institution Accountability Gap / Contradictory Explanations
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' ProctorU repeatedly directed the student to Herzing to obtain a testing-window extension, stating the exam windows are set by the institution and that ProctorU has no control. Herzing faculty (Dr. Stacey Gombar, relaying the course lead and program lead) stated that Herzing faculty do not have access to set up an additional exam and directed the student to the appeals process. The two positions leave the student bounced between the vendor and the institution with neither resolving the in-window scheduling problem. The vendor also gave shifting rationales (window closed, then marked no-show) and an inconsistent restriction window (24 hours in chat, 72 hours in email).

'''Evidence.''' ProctorU/Meazure emails (Areeba Tariq, Ujjwal Ray, and others) directing the student to Herzing for a window extension and stating the windows are institution-controlled; ProctorU live chat stating the exam windows are set by the exam instructor and ProctorU has no controls; Dr. Stacey Gombar emails stating she does not know the resolution and later that Herzing faculty cannot set up an additional exam and the student must use the appeals process.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[ProctorU:] the exam windows are set by the exam instructor we do not have any controls over it. [Dr. Gombar:] Unfortunately, Herzing faculty does not have access to set up an additional exam, so you must follow this process.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (the institution is responsible for its testing vendor and for a functional process); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear and fair processes). When a vendor and the institution each point to the other, an accommodated student is left with no responsible party to resolve a time-sensitive failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-163}}.

'''Impact.''' The accountability gap left the student without a resolution path during the window, and the contradictory explanations made it impossible to know what actually prevented the reschedule.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-163}} (lead). Documented 2026-06-06.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure support thread (ticket 8041745); Dr. Stacey Gombar emails, June 6, 2026.

=== HU-167b: The reporting student was unable to begin the NSG523 exam for over one hour and fifteen minutes after logging in, made three failed ProProctor connection attempts in one hour, and the session was ultimately transferred to another technician before the exam could start ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Exam Start Delayed Over 75 Minutes; Three Failed Connection Attempts
! Date added
| 2026-06-13
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student logged in to begin his NSG523 exam at approximately 2:25 PM CDT on Saturday June 13, 2026. Screenshots timestamped between 3:27 PM and 3:44 PM show he had been waiting for over one hour and had not yet started. He told the ProctorU agent at 3:33 PM that this was his third connection attempt in the past hour with nothing happening. The ProctorU screen displayed "Wait time is longer than expected" with an average wait of 8 minutes. The agent Gedela T. twice asked him to "allow a few minutes" (at 3:30 PM and 3:37 PM). At 3:43 PM the session was transferred to another technician. The reporting student confirmed in a follow-up email that he was ultimately able to take the exam but that it took over one hour and fifteen minutes for them to let him start.

'''Evidence.''' ProctorU chat screenshots (3:27 to 3:44 PM, Jun 13, 2026) showing three connection cycles, the "Wait time is longer than expected" screen, and the 3:43 PM session transfer; email from the reporting student and a follow-up email confirming the delay.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I have been logged in since 2:25 trying to start my exam. I have now attempted to connect 3 times. As you can see, it has been "allow me a few minutes" for over an hour with multiple people and no proproctor. ... it took over 1 hour and 15 minutes for them to let me start.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability and vendor oversight); 42 U.S.C. 12189 and 28 C.F.R. 36.309 (examinations must be offered in an accessible manner with necessary accommodations); Section 504 (29 U.S.C. 794). An over 75-minute pre-exam delay caused by vendor unavailability, after three failed connection attempts, is an accommodation-delivery and vendor-oversight failure. The delay consumes time and mental energy before the exam begins, which is particularly significant for a 375-minute accommodated exam. Lead: {{HU|HU-167}}.

'''Impact.''' The delay of over one hour and fifteen minutes before the exam started affected the student's testing conditions and consumed time that could have been used for the exam itself or for preparation.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-167}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party screenshots and email. The exam is NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 (375 minutes at 250% accommodation). Documented 2026-06-13.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Seven ProctorU chat/screen screenshots (Sat Jun 13, 2026, 3:27 PM to 3:44 PM CDT); email from the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Nicole Franklin, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, David Steele, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Tanetshia Brown (sent approx. 3:39 PM, Jun 13, 2026); follow-up email from the reporting student confirming exam completed after over 1 hour 15 minute delay; provided by the reporting student.

=== HU-174: Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor, NSG524) forwarded the reporting student the ProctorU link for the NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 (250% accommodation; exam window July 13 to July 19, 2026) while stating she was still waiting on the link for Exam 1; the reporting student asked to complete Exam I and remediation before Exam II so he could identify and address his deficiencies first, then followed up repeatedly; faculty had no updates and were told to wait for further advisement, so the Exam 1 link remained unprovided and the requested sequencing could not be scheduled ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Approved or Requested Accommodation Exam Retake Not Operationalized; Exam 1 (250%) ProctorU Link Not Provided While Exam 2 Link Issued; Multi-Week Delay With No Updates
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor, NSG524) / NSG524 course lead and program leadership / Elizabeth Dwyer (Learning Solutions Integrations Specialist) / Herzing Testing and Accommodations / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair)
|}
'''Finding.''' Elizabeth Dwyer issued the ProctorU accommodation link for ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 2026 Summer C Accommodations 250%, designated for the reporting student, with an exam window of Monday July 13, 2026 12:00 AM CDT to Sunday July 19, 2026 7:00 PM CDT. Dr. Stacey Gombar forwarded that Exam 2 link to the reporting student and stated she was still waiting on the link for Exam 1. The reporting student replied asking to complete Exam I and remediation before Exam II so that he could see what deficiencies he had and address them, and asked how Exam I could be scheduled first. He followed up at least twice asking for updates on the Exam 1 link and stating he would really like to take Exam I before Exam II. Dr. Gombar responded that she would wait for further advisement as to when the link would be received, and later that she did not have any updates, that she was told to wait and the link would be sent out, and that she had been in contact with her course lead and leadership and was watching closely for it. Dr. Stephanie Black's automatic reply indicated she was out of the office for onsite meetings. The result is that the accommodated Exam 1 retake plus remediation that the reporting student requested to take before Exam II could not be scheduled because the Exam 1 testing link had not been provided, while the Exam 2 link issued normally. The student reports that Dr. Prashad previously approved the retake of Exam I in NSG524 Mental Health; the June 15 thread documents the request and the missing link but does not itself contain the approval language, so that approval is recorded here per the student's reference and the prior NSG524 appeal and exam cluster ({{HU|HU-163}} and {{HU|HU-166}}) and is flagged for verification against the approval record.

'''Evidence.''' Email from Elizabeth Dwyer (Learning Solutions Integrations Specialist) providing the accommodation exam link for NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2, June 15, 2026, 12:35 PM. Forward from Dr. Stacey Gombar to the reporting student. Reply from the reporting student to Dr. Gombar, Dr. Laban, Dr. Prashad, and Dr. Black requesting Exam I and remediation before Exam II. Follow-up emails from the reporting student. Replies from Dr. Gombar stating she was waiting for further advisement and had no updates. Automatic reply from Dr. Stephanie Black indicating she was out of the office for onsite meetings.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Dr. Gombar:] I am forwarding the link to sign up for Exam 2. I am still waiting on the link for Exam 1. [the reporting student:] I am going to request the ability to do exam I and remediation prior to exam ii so that I can see what deficiencies I have and address them. [Dr. Gombar:] I do not have any, I was told to wait and the link would be sent out. Please be assured that I have been in contact with my course lead and leadership, and am watching closely for it.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, with 34 C.F.R. 104.44 (postsecondary academic adjustments and auxiliary aids, which are to be provided in a timely and effective manner); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable and timely operational processes); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including fair and reliable processes for accommodated students) and Criterion 4.B (reliable assessment processes); ACEN Standard 4 (fair academic standards and policies). Issuing the Exam 2 accommodation link while the Exam 1 accommodation link remained outstanding, with the assigned faculty unable to obtain it and directed to wait, is a timeliness and effective-access concern, particularly where the student requested to complete Exam I and remediation before Exam II. This entry does not assert a violation and records the matter for review and verification.

'''Impact.''' If the Exam 1 (250%) link is not provided in time to complete Exam I and remediation before the Exam 2 window opens on July 13, 2026, the student loses the requested and reportedly approved sequencing, loses the opportunity to identify and address deficiencies before Exam II, and is pushed toward sitting Exam II without the intended remediation. The delay also shifts the burden of repeated follow-up onto the student and onto an adjunct professor who does not have the access needed to resolve it.

'''Notes.''' Exam: ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 2026 Summer C Accommodations 250%. The Exam 2 window is Mon 07/13/26 12:00 AM CDT to Sun 07/19/26 7:00 PM CDT, designated for the reporting student. As of the June 15, 2026 thread, the Exam 1 link had not been issued. Dr. Gombar stated she was in contact with her course lead and program leadership and was watching for the Exam 1 link. Dr. Stephanie Black's automatic reply indicated she was out of the office for onsite meetings. Per the student, Dr. Prashad previously approved the Exam I retake in NSG524 Mental Health and the delay in providing the new link has extended over several weeks; the approval itself is referenced and flagged for verification, since the June 15 thread documents the request and the missing link but not the approval language. CONFIRMED for the documented facts of the email thread. Added 2026-06-15.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Email thread, subject HESI Exam ProctorU Link, ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 2026 Summer C Accommodations 250%, among Elizabeth (Lizz) Dwyer (Learning Solutions Integrations Specialist), Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor, NSG524), the reporting student, Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair), and Dr. Stephanie Black (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing); original message Monday, June 15, 2026 12:35 PM CDT; provided by the reporting student.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-163}} (NSG524 Mental Health 250% exam blocked by weather, marked no-show, appeals and makeup process; lead cluster), {{HU|HU-166}} (NSG524 grade-appeal thread; Bishop and Prashad conflicting appeal instructions), {{HU|HU-167}} (NSG523 Exam 1; no ProProctor available on the weekend; accommodation testing-access disparity), {{HU|HU-155}} (NSG521 Fundamentals final retake denied), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring supports declined), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES case closure).

=== HU-175: ProctorU proctor took unilateral remote control of the reporting student's computer during the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II session and disabled magnification and read aloud functions mid-exam without his consent, and the testing clock reportedly continued to run while the issue went unresolved ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED; the underlying accessibility failure remained unresolved and recurred at the next scheduled exam attempt around July 21, 2026, with a vendor investigation and partial resolution steps documented through July 24, 2026; see the update in Finding Summary
|-
! Issue type
| Unauthorized Remote Control of Student Device; Disabled Accommodation Features Mid-Exam; Testing Clock Not Paused
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU / Meazure Learning / Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (out of office at the time) / Dr. Stacey Gombar
|}
'''Finding.''' On July 15, 2026, during the NSG524 Exam II session, the reporting student reported that before he could begin the exam, the proctor took control of his mouse and changed settings in his system preferences remotely, something he stated had not happened in the nine months prior. As a result, he could no longer use screen zoom or magnification, and the software stopped reading questions aloud. He completed a portion of the exam under these degraded conditions; Dr. Gombar's written recap places the point of interruption at approximately 30 completed questions. The proctor then had him exit the exam and attempted to use Google Chrome instead of the required Guardian browser, which redirected back to the same page without restoring the disabled features. The reporting student stated the testing clock continued running throughout this troubleshooting. He was ultimately told to reschedule. In his July 16, 2026 reply to Dr. Laban, the reporting student stated the proctor never restored the original settings and that he does not want ProctorU changing settings on his computer without asking going forward. Dr. Gombar's written recap confirms the proctor took control of settings during sign on, that this hindered the reporting student's ability to use magnification to read on screen text, that the proctor asked him to move back when he leaned toward the screen to compensate, that the proctor could not resolve the issue after an extended troubleshooting period, and that the reporting student completed only about 30 questions before the session was effectively lost.

UPDATE (2026-07-21 to 2026-07-24): The underlying accessibility failure remained unresolved by the time the reporting student's next scheduled exam approached. On July 21, 2026, Dr. Danielle Laban wrote that while the issues from the prior week remained unresolved, she recommended the reporting student reschedule that exam, and stated she would follow up with an investigation update the same day. The reporting student replied the same morning stating that his request for zoom and magnification capability had initially been denied, on the basis that it was already built into the software; that he had again blocked off time for an exam he had previously had to stop without finishing; that ProctorU had again taken control of his computer and changed settings without his consent; that he had spent additional time on hold with IT waiting on Elsevier; that he was unsure whether he should attempt the exam or wait for resolution, fearing he would be penalized if he started but could not finish; and that he had no other available testing times in the near term because of virtual clinicals, regular clinicals, and the lack of ProProctor coverage over the weekend. He attached an audio recording of a support call during which he stated he had a panic attack and had to hang up, and stated he intended to file another OCR complaint. Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, asked whether the reporting student had tried the Ctrl and keyboard shortcuts to adjust font size within the Guardian browser, or the ProctorU accessibility menu. The reporting student responded that this was exactly how he had adjusted zoom since admission and that this was what had stopped working, and separately clarified that the exam in question does not use ProctorU's Guardian browser at all, but Elsevier's own secure browser, which does not have an accessibility menu. On July 21, 2026 at 6:26 PM, Dr. Laban stated Elsevier was still investigating and that Herzing would connect with Elsevier the next morning for an update. On July 24, 2026 at 9:26 AM, Dr. Laban wrote that Elsevier's technical team had completed its investigation, had verified that text to speech functioned correctly within the exam, and had tested the zoom feature on a Mac of the same make and model as the reporting student's, finding that zoom worked once the Mac's own operating system accessibility settings were enabled. She explained that because zoom is controlled through the device operating system, if it becomes unavailable during an exam the student would need to exit the secure browser, confirm the operating system accessibility settings remain enabled, and relaunch the exam, and that the same process would apply to other device based accommodation tools such as earphones. She stated Herzing had approved rescheduling both affected exams and asked the reporting student to provide his preferred 72 hour testing window. The reporting student replied that he should not have to restart the mental health exam from the beginning since he had already completed more than half of it before the interruption, and asked for guidance on sequencing his remaining exams given clinicals, virtual clinicals, and a conference, so that he would not end up with four exams in a single week. He requested a test exam with the university before attempting the rescheduled exams, stated he had used the accessibility features successfully for months without issue, maintained that it was ProctorU that made the changes causing the failure, and stated he intended to ask the Department of Education to audit the recordings. He separately attached screenshots he described as showing other students also experiencing ProctorU issues, offered here as POSSIBLE, secondhand pattern evidence rather than a confirmed institution-wide finding. He also raised a separate, previously unresolved claim: that Herzing's office had told him some months earlier that the Boards of Nursing required the use of ProctorU, that he had requested supporting evidence for that claim and been told the university would follow up after speaking with Dr. Black and the compliance team, and that as of his June 9, 2026 follow-up and this July 24, 2026 message, no supporting evidence had been provided. Later on July 24, 2026, the reporting student replied to Dr. Laban disputing her explanation as inaccurate, asking her to pull the ProctorU recording, stating that the zoom shortcut works in every other program using the identical keys and that the problem is isolated to the exam lockdown browser specifically, noting that if the proctor had in fact reversed all of the system preference changes made during the prior session, as he stated the recording shows, then an operating system settings explanation should not have caused a recurrence, and stating that Herzing's IT department, ProctorU, and Elsevier had each redirected him to the others without resolving the underlying cause. He characterized Dr. Laban's email as an institutional admission that the ProctorU representative's settings changes were the source of the problem.

UPDATE (2026-08-04): joint troubleshooting on a recorded call with a representative of Elsevier/HESI, later joined by Dr. Danielle Laban, isolated the technical cause of this failure to the version of the Elsevier secure examination browser rather than to the reporting student's device or its operating system settings. During the call the representative confirmed that the reporting student's macOS slow keys setting was disabled and that his operating system zoom keys were enabled. With those settings verified, zoom and magnification still failed inside the legacy secure browser, while continuing to function normally in Chrome and every other application on the same machine. The representative then directed the reporting student to load a newer secure browser build by way of a separate compatibility check link, and zoom functioned immediately in that build. The representative stated that he did not know what was occurring between the legacy browser and the device, that based on the reporting student's settings it should have been working, and that the newer secure browser has the zoom functionality embedded within it. He further explained that individual examinations can be enabled to deliver on the new secure browser from the vendor back end, that he could enable it shortly before a scheduled examination and disable it afterward, and that doing so would apply to any student launching that examination group during that window. This finding materially undercuts the explanation conveyed to the reporting student on July 24, 2026 attributing the failure to his device's operating system accessibility settings, and corroborates the position the reporting student stated in his July 24, 2026 reply that the failure was isolated specifically to the examination lockdown browser while the identical keyboard shortcut worked in every other program. During the same call, the examination the reporting student was scheduled to sit approximately one hour later was cancelled, making this at least the fourth examination affected. Dr. Laban indicated she would arrange rescheduling on the back end so that the vendor's seventy two hour rescheduling restriction would not apply, and stated she had an Elsevier meeting scheduled to determine next steps. The representative stated repeatedly that the decision to migrate examinations to the new secure browser is Herzing's to make rather than his, so remediation of this issue now rests with the institution. The reporting student also observed on the call that his text to speech read aloud could not be verified during testing because the new browser compatibility check did not present sample items, so whether read aloud functions in the new build remains unconfirmed.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student, email, Jul 15, 2026, 12:10 PM: description of the proctor taking control of his mouse, changing system preferences, and disabling zoom and read aloud, with the testing clock still running. The reporting student, email, Jul 15, 2026, 12:20 PM: statement that the exam procedure changes every time and a request that the recording be reviewed. The reporting student, email, Jul 15, 2026, 12:36 PM: statement that ProctorU acknowledged an issue within their software, that he was asked to reschedule after completing roughly half the exam, and that he considered this an ADA issue for OCR purposes. Dr. Stacey Gombar, written recap of their same day phone call: confirmation that the proctor took control of settings during sign on, that this hindered the reporting student's ability to use magnification, that the proctor asked him to move back from the screen, that the proctor could not resolve the issue, and that the reporting student completed approximately 30 questions before the interruption. The reporting student, email, Jul 16, 2026, 11:02 AM, to Dr. Laban: statement that the proctor did not restore the settings and a request that proctors not change settings without asking going forward. Recorded video call and transcript, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, an Elsevier/HESI representative, and Dr. Danielle Laban: verification that slow keys were disabled and operating system zoom keys enabled; failure of zoom in the legacy secure browser under those verified settings; successful zoom after loading the newer secure browser; the representative's statements that the newer browser has zoom functionality embedded, that individual examination groups can be enabled for it from the vendor back end, and that the decision to migrate examinations is Herzing's; the cancellation of the examination scheduled approximately one hour after the call; and Dr. Laban's statements regarding back end rescheduling outside the seventy two hour restriction. Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 21, 2026, 8:31 AM: recommendation to reschedule while the prior week's issues remained unresolved. The reporting student, email, Jul 21, 2026, 8:44 AM, with attached audio recording (New Recording 22.m4a): description of the recurrence, the denied initial request for zoom and magnification capability, the panic attack during a support call, and scheduling constraints from clinicals and lack of weekend ProProctor coverage. Emilie Thompson, emails, Jul 21, 2026, 9:19 AM and 9:42 AM: troubleshooting questions about keyboard shortcuts and the ProctorU accessibility menu. The reporting student, replies, Jul 21, 2026, 9:27 AM and 9:49 AM: confirmation the shortcut previously worked and had stopped working, and clarification that the exam uses Elsevier's own secure browser rather than ProctorU's Guardian browser. Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 21, 2026, 6:26 PM: update that Elsevier was still investigating. Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 24, 2026, 9:26 AM: Elsevier's investigation findings (text to speech verified functional; zoom functional on a matching Mac once operating system accessibility settings were enabled), an explanation that zoom is operating system controlled, and approval to reschedule both affected exams pending the reporting student's preferred 72 hour window. The reporting student, email, Jul 24, 2026 (today): objection to restarting the mental health exam from the beginning, a scheduling request to avoid four exams in one week, a request for a test exam before the rescheduled exams, three attached screenshots including images described as showing other students' ProctorU issues, and a renewed, previously unanswered request (referencing a June 9, 2026 follow-up) for evidence supporting an earlier claim that the Boards of Nursing require ProctorU. The reporting student, email, Jul 24, 2026, 4:45 PM: dispute of Dr. Laban's explanation, a request that the recording be pulled, and the statement quoted below regarding Herzing's characterization of the ProctorU representative's settings changes.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Today, before starting my exam, they took control of my mouse and changed settings on my computer remotely in my system preferences. Now I cannot zoom in and out nor can I hear the software read the questions to me anymore. My testing clock is running. [Jul 21, 2026:] I am fearful the university will punish me for the failure of the software to cooperate. [Jul 24, 2026:] I am glad Herzing is admitting that the settings changed by the ProctorU representative led to the issue we are having but this does not fix the issue caused. [Elsevier representative, Aug 4, 2026:] I don't know what's going on between the old browser and the device and what's causing everything that he has set on. It should be working. The new secure browser has the functionality embedded within itself that does allow for the zoom in and out functions.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Americans with Disabilities Act, Title III, 42 U.S.C. Section 12182, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, together with the implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Section 104.44 (academic adjustments), require that approved accommodations be provided consistently and not unilaterally withdrawn or altered during an assessment. Whether screen magnification and text to speech read aloud are documented as approved accommodations in the reporting student's June 2026 accommodation letter (Emilie Thompson) has not yet been confirmed in this entry and is flagged as an open item rather than assumed; if confirmed, the mid-exam removal of those features constitutes a direct accommodation interruption rather than a general technical glitch. The obligation to provide accommodations consistently extends to third party vendors performing the assessment function on the institution's behalf and cannot be delegated away, consistent with the vendor and clinical site obligation principle already reflected in this tracker. UPDATE (2026-07-24): Herzing's July 24, 2026 email attributes the underlying cause to the device operating system's accessibility settings rather than to a persistent proctor caused change, while the reporting student disputes this account and states the problem is isolated to the exam lockdown browser and recurs even when the same operating system shortcuts work in every other program. The reporting student's July 24, 2026 reply also characterizes Dr. Laban's email as an institutional admission that a ProctorU representative's settings changes caused the issue. Whether the accepted explanation is an operating system setting, a proctor caused change, or both, remains a disputed question of fact between the parties rather than a matter resolved in this tracker; the confirmation of whether zoom and text to speech read aloud were documented approved accommodations, as opposed to a built in software feature the student was told not to worry about, also remains open and is now informed by the reporting student's statement that this same capability was initially requested and denied as unnecessary. FURTHER UPDATE (2026-08-04): the August 4, 2026 joint testing resolves the factual dispute described above in the reporting student's favor as to technical causation, identifying the legacy secure browser build as the operative cause rather than the device operating system. It also indicates that a functional alternative exists and is available to the institution, which is relevant to whether continued failure to deliver the accommodation is reasonable. The separate question of whether the proctor's unauthorized remote changes on July 15, 2026 independently violated the accommodation obligation remains open and is not resolved by this finding; the two may be independent contributing variables.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student was required to attempt exam content without functioning magnification and read aloud support for a portion of the session, then was told to reschedule after already investing time and effort mid-exam, with the testing clock reportedly still running during the unresolved troubleshooting period. This raises both an accommodation delivery concern and a testing conditions concern, and mirrors the pattern of inconsistent ProctorU session setup already documented elsewhere in this tracker. UPDATE (2026-07-24): the unresolved recurrence forced a second rescheduling, compounding the delay from the original July 15, 2026 session, and created a scheduling conflict with clinicals, virtual clinicals, and a conference that the reporting student states risks compressing his remaining exams into a single week. The reporting student has documented a panic attack during a support call on July 21, 2026 by way of an audio recording, and has stated he intends to file additional OCR complaints in connection with this recurrence.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student stated in his July 16, 2026 reply that he does not want ProctorU changing settings on his computer without asking going forward, and that this is not standard proctor practice and had not occurred in his prior sessions. Confirm whether the session recording has been preserved and produced. UPDATE (2026-07-24): recommend obtaining and preserving the audio recording the reporting student submitted July 21, 2026 (New Recording 22.m4a) and the three screenshots submitted July 24, 2026 as part of this tracker's evidence file. Recommend requesting written confirmation of whether a test exam will be provided before the rescheduled attempts, since the reporting student requested one and no response is reflected in the material reviewed. Recommend separately tracking and requesting written evidence for the claim, attributed by the reporting student to a Herzing office, that the Boards of Nursing require the use of ProctorU, since no supporting documentation has been provided despite a stated commitment to follow up. The exact current count of OCR complaints filed or intended in connection with this and related matters should be confirmed directly rather than assumed from the reporting student's references to a second and later a third complaint. UPDATE (2026-08-04): recommend requesting written confirmation from Herzing of whether it will migrate the reporting student's remaining examinations to the new secure browser, and if not, on what basis. Recommend preserving the recording of the August 4, 2026 call and the short screen capture the reporting student emailed to the Elsevier representative. Whether text to speech read aloud functions in the new secure browser build remains unverified, because the compatibility check for that build did not present sample items. FURTHER UPDATE (2026-08-11): see {{HU|HU-195}}. On August 10, 2026, under the same verified settings, Elsevier confirmed the reporting student was launched into the wrong exam and the zoom and text reader failure recurred, directly contradicting the August 4, 2026 representation that the new secure browser resolved this issue. The August 4, 2026 fix should not be treated as confirmed or durable. FURTHER UPDATE (2026-09-13): see {{HU|HU-197}}. In his September 9, 2026 email, the reporting student stated the zoom and text reader issue still does not work, indicating the failure remained unresolved a full month after the represented fix. FURTHER UPDATE (2026-08-05): in connection with {{HU|HU-189}}, the governing accommodation letter from Emilie Thompson dated February 3, 2026 was located. It expressly documents 250 percent time on timed testing, a 72 hour assignment extension on request, advance provision of synchronous session slides, and recording and transcription of synchronous sessions, but does not on its face enumerate screen magnification or text to speech read aloud as named accommodations. This directly bears on the open item recorded above and on both pending OCR complaints, which assume those features are documented accommodations. The reporting student should be asked whether a later or supplemental accommodation letter exists; if it does not, the framing of the testing issues may need to shift from denial of a documented accommodation toward denial of meaningful access and failure to engage an accommodation request, which remains actionable but rests on a different legal footing.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: The reporting student's emails, subject Exam and Fw: Exam, Jul 15, 2026, 12:10 PM, 12:20 PM, and 12:36 PM, to Herzing staff, Meazure Learning, and ProctorU compliance, with counsel copied; corroborated by Dr. Stacey Gombar's written recap of their same day phone call; and by the reporting student's July 16, 2026 reply to Dr. Danielle Laban.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-176}} (Herzing and Elsevier root cause acknowledgment and appeal waiver for this same session), {{HU|HU-177}} (conflicting appeal instructions arising from this same session), and prior ProctorU and accommodation entries documenting inconsistent proctor session setup; POSSIBLE new tracking item flagged but not yet separately logged: the reporting student's renewed, unanswered request for evidence supporting an earlier institutional claim that the Boards of Nursing require ProctorU; POSSIBLE pattern evidence: screenshots the reporting student attached July 24, 2026 describing other students' ProctorU issues, not independently verified in this entry; {{HU|HU-185}}, {{HU|HU-186}}, {{HU|HU-187}}, and {{HU|HU-188}} (issues identified during the August 4, 2026 joint troubleshooting call); {{HU|HU-195}} (August 10, 2026 recurrence); {{HU|HU-197}} (September 2026 continuation and asthma related scheduling dispute).

=== HU-176: Herzing identifies Elsevier as the probable root cause of the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II software failure documented in HU-175 and waives the grade appeal requirement for the affected attempt ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Vendor Software Failure Acknowledged by Institution; Appeal Requirement Waived
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Danielle Laban / Herzing Academic Affairs / Elsevier
|}
'''Finding.''' Following the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II session documented in {{HU|HU-175}}, Dr. Danielle Laban wrote that Herzing believes the main issue occurred with Elsevier and that Herzing is collaborating with Elsevier to investigate and determine a resolution to prevent the issue from recurring. Dr. Laban further stated that the reporting student would not be required to go through the appeal process because he was impacted by a technical issue outside his control, and that Herzing would reach out for his desired testing window once a resolution is reached. This entry documents the institution's acknowledgment that a vendor side technical failure, not student error, caused the disruption, and that the standard grade appeal step was waived as a result. This pattern is consistent with the prior Elsevier score transmission issues already documented earlier in this tracker.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 16, 2026, 4:45 PM: statement that the main issue occurred with Elsevier, that Herzing is collaborating with Elsevier to investigate and resolve it, and that the appeal process would not be required because the impact was due to a technical issue outside the student's control.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>We believe that the main issue occurred with Elsevier. We will not require you to go through the appeal process since you were impacted by this technical issue by issues outside of your control.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable technology and vendor oversight). This entry is a positive institutional response and is logged primarily as evidence of a recurring pattern of Elsevier related exam and grading disruptions rather than as a new violation.

'''Impact.''' The waiver reduces immediate harm to the reporting student for this specific exam attempt. It does not by itself resolve the broader pattern of recurring Elsevier related technical failures during proctored and accommodated exams, or establish what corrective action, if any, will be implemented before the next scheduled attempt.

'''Notes.''' Request written confirmation once Herzing's investigation concludes, of the specific Elsevier root cause, the rescheduled testing window, and that no late grade or placeholder zero will apply in the interim.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Email, Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs) to the reporting student and others, Thu Jul 16, 2026, 4:45 PM.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-175}} (this entry's underlying exam session failure), {{HU|HU-177}} (conflicting appeal instructions arising from the same session), and the earlier Elsevier score transmission cluster documented earlier in this tracker.

=== HU-179: Following the June 5, 2026 CARES case denial documented in HU-155 and the reporting student's stated intent to file an OCR complaint, Dr. Nicole Franklin issued a written approval confirming Dr. Black approved a retake of the NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam based on ProctorU's admission of fault ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED as to the content of the approval letter and the ProctorU fault admission it quotes; the exact date of the letter and its chronological relationship to the June 5, 2026 denial documented in {{HU|HU-155}} has not been independently confirmed and is flagged as an open item rather than assumed
|-
! Issue type
| Retake Denial Apparently Reversed After Internal Escalation and OCR Complaint Threat; Vendor Fault Admission
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / ProctorU / Meazure Learning
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin wrote to the reporting student with what she described as a positive update on his Spring 2026 NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam appeal. She stated that Herzing had been contacted by ProctorU, which acknowledged that the technical issues during the exam were its responsibility, and quoted ProctorU as stating that Meazure Learning recognized the reporting student's testing experience was unsatisfactory due to a delayed start, required troubleshooting for a technical issue, and distracting noise that occurred at one point during the exam. Based on this, Dr. Franklin stated that Dr. Black, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, approved a retake of the NSG521 final exam, to be completed by Sunday, July 12, with the reporting student given the opportunity to choose his own four day testing window, to be communicated to Dr. Franklin by 5 PM on Tuesday, June 30, after which a ProctorU scheduling link would follow. This approval directly concerns the same NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam retake request that {{HU|HU-155}} documents as having been reviewed by Dr. Black and not approved, per Dr. Franklin's June 5, 2026 CARES case follow-up email, and that the reporting student responded to the same day by stating he would file an OCR complaint and request separate Kansas and Wisconsin Board of Nursing investigations if no further internal appeal steps existed. Whether this approval letter was issued before the June 5 denial, as a renewed request after it, or as a reversal prompted by the reporting student's escalation has not been confirmed from the documents reviewed, and the exact date of this letter is not stated in the material provided; this should be verified against the original email header before treating the sequence as a confirmed reversal.

'''Evidence.''' Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban), subject Spring 2026 NSG521 Final Exam appeal: statement that ProctorU contacted Herzing acknowledging responsibility for the technical issues, quoting Meazure Learning's statement, and confirming Dr. Black's approval of a retake with a stated testing window and response deadlines. Compare against Dr. Nicole Franklin's CARES Case Follow-up email, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM (documented in {{HU|HU-155}}), and the reporting student's June 5, 2026, 3:28 PM email stating his intent to file an OCR complaint and request Kansas and Wisconsin Board of Nursing investigations if no further internal appeal steps existed.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Meazure Learning recognizes the reporting student's testing experience was unsatisfactory due to the delayed start and required troubleshooting for a technical issue, as well as the distracting noise that occurred at one point during his exam.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including consistent and adequately explained decision making) and HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including consistency in communications to students). This entry does not allege retaliation or a confirmed policy violation; it documents that a stated denial and a subsequent approval concern the same exam retake request, and flags the timing relative to the reporting student's internal escalation and stated intent to seek external review as a fact worth verifying rather than a proven causal link. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12131 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, remain relevant given the reporting student's documented testing accommodations and the vendor's admitted role in the exam disruption, consistent with the framing already used in {{HU|HU-155}}.

'''Impact.''' If the retake was in fact denied on June 5 and then approved shortly after the reporting student raised the prospect of an OCR complaint and state board investigations, the sequence is worth documenting and monitoring for institutional consistency purposes, without this entry concluding that the approval was caused by the escalation. Positively, the eventual approval and completion of the retake did allow the reporting student's grade to be corrected, as reflected in {{HU|HU-180}} below. The unresolved question of whether {{HU|HU-155}}'s denial and this approval concern the identical request or two separate requests affects how the overall NSG521 exam dispute timeline should be read.

'''Notes.''' Recommend confirming the exact send date of the Spring 2026 NSG521 Final Exam appeal approval letter and reconciling it against the June 5, 2026 CARES case follow-up denial documented in {{HU|HU-155}}, to establish whether this is a reversal of that same denial or a response to a separate, later request.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin (cc Danielle Laban) to the reporting student, subject Spring 2026 NSG521 Final Exam appeal; compared against the June 5, 2026 CARES Case Follow-up email from Dr. Franklin (documented in {{HU|HU-155}}) and the reporting student's June 5, 2026, 3:28 PM reply stating his intent to file an OCR complaint and to ask the Kansas and Wisconsin Boards of Nursing to open investigations; provided by the reporting student.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-155}} (June 5, 2026 denial of the same NSG521 final exam retake request), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES case closure and legal hold request), {{HU|HU-159}} (NSG521 grade change from A to B and the open question of who authorized it, same course), {{HU|HU-180}} (instructor of record not notified of the resulting grade change).

=== HU-182: The reporting student's July 1, 2026 exam started over an hour late due to a ProctorU/Meazure Learning staffing error, which he identified as the seventh or eighth instance of a delayed exam start in the prior six months, citing five specific prior dates ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED as to the July 1, 2026 delay and Meazure Learning's own acknowledgment of a scheduling error; the characterization as the seventh or eighth such instance rests on the reporting student's own count and the five listed dates, which are CONFIRMED as dates he reports delays occurred but have not been independently corroborated against a separate proctoring log in this entry
|-
! Issue type
| Chronic ProctorU Staffing and Scheduling Failure Causing Repeated Delayed Exam Starts
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Testing and Accommodations
|}
'''Finding.''' Meazure Learning Compliance wrote to the reporting student acknowledging that he experienced a delay in being assigned a PRO Proctor and starting his July 1, 2026 exam administration, attributing it to an inadvertent scheduling error that caused an issue with PRO Proctor availability, apologizing for the inconvenience, and stating a commitment to ensuring PRO Proctor availability for future scheduled exams. Forwarding this response to Herzing ADA, Student Affairs, and Academic Operations staff, the reporting student stated that he started the exam over an hour late, that he would normally accept an isolated apology of this kind, but that this was the seventh or eighth time this had happened in the prior six months, and that simply not scheduling sufficient PRO Proctor staff when students schedule their exams is not acceptable. He listed five specific additional dates on which his exam had started late or been delayed: June 5, June 6, June 13, June 2, and May 4, 2026, and asked what Herzing and the vendor needed to do to ensure consistency. The June 6, 2026 date on this list corresponds to the weather-related no-show and reschedule-lock failure already documented in the {{HU|HU-163}} cluster, so at least one of the five listed dates is independently corroborated elsewhere in this tracker; the remaining four dates (May 4, June 2, June 5, June 13, 2026) are not yet separately documented as standalone entries and rest on the reporting student's own account as stated in this email.

'''Evidence.''' Email, Meazure Learning Compliance to the reporting student: acknowledgment of an inadvertent scheduling error causing PRO Proctor unavailability and delay for the July 1, 2026 exam, an apology, and a stated commitment to future availability. Email, the reporting student to Herzing ADA, Student Affairs, and Academic Operations staff: statement that the exam started over an hour late, that this was the seventh or eighth such instance in six months, and a list of five additional dates (2026-06-05, 2026-06-06, 2026-06-13, 2026-06-02, 2026-05-04) on which his exam started late or was delayed. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-163}} (the June 6, 2026 weather-related no-show and reschedule failure, one of the five listed dates).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Typically, I wouldn't have a problem with the response like this and would be understanding, but this is the seventh or eighth time this has happened in the last six months. Simply not scheduling people to be on staff when students schedule their exams is not acceptable.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including effective oversight of a contracted testing vendor) and, given the reporting student's documented testing accommodations, the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. Section 794), since unreliable proctor staffing has a disproportionate effect on a student who requires a PRO Proctor as part of an approved accommodation. A single delayed exam start, standing alone, would be a minor operational issue; a repeated pattern of seven or eight such instances in six months, if corroborated, would support a finding of a systemic vendor staffing and scheduling reliability failure rather than isolated incidents.

'''Impact.''' Repeated delayed exam starts disrupt testing conditions, consume accommodated testing time, and add to documented cumulative stress and administrative burden already reflected elsewhere in this tracker, including the appeals volume referenced in {{HU|HU-163e}}. If the pattern of seven or eight delayed starts in six months is corroborated, it would indicate the vendor's PRO Proctor staffing problem is ongoing and unresolved despite prior institutional awareness of at least the June 6, 2026 instance documented in {{HU|HU-163}}.

'''Notes.''' Recommend requesting from ProctorU/Meazure Learning or from Herzing a complete log of the reporting student's scheduled exam start times and any delays for the six-month period referenced, to independently corroborate the seven-or-eight-instance count and the four dates (May 4, June 2, June 5, June 13, 2026) not yet separately documented in this tracker.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Email, Meazure Learning Compliance to the reporting student, subject Fw: July 1, 2026 Exam Administration; forwarded by the reporting student to Herzing ADA, Student Affairs, and Academic Operations staff with a list of five additional delay dates; out-of-office auto-replies from Emilie Thompson and Shannon Bishop; provided by the reporting student.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-163}} and its sub-issues {{HU|HU-163a}} through {{HU|HU-163e}} (the June 6, 2026 weather-related no-show and reschedule-lock failure, one of the five dates listed here), {{HU|HU-163e}} (Notes updated 2026-07-17 to reference this entry); {{HU|HU-187}} (cumulative examination scheduling compression resulting from this pattern of delays and disruptions, added 2026-08-04).

=== HU-187: Cumulative vendor caused examination disruptions have compressed a semester of examinations into approximately three weeks, with a fourth examination cancelled on August 4, 2026 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED as to the reporting student's account of his examination schedule, stated on the call in the presence of Dr. Danielle Laban and not disputed by her on the call; the schedule has not been independently verified against Herzing's records in this entry
|-
! Issue type
| Cumulative Rescheduling Burden Compressing Examination Schedule
! Date added
| 2026-08-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs); Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair); Herzing academic leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' On the August 4, 2026 call, the reporting student stated that as a result of the accumulated examination disruptions he faced an examination that day, which was then cancelled during the call, a rescheduled examination the following Monday, a further makeup examination the week after arising from an examination he was unable to attempt while the underlying defect remained unresolved, and two additional examinations the week after that. He stated that he was concerned this compression would affect his performance, and characterized it as unfair that examinations originally distributed across an entire semester were being concentrated into approximately three weeks. He also stated that clinical obligations occupied the remainder of the week of August 4, 2026, leaving no availability until the following week. Dr. Danielle Laban, who was present on the call at that point, indicated the examination would be cancelled and rescheduled on the back end so that the reporting student would not be subject to the vendor's seventy two hour rescheduling restriction, and asked the reporting student to send his available windows. This entry documents the cumulative academic consequence of the disruptions individually documented elsewhere in this tracker.

'''Evidence.''' Recorded call and transcript, August 4, 2026: the reporting student's enumeration of his upcoming examination schedule, his statement regarding clinical obligations for the remainder of that week, his statement of concern about the compression, and Dr. Laban's statements that she would arrange rescheduling on the back end and asked him to send available windows.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>These are starting to add up and pile up, and I'm really nervous that this is going to be like, I'm gonna struggle because this is not fair that I'm having to take exams that were supposed to be done over the entire semester, and like a matter of three weeks.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, and 34 C.F.R. Section 104.44, insofar as the compression arises from repeated failures to deliver approved accommodations rather than from any act of the student. HLC Criterion 3.D (student support) and 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability) are also potentially relevant. This entry is framed as a documented cumulative burden and a risk to academic performance, not as an asserted finding that the reporting student has been academically harmed, which has not been established.

'''Impact.''' Concentrating a semester of high stakes examinations into approximately three weeks, for a student who also carries clinical and virtual clinical obligations, creates a substantial risk to examination performance that is attributable to institutional and vendor failures rather than to the student. This compounds the documented stress and anxiety already recorded in this tracker, including the panic attack the reporting student documented during a July 21, 2026 support call.

'''Notes.''' Recommend requesting written confirmation from Herzing of the final rescheduled examination dates, written confirmation that no late penalty or placeholder grade will apply, and written confirmation of the position Dr. Laban stated on the call that the vendor's seventy two hour rescheduling restriction will not be applied to these rescheduled attempts. The reporting student's stated schedule should be reconciled against Herzing's records before being relied upon in any filing.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Recorded video call, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who joined near the end of the call; transcript provided by the reporting student. Speaker attribution in the automated transcript is inconsistent and the same speaker is labeled variously; the substance is clear but individual lines should be attributed by reference to the underlying recording rather than to transcript speaker labels.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-175}} (accessibility failure cluster), {{HU|HU-182}} (chronic vendor proctor staffing delays), {{HU|HU-163}} and its sub-issues (weather related no-show and the resulting appeals burden), {{HU|HU-186}} (accommodation gesture and integrity flag exposure).

=== HU-188: The calculator within the HESI compatibility check returned an incorrect arithmetic result during joint testing ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED as to the observed behavior in the compatibility check environment; the Elsevier representative stated the calculator delivered within live examinations is a different and updated version, which has not been independently verified
|-
! Issue type
| Vendor Software Defect, Incorrect Calculator Output
! Date added
| 2026-08-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Elsevier / HESI product team
|}
'''Finding.''' While testing the HESI compatibility check environment on August 4, 2026, the reporting student entered two plus two into the built in calculator and received a result of one. The Elsevier representative responded that this was likely the legacy calculator, stated that the calculator available within live examinations had been updated after known accuracy problems, and said he would raise the observation with his product manager. This entry documents a vendor software quality defect observed in the testing environment. Because the representative stated the in-examination calculator is a different, updated build, this defect is not established to affect scored examinations, and should not be characterized as having affected any of the reporting student's examination results absent further verification.

'''Evidence.''' Recorded call and transcript, August 4, 2026: the reporting student's demonstration of the calculator returning one for two plus two, and the Elsevier representative's response attributing it to the legacy calculator, referencing prior known accuracy issues with it, and committing to raise it with the product manager.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>If I go into the calculator and I hit 2 plus 2, it comes out with one. [Elsevier representative:] That might be the old calculator. There was some issues with it not working accurately.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including oversight of vendors delivering core academic functions). This entry is logged primarily as vendor quality assurance evidence supporting the broader pattern of Elsevier and ProctorU technical defects documented in this tracker, rather than as an independent violation.

'''Impact.''' Minimal direct impact on the reporting student, since the defect was observed in a compatibility check rather than a scored examination and the vendor states the live calculator is a different build. The entry is retained as pattern evidence of vendor software quality issues affecting the examination platform, and as a prompt to verify that the calculator used in the reporting student's accommodated examinations is in fact the updated build.

'''Notes.''' Recommend requesting written confirmation from Elsevier or Herzing that the calculator delivered in the reporting student's scored examinations is the updated build, and that no prior examination he sat used the defective legacy calculator. This has not been verified.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Recorded video call, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who joined near the end of the call; transcript provided by the reporting student. Speaker attribution in the automated transcript is inconsistent and the same speaker is labeled variously; the substance is clear but individual lines should be attributed by reference to the underlying recording rather than to transcript speaker labels.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-185}} (secure browser security defects observed on the same call), {{HU|HU-175}} (accessibility failure cluster and August 4, 2026 root cause finding).

=== HU-195: On August 10, 2026, the reporting student was launched into an exam that Elsevier confirmed was not the exam he was scheduled to take, and screen magnification and the text reader failed again even though Herzing had represented on August 4, 2026 that the newer secure browser resolved that failure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED. Elsevier's own representative confirmed in writing that the exam launched was not the original exam
|-
! Issue type
| Wrong Examination Launched by Vendor; Recurrence of Accessibility Failure After Represented Fix; Cumulative Exam Scheduling Pressure
! Date added
| 2026-08-11
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Elsevier/HESI (Thomas Kistner, Meazure Learning coordination) / Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs)
|}
'''Finding.''' On August 10, 2026, the reporting student attempted a scheduled exam and reported that the system started him at question one rather than allowing him to resume, and that screen zoom and the audio text reader malfunctioned, with the reader stopping after a single word. He submitted a video recording demonstrating that the command-plus zoom shortcut did not work. Thomas Kistner, Elsevier's Customer Advocate, confirmed in writing that the exam the reporting student had been launched into was not his original scheduled exam, and separately confirmed that the reporting student's slow keys setting remained disabled, consistent with the settings verified during the August 4, 2026 troubleshooting call documented in {{HU|HU-175}}. The reporting student noted the exams may have been scheduled in reverse and stated this recurrence directly contradicts Herzing's August 4, 2026 representation, following that same troubleshooting call, that the newer secure browser had resolved the zoom and accessibility failure, with no indication a different, unfixed browser build was in use. The reporting student further stated that as a result of the accumulating disruptions he now faced four exams in the following two weeks alongside a virtual clinical make up and normal coursework, that he would not overwhelm himself by attempting multiple exams in the same week, and that he would not complete exams during the scheduled student break. In a same day follow up email, the reporting student told Dr. Laban and Kistner that if the issue was not resolved his upcoming final exams, worth a significant portion of his grade, would need to be pushed back, potentially into the following semester. Dr. Laban responded that she was working internally with the team to investigate and would follow up the next day.

'''Evidence.''' Email, the reporting student to Dr. Laban, Emilie Thompson, ADA, cc Thomas Kistner and Dr. Prashad, August 10, 2026, subject Exam, with an attached video recording (20260810_104632.mp4) demonstrating the failed zoom attempt. Email, Thomas Kistner, August 10, 2026: confirmation that the reporting student's exam session was investigated with Meazure Learning and that the exam launched was not the original exam, and confirmation that slow keys remained disabled. Email, the reporting student, same date: statement that the exams may have been scheduled in reverse and continued inability to zoom or use the text reader. Email, the reporting student to Dr. Laban, Thomas Kistner, ADA, and Emilie Thompson, subject Follow Up, August 10, 2026: statement that without a resolution his final exams would need to be pushed back and might roll into the following semester, and that he would not test during the student break. Email, Dr. Laban, same date: acknowledgment that she was investigating internally and would follow up the next day.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Correct, the exam you launched into was not the original exam. [Thomas Kistner, Elsevier, Aug 10, 2026] ... I am still unable to zoom in or out or have the text reader work. [the reporting student, Aug 10, 2026]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12181 et seq., are implicated by the recurrence of the accessibility failure. This entry is significant chiefly because it directly contradicts the resolution Herzing represented on August 4, 2026 in the correspondence underlying {{HU|HU-175}}, that the newer secure browser resolved the zoom and text reader failure. A representation that a fix has been implemented, followed by an unexplained recurrence of the identical failure under the same verified settings, undermines reliance on that representation and should be treated as an open, unresolved defect rather than a resolved one going forward. The wrong exam launch is a separate administrative/technical control failure implicating 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable vendor oversight).

'''Impact.''' The reporting student was unable to complete a scheduled exam due to a vendor error in exam assignment, and separately experienced a recurrence of the accessibility failure that Herzing had represented as fixed six days earlier. The cumulative effect, four exams in two weeks, an unresolved accessibility failure, and a stated need to push final exams into the following semester, places the reporting student's academic progression at risk for reasons entirely attributable to vendor and institutional failures rather than his own performance.

'''Notes.''' Recommend requesting a written, technical explanation from Elsevier of how a student can be launched into an exam other than the one scheduled, and whether this reflects a systemic scheduling defect beyond the reporting student's account. Recommend also requesting written confirmation of whether the new secure browser fix represented on August 4, 2026 was in fact in use during this August 10, 2026 attempt; if it was and still failed, that materially changes the reliability of Herzing's proposed remediation for {{HU|HU-175}}.

Student: The reporting student.

Source Group: Email thread, subject Exam, between the reporting student, Thomas Kistner (Elsevier/HESI Customer Advocate), Dr. Danielle Laban, Emilie Thompson, and ADA, cc Dr. Raywattie Prashad, August 10, 2026; and email thread, subject Follow Up, between the reporting student, Thomas Kistner, and Dr. Danielle Laban, August 10, 2026.

Cross-References: {{HU|HU-175}} (the accessibility failure cluster; this entry directly contradicts the August 4, 2026 resolution documented there and should be read as a continuation), {{HU|HU-187}} (cumulative examination scheduling compression), {{HU|HU-192}} (related materials access dispute in the same period), {{HU|HU-197}} (the September 2026 asthma related exam scheduling dispute that follows this same compressed schedule).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance

2026-09-15T16:37:05Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern whether Herzing's prelicensure nursing program meets state Board of Nursing (BON) requirements and whether the institution disclosed and managed those requirements properly. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This topic covers seven tracker entries: {{HU|HU-070}}, the lead record {{HU|HU-085}} and its four lettered sub-issues {{HU|HU-085a}} through {{HU|HU-085d}}, and {{HU|HU-094}}. All seven are CONFIRMED. Four are rated Critical ({{HU|HU-070}}, {{HU|HU-085}}, {{HU|HU-085a}}, {{HU|HU-085b}}) and three are rated High ({{HU|HU-085c}}, {{HU|HU-085d}}, {{HU|HU-094}}). All seven were added to the tracker on 2026-05-05, with {{HU|HU-085}} split into its lettered parts on 2026-06-06. The underlying source posts span Facebook group activity from November 2024 through May 2026, including December 2025 and April 2026 evidence, drawn from Volumes 6 and 7 of the group export.

The recurring thread is that Herzing repeatedly did not know, or did not act on, state-specific licensure requirements until a student or a state board forced the issue. {{HU|HU-070}} documents that Herzing was unaware of Virginia's 500 direct-care clinical hour requirement until a prospective student threatened to contact the Virginia Board of Nursing, and an enrolled Virginia student had to advocate for her own hour correction. {{HU|HU-085a}} documents a parallel pattern in Alabama, where the Board of Nursing required final-semester students to complete 24 additional in-person hours at UAB before they could sit for the NCLEX, and where, according to the tracker's evidence, only certain clinical coordinators (not top administrators) were aware of the gap until a student threatened legal action.

The remaining sub-issues extend the pattern into enrollment management and disclosure. {{HU|HU-085b}} records a freeze on new prelicensure enrollment from six states (Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota), attributed by Herzing to full capacity. {{HU|HU-085c}} records a Georgia enrollment pause in the same window. {{HU|HU-085d}} records disclosure concerns in additional states, including Florida, New York, and California, alongside the Virginia issue already tracked in {{HU|HU-070}}. {{HU|HU-094}} documents a separate but related consequence for Alabama graduates: Authorization to Test (ATT) waits exceeding 90 days after graduation, roughly triple the typical timeline, which delays NCLEX eligibility and employment. Owners named across the cluster include the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, Compliance, the Office of the Registrar, Enrollment, and State Relations, indicating the pattern crosses multiple institutional functions rather than sitting with a single department.

== Issues ==
=== HU-070: Herzing was unaware of Virginia Board of Nursing 500 direct-care hour requirement and adjusted hours only after a prospective student threatened to contact the VA BON; existing VA student had to advocate for proper hour count herself ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| State Licensure Requirement Compliance Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Compliance / Office of the Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Herzing University was not aware of the Virginia Board of Nursing requirement that out-of-state nursing programs provide at least 500 direct-care clinical hours (with no more than 125 hours of simulation) for Virginia students to be eligible for NCLEX licensure by examination. Herzing only agreed to adjust clinical hours for Virginia students after a prospective student (Student BT) threatened to contact the Virginia Board of Nursing. A current Virginia student had to independently advocate for the hour adjustment she should have automatically received. Some students reportedly left the program after being unable to find adequate Virginia-compliant clinical placement.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook posts by Student BT (Nov 14, 2024, and Jan 26, 2025) describe waiting weeks for a response from the school about Virginia's eligibility requirement for the NCLEX, and state that Virginia requires out-of-state nursing programs to complete 500 direct-care clinical hours with no more than 125 of those hours in simulation. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BT states that Herzing did not know it needed to give Virginia students more clinical hours, since Virginia will not allow licensure if too many clinical hours are simulation hours, and that Herzing did not know this until Student BT told them. Student BT reports that Herzing then agreed to adjust clinical hours for Virginia students only after students said they were contacting the Virginia Board of Nursing, and that a Virginia student ultimately had to tell Herzing to add clinical hours because Herzing had given the wrong hour count.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v): institutions must publicly disclose whether the program meets state educational requirements for professional licensure or certification in each state, and must determine for each enrolled student whether the program meets the licensure requirements in the student's state. U.S. Department of Education Distance Education Rule (effective July 1, 2024): distance education programs or correspondence courses offered to a student in a state different from where the nursing program is located must determine that the program meets the licensure and certification requirements in the state where each student is located at the time of initial enrollment. Virginia Board of Nursing 18 VAC 90-27 (Nursing education programs): out-of-state programs must provide 500 direct-care clinical hours with no more than 125 hours of simulation for Virginia students to be eligible for the NCLEX. NCSBN and USDE compliance framework: failure to determine state-specific licensure requirements before enrollment exposes students to NCLEX ineligibility despite program completion. ACEN Standard 4: program requirements must be aligned with state regulatory standards.

'''Impact.''' Virginia students who completed Herzing's program with the standard clinical hour structure (which heavily relies on VSIM simulation hours) may have been ineligible for NCLEX licensure in Virginia despite paying tuition and completing the program. The institution's reactive, rather than proactive, response to the Virginia requirement (adjusting hours only after threat of regulatory contact) suggests other state-specific licensure requirements may also be unknown to Herzing administration. Students from other states with strict simulation-cap requirements, such as Florida, Texas, and California, may face similar undetected ineligibility risks. Some students reportedly left the program due to inability to find Virginia-compliant clinical placement.

'''Notes.''' This issue intersects with {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-033}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, {{HU|HU-049}} (clinical placement deficiencies) and {{HU|HU-022}}, {{HU|HU-046}}, {{HU|HU-058}} (institutional misrepresentation). The pattern of learning about state requirements only when a student raises them, and adjusting policy only under threat of regulatory contact, is a fundamental compliance failure under 34 CFR 668.43. Verification should include: (1) what other state-specific licensure requirements Herzing is unaware of, (2) whether students who already graduated had adequate state-specific clinical hours, and (3) whether Herzing has formally documented state-by-state licensure eligibility determinations as required by the July 1, 2024 USDE rule. The student who advocated for the Virginia hour adjustment did so without institutional initiative, which the tracker characterizes as a violation of the institution's duty to determine licensure eligibility before enrollment.

=== HU-085: Lead: multi-state Board of Nursing and enrollment problems (Alabama clinical-hour enforcement blocking NCLEX, a six-state enrollment freeze, a Georgia pause, and licensure-disclosure concerns in additional states); see HU-085a through HU-085d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (multi-state BON enforcement and enrollment)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Compliance / Dean of Nursing / State Relations
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for multi-state Board of Nursing and enrollment problems documented in the Facebook group export (Volume 7). The issue is tracked separately as {{HU|HU-085a}} (Alabama BON enforcement of insufficient in-person clinical hours, requiring final-semester Alabama students to complete 24 additional hours at UAB before they could sit for the NCLEX), {{HU|HU-085b}} (a freeze on new prelicensure enrollment from six states, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, citing full enrollment capacity), {{HU|HU-085c}} (a Georgia enrollment pause from April to May 2026), and {{HU|HU-085d}} (licensure-disclosure concerns in additional states, including Virginia, Florida, New York, and California). Across these, at least ten states have documented BON or enrollment issues. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' This significantly extends {{HU|HU-070}}. The reporting student is located in one of the six frozen states. The lead was split into lettered sub-issues on 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-085}} resolve here. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review (Volume 7). Parts: {{HU|HU-085a}}, {{HU|HU-085b}}, {{HU|HU-085c}}, {{HU|HU-085d}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia BON direct-care hours).

=== HU-085a: Alabama Board of Nursing enforcement of insufficient in-person clinical hours required final-semester Alabama students to complete 24 additional hours at UAB before they could sit for NCLEX ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| State BON Enforcement Blocking NCLEX Eligibility
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Compliance / Dean of Nursing / Clinical Coordination
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Alabama Board of Nursing was enforcing a minimum in-person clinical-hour requirement that the program's virtual clinical hours did not satisfy. Final-semester Alabama students were required to complete 24 additional hours at UAB before they could sit for the NCLEX. A student who went to the Alabama Board of Nursing in person reported being told the institution had long known, that only certain clinical coordinators (not top administrators) were aware, and that action followed only after the student threatened legal action and emailed everyone.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 10 (April 4, 2026), reporting an in-person visit to the Alabama Board of Nursing; Handle 4 (April 3, 2026), corroborating that Alabama students could not sit for the NCLEX because of the virtual clinical hours; Anonymous member 441 (December 28, 2025), referencing Alabama Board of Nursing issues. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Handle 10 reports being told by the Alabama Board of Nursing that Herzing had long known about the requirement and should have addressed it, and that none of Herzing's top administrators were aware of it, only certain clinical coordinators. Handle 10 states that action was taken only after threatening legal action and emailing everyone. Handle 4 separately reports that Alabama students could not sit for the NCLEX because of the virtual clinical hours.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 6 (program outcomes include NCLEX eligibility and passage); NCSBN Model Nursing Practice Act (state boards may refuse NCLEX eligibility if program requirements are not met); Alabama Board of Nursing regulations on minimum in-person direct-care hours; 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v) (disclosure of whether a program meets state licensure requirements). Lead: {{HU|HU-085}}. Extends {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia direct-care hours).

'''Impact.''' Alabama students who completed the program could not sit for the NCLEX without completing additional hours at UAB that are not part of the program curriculum, an unexpected cost in time and money. The report that only certain clinical coordinators knew indicates a systemic internal communication failure on a Board of Nursing compliance gap affecting the institution's own students.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-085}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-085b: Herzing froze new prelicensure nursing enrollment from six states (Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota), citing full enrollment capacity ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Multi-State Enrollment Freeze
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Compliance / Enrollment / State Relations
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, as of December 2025 Herzing officially froze new prelicensure nursing enrollment from Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, attributing the freeze to full enrollment capacity.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 5 (December 20, 2025), quoting Herzing's official statement. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>At this time, we have reached full enrollment capacity for prelicensure nursing students from Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. We carefully manage enrollment to ensure a high-quality educational experience for every student.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v) (state licensure disclosure); 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation, where a stated reason may not match an underlying licensure or compliance reason). Lead: {{HU|HU-085}}.

'''Impact.''' Prospective students in the six frozen states cannot currently enroll even if academically eligible. If the stated full-capacity rationale does not match an underlying licensure or compliance reason, the explanation itself is a transparency concern. The reporting student is located in one of the frozen states.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-085}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-085c: Georgia prelicensure enrollment was paused by April to May 2026 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| State Enrollment Pause
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Compliance / Enrollment / State Relations
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, by April to May 2026 Georgia prelicensure enrollment was paused, with one member referencing having gone through a process with Alabama to appease the state Board of Nursing alongside the Georgia situation.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 6 (April 3, 2026) and an anonymous member (May 4, 2026), noting Georgia was paused; Anonymous member 441 (December 28, 2025), referencing Georgia and Alabama. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' One member referenced Georgia and Alabama and stated having just gone through a process with Alabama to appease the state Board of Nursing.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v) (state licensure disclosure). Lead: {{HU|HU-085}}.

'''Impact.''' A Georgia pause further narrows the states in which prospective students can enroll and signals additional state-level regulatory pressure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-085}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-085d: Licensure-disclosure concerns in additional states (Virginia, Florida, New York, California) about whether completing the program satisfies state Board of Nursing requirements ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| State Licensure Disclosure Concern
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Compliance / State Relations
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, beyond the frozen states and Alabama, members documented licensure-disclosure concerns in additional states: Virginia (tracked in {{HU|HU-070}}), Florida (screenshots showing the MSN-DE program not listed on the Florida Board of Nursing website), and New York and California (a member answering No when asked whether the program is accredited there).

'''Evidence.''' Student CC (December 9, 2024), posting four screenshots showing the MSN-DE program not listed on the Florida Board of Nursing website; Anonymous member 938 (February 9, 2025), answering No when asked whether the program is accredited in New York and California; {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia BON direct-care hours). Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous member 938 answered No when asked whether the program is accredited in New York and California.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v) (institutions must disclose whether a program meets licensure requirements in each state where students are located); 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation). Lead: {{HU|HU-085}}. See {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia).

'''Impact.''' Students in these states face potential confusion about whether completing the program satisfies their state Board of Nursing licensure pathway, with the associated risk of enrolling without a clear licensure route.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-085}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. The Florida and New York and California items are member-reported and should be verified against current state Board of Nursing listings.

=== HU-094: Authorization to Test (ATT) wait times exceeding 90 days in Alabama post-graduation; Student AH (veteran) documented 90+ day wait; delays post-graduation NCLEX eligibility and employment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Post-Graduation NCLEX Eligibility Delay
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Registrar / Compliance / State BON Liaison
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student AH (Jul 13, 2025), a veteran, documented an Authorization to Test (ATT) wait exceeding 90 days in Alabama following program completion. Student BJ noted that some states offer a two-week priority ATT process for veterans and military spouses, but Student V, a military spouse, confirmed that not every state offers this and reported waiting almost a month. Student AH's 90+ day wait is approximately triple the typical timeline. During this window, graduates cannot take the NCLEX, cannot obtain licensure, cannot begin employment as an RN, and are servicing student loan debt without income. This delay is compounded by the Alabama Board of Nursing enforcement issues documented in {{HU|HU-085}}, where virtual clinical hours were insufficient for NCLEX eligibility, requiring 24 additional UAB hours that would further extend the post-graduation timeline for affected Alabama students.

'''Evidence.''' Student AH (Jul 13, 2025), reporting a wait approaching 90 days in Alabama and identifying as a veteran; Student BJ (Jul 12, 2025), noting a typical one-month wait with two-week priority for veterans and spouses; Student V (Jul 12, 2025), a military spouse, reporting that not every state offers priority processing and that she still waited almost a month; an anonymous member (Jul 13, 2025), also in Alabama, expressing reluctance to wait another three months after graduation; Anonymous member 601 (Jul 23, 2025), asking whether others in Alabama had taken the LPN NCLEX mid-program to begin working sooner, indicating Alabama students actively seeking workarounds to the ATT delay. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AH reports being at nearly 90 days waiting on the ATT in Alabama and identifies as a veteran.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v): institutions must disclose whether their programs lead to licensure in specific states on a timely basis; if the institution is aware that Alabama's ATT process takes 90+ days for its graduates, this timeline should be disclosed to prospective Alabama students. 38 U.S.C. 3452 (GI Bill): veterans using VA educational benefits have a protected interest in timely access to their chosen career pathway, and a 90+ day post-graduation delay in NCLEX eligibility may implicate VA benefit usage review. NCSBN NCLEX Candidate Rules: state boards control ATT issuance, but institutional delays in transcript submission or record certification can extend state processing timelines, and the institution bears responsibility for ensuring timely submission of all required documentation to state boards upon student graduation.

'''Impact.''' A 90+ day ATT gap means Student AH graduated as an MSN and then waited three or more months before being eligible to take the NCLEX. During that period, student loan repayment obligations began, employment as an RN was impossible, and the investment of approximately $60,000-$95,000 in tuition produced no employable credential for 90+ additional days. For veterans and military families, this timeline may affect housing allowance calculations, VA benefit periods, and employment transitions. The Alabama-specific context is further complicated by {{HU|HU-085}}: Alabama students who needed to complete 24 additional UAB hours to satisfy Board of Nursing in-person hour requirements would face an even longer post-graduation gap before ATT issuance.

'''Notes.''' The ATT delay may be partially attributable to the Alabama Board of Nursing's heightened scrutiny of Herzing's program, documented in {{HU|HU-085}}. If the Board is conducting additional review of Herzing graduates' clinical hour compliance before issuing ATT authorization, individual students bear the consequences of a systemic institutional compliance problem. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama BON enforcement, virtual hour limits, NCLEX ineligibility), {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia BON direct-care hour requirement). Verification: institutional records of time-to-ATT by state, documentation of transcript submission timelines to the Alabama Board of Nursing post-graduation.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records

2026-09-15T16:37:04Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern grading practices, grade changes, exam weighting, and the accuracy of academic records. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers seventeen tracker entries dated from April 30, 2026 through July 17, 2026, though the underlying evidence spans further back, including Facebook posts and gradebook screenshots from late 2024 and early 2025. Four entries are rated Critical ({{HU|HU-045}}, {{HU|HU-045a}}, {{HU|HU-074}}, {{HU|HU-083}}), eight are rated High ({{HU|HU-045b}}, {{HU|HU-057}}, {{HU|HU-088}}, {{HU|HU-118}}, {{HU|HU-124}}, {{HU|HU-126}}, {{HU|HU-159}}, {{HU|HU-168c}}), and five are rated Medium ({{HU|HU-012}}, {{HU|HU-099}}, {{HU|HU-101}}, {{HU|HU-164e}}, {{HU|HU-180}}). Fifteen entries are CONFIRMED and two ({{HU|HU-012}} and {{HU|HU-164e}}) remain POSSIBLE, meaning they are reported concerns pending further verification.

One recurring thread is the escalation of HESI exam weighting and structure across cohorts: {{HU|HU-074}} traces HESI weighting rising from roughly 20 percent to 82 percent of a course grade over about eighteen months, {{HU|HU-083}} documents the elimination of the Milestones retake system in September 2024 alongside that escalation, {{HU|HU-088}} documents HESI content that students and faculty say does not match what was taught, and {{HU|HU-101}} documents a further change adding two more graded HESI exams in the final semester for the Spring 2026 cohort. A second thread concerns individual grading and appeal failures owned by specific faculty and administrators: {{HU|HU-045}} and its sub-issues {{HU|HU-045a}} and {{HU|HU-045b}} cover an ungraded makeup clinical and a failed escalation to the Dean, {{HU|HU-118}} covers a zero issued for a screenshot formatting problem later shown to be an unclear instruction, {{HU|HU-124}} covers a faculty member deducting points for reference links that were actually present in the submission, and {{HU|HU-126}} covers a quiz deadline set 23 hours earlier than announced. A third thread concerns the integrity of academic records themselves: {{HU|HU-012}} flags seven or more simultaneous grade changes with no explanation, {{HU|HU-168c}} documents a 69 percentage point course grade drop captured in two screenshots 15 seconds apart, and {{HU|HU-159}} and {{HU|HU-180}} together document an official transcript grade of A in NSG 521 that later became a B on an unofficial transcript, along with the multi step grade change process that may partly explain how that happened.

The owners named across these entries recur consistently: the Program Chair, the Dean of Nursing or Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, and Academic Affairs appear on more than half the entries, with named faculty (Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Stacey Gombar, Dr. Tanetshia Brown, Dr. Kellie Soles, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN) and the Office of the Registrar appearing on the remainder. Two entries ({{HU|HU-012}} and {{HU|HU-164e}}) are reported concerns rather than confirmed findings and are worded accordingly below.

== Issues ==

=== HU-012: Seven+ NSG520 assignment grades changed simultaneously within a 5-minute window on October 14, 2025 with no documented explanation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Grading Transparency
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | NSG520 Faculty / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, seven or more NSG520 assignment grades were changed simultaneously within a five minute window on October 14, 2025, with no documented explanation on record.

'''Evidence.''' Seven or more "Grade Changed" notification emails for NSG520 Pathophysiology and Pharmacology, all re-graded between 4:03 PM and 4:08 PM on October 14, 2025. Source group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' The tracker's evidence consists of seven successive grade-change notifications for NSG520 assignments, all re-graded within that same five minute window.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: grading policies must be communicated clearly and applied consistently. Mass simultaneous retroactive grade changes without documented rationale or student notification are a transparency concern.

'''Impact.''' Without documented rationale, students and accreditors cannot verify whether the grade changes were appropriate, constituted a curve, corrected an error, or applied a policy change.

'''Notes.''' Could be a legitimate curve or error correction, but the simultaneous timing and absence of explanation requires verification.

=== HU-045: Lead: Student P failed Clinical I after a faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical that was submitted before the grade deadline, causing a failure by under three points and academic probation; escalation to the Dean produced no resolution; see HU-045a, HU-045b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (faculty grading failure, failed escalation)
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for a Clinical I failure reported by Student P (Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe, March 5, 2025). The tracked problems are {{HU|HU-045a}} (a faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical submitted before final grades were due, producing a failure by under three points and academic probation) and {{HU|HU-045b}} (escalation to the Dean and others produced no resolution, leaving the student without effective recourse). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Source group: multiple GroupMe archives, including Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (January to June 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (January to April 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

'''Notes.''' Split into lettered sub-issues on 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-045}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-045a}}, {{HU|HU-045b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-016}} (unmonitored grade-appeal inbox).

=== HU-045a: A faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical that was submitted before the grade deadline, causing a Clinical I failure by under three points and academic probation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Non-Responsiveness / Course Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student P reported that she had to make up a virtual clinical, that the makeup fell the day before final grades were due, and that her professor did not respond to or grade the assignment, which caused her to fail Clinical I by less than three points and be placed on academic probation.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (March 5, 2025), Student P. Source group: Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe.

'''Reported statement.''' Student P states that she failed the class because she had to make up a virtual clinical that fell the day before final grades were due, and that her professor did not respond to or grade her assignment, which caused her to fail by less than three points.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (timely faculty feedback and fair grading); Handbook page 20 (grade-appeal procedures); institutional duty of fair grading: when work is submitted before the deadline and a faculty member does not grade it before grades are due, a resulting failure is attributable to institutional failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-045}}.

'''Impact.''' The student failed a clinical course, was placed on academic probation, and had to repeat an entire clinical course because a timely submission was not graded before the deadline.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-045}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-045b: Escalation to the Dean and others produced no resolution, leaving the student without effective recourse after the grading failure ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Administrative Non-Response / Lack of Recourse
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, after the failure the student reported reaching out to everyone, including the Dean, and that nothing was done. Combined with an unmonitored grade-appeal channel, the non-response left the student without effective recourse.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (March 5, 2025), Student P. Source group: Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe.

'''Reported statement.''' Student P states that she reached out to everyone, including the Dean, and that nothing was done.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 and Handbook page 20 (grade-appeal procedures must be accessible and responsive). A lack of response to a direct escalation, alongside an unmonitored appeals inbox, removes effective recourse. Lead: {{HU|HU-045}}. See {{HU|HU-016}} (unmonitored grade-appeal inbox).

'''Impact.''' A student facing an erroneous failure had no functioning channel to obtain review, which compounded the underlying grading failure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-045}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-016}}.

=== HU-057: Identical Sherpath lessons assigned in both Clinical II (NSG525) and Medical Surgical Nursing I (NSG523) with same due date but different grading schemes (Pass/Fail vs. Scored) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Duplicate Assignment Across Courses / Grading Inconsistency
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Curriculum Director / Elsevier (Sherpath)
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, identical Sherpath lessons, including "Professional Nursing Practice and Its Influences," "Patient-Centered Care and Interprofessional Partnerships," and "Safety, Quality Improvement, Informatics, and Evidence-Based Practice" (all Chapter 1, Professional Nursing), appear as required graded assignments in both Clinical II (NSG525-7E) and Medical Surgical Nursing I (NSG523-7E) at the same time, with the same due date (May 10, 2026) but different grading schemes: Pass/Fail in NSG525 and Scored in NSG523.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot of the Sherpath course plan for Clinical II (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16 (2026-05-04): three lessons from Chapter 1, all due May 10, 2026, graded Pass/Fail. Screenshot of the Sherpath course plan for Medical Surgical Nursing I (NSG523-7E), 2026 Summer C16: the same three lessons, all due May 10, 2026, graded Scored; NSG523 additionally contains a 50 question Adaptive EAQ not present in NSG525. Source group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' The Sherpath screenshots confirm identical lesson titles listed as required assignments in both NSG525-7E and NSG523-7E, with identical due dates of May 10, 2026, but different grading designations.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: course content must be accurately described and consistently applied. ACEN Standard 5: workload assigned must be appropriate to credit hours. 34 CFR 600.2 (credit hour definition): credit hours must reflect a reasonable approximation of work expected per unit of credit.

'''Impact.''' Students enrolled in both NSG525 and NSG523 in Summer C16 are required to complete the same three Sherpath lessons twice, once for a Pass/Fail grade and once for a Scored grade, without doubling learning. The duplicate assignment structure compounds the risk that a platform failure will cause double credit loss.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath chronic platform failures) and {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content). The duplicate structure may be a Sherpath course configuration error rather than an intentional curriculum decision.

=== HU-074: HESI exam grade weighting escalated mid-program: 45% in Fall 2024 to 75% in late 2024 to 82% in 2025 cohort Pharmacology (gradebook screenshot evidence: 1,700 of 2,059 total points) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Program Grade Weighting Escalation
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the weight of HESI and final exams in MSN-DE course grades was progressively escalated mid-program without prospective student notification: from approximately 20 percent early in the program, to 45 percent by October 2024, to 75 percent as reported in September 2024, to 82 percent shown in a Spring 2025 Pharmacology gradebook screenshot with HESI exams worth 1,700 of 2,059 total points. Students who enrolled with one grading expectation are being graded under materially different and increasingly unforgiving rules.

'''Evidence.''' A Facebook post from an anonymous member (September 9, 2024) reported that exams and HESI would soon be worth 75 percent of grades. A student pseudonymously identified as Student H (October 25, 2024) reported disagreeing with a new grade weight policy raising final exams to 45 percent of grade in each course. Another student, Student BL (October 20, 2024), said the school could surely do a better job prepping students for the HESI final exam that is worth 45 percent of the grade. Student D (February 20, 2025) posted a screenshot of the Pharmacology Canvas gradebook showing 2,059 total points for the class, with exams (HESI) accounting for 1,700 of those points: HESI exam 1 worth 450 points, HESI exam 2 worth 450 points, and the HESI final worth 800 points, for a total of 82 percent of the course grade, from a student in the cohort that started January 6, 2025. Student N (February 15, 2025) noted variability, believing HESI was 20 percent for some courses and 45 percent for Med Surg. An anonymous Facebook post (April 7, 2026) reported HESI at 40 percent of the entire grade at the Clarksville and Nashville campus. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D's gradebook screenshot documents that of the 2,059 total points for the Pharmacology course, exams (HESI) account for 1,700 of those points, with HESI exam 1 at 450 points, HESI exam 2 at 450 points, and the HESI final at 800 points, meaning HESI exams made up 82 percent of the course grade for the cohort that started January 6, 2025.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.43 (disclosure requirements): material program characteristics, including grading structure, must be disclosed before enrollment; mid-program escalation of HESI weighting is a material change. ACEN Standard 4: assessment policies must be consistently applied. The {{HU|HU-064}} retroactive supersession framework provides the institution with claimed authority for these mid-program changes, but does not address the fundamental disclosure issue. ACEN Standard 4.6 (academic integrity): when 82 percent of a course grade depends on a single externally administered exam and the same exam questions are documented to be circulating on third-party platforms ({{HU|HU-026}}, {{HU|HU-037}}, {{HU|HU-051}}, {{HU|HU-078}}), the integrity of the entire grading system depends on exam security that is demonstrably compromised.

'''Impact.''' Students who enrolled with the original, lower HESI weighting (e.g., 20-30%) and made tuition or loan commitments based on that structure are now subject to grading frameworks where 75 to 82 percent of their course grade depends on a single high-stakes exam, with course failure and no meaningful remediation possible if they underperform. This compounds the harm of {{HU|HU-030}} (ProctorU false-flag exam zeros), {{HU|HU-034}} (ProctorU technical failures), and {{HU|HU-052}} (IT ticket closure before appeal), all of which can now drive course failure and loan default for institutional reasons. The 82 percent weighting in Pharmacology means a single technical or proctoring failure on the 800-point HESI final is mathematically unrecoverable for that course. Combined with {{HU|HU-060}} ($500 retake fee), the cumulative financial exposure for an institutionally caused failure is significant.

'''Notes.''' The grade weighting escalation appears to have occurred without prospective student notification or documentation in original enrollment materials. The progression from roughly 20 to 30 percent up to 82 percent over approximately eighteen months represents a substantial change in academic policy. Verification: review MSN-DE syllabi from each cohort to document the actual grade weighting at time of enrollment compared to the weighting applied at course completion. The Student D gradebook screenshot is the strongest single piece of evidence and should be preserved for any external review. This issue compounds {{HU|HU-010}} (exit exam benchmarks changeable at any time) and {{HU|HU-064}} (retroactive supersession framework).

=== HU-083: Milestones assessment regime eliminated September 2024 with no retake option; finals escalated to 45%; enrolled students never consented to this fundamental restructuring ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Program Assessment Regime Elimination
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, in September 2024 Herzing eliminated the Milestone exam system that had been in place since the program's inception and replaced it with a system in which course finals, high-stakes HESI exams, count for 45 percent of the overall course grade with no retake option. Students who enrolled under the Milestone system, which allowed up to three retakes, were subjected to the new high-stakes, no-retake final system mid-program. Multiple students independently expressed a preference for the prior Milestone system. This change materially restructured the conditions under which students were enrolled.

'''Evidence.''' A student pseudonymously identified as Student U (December 13, 2024) reported that Milestones no longer existed as of September 2024, and that for certain courses finals had been raised to 45 percent. An anonymous member, identified only as member 946 (December 13, 2024), reported that Milestones and the retest option were both gone, describing a score of 750 on the pathophysiology HESI against 1,020 on fundamentals, and noting content on the pathophysiology HESI that had never been covered. Another anonymous member (March 24, 2025) said the Milestones process had been much better than the new one and called the 45 percent final weighting excessive. Student N (March 31, 2025) called the HESI exams poorly aligned with preparation. Student BL (February 4, 2025) referenced finals being 45 percent of grades, and Student N (February 12, 2025) noted that with a 45 percent HESI exam, a student needs those 30 points. Student CH (March 20, 2025) explained that a student could enter the final HESI with an A and still risk failing or barely passing the course if that single exam went poorly, since any grade under 80 is failing. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student U states that Milestones no longer existed as of September 2024, and that for certain courses the finals had been raised to 45 percent. The anonymous member identified as member 946 states that Milestones and the retest option were both gone, describing a score of 750 on the pathophysiology HESI against 1,020 on fundamentals, and noting content on the pathophysiology HESI that had never been covered.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation): students enrolled under a specific grading structure have a reasonable expectation that structure will remain in place; material changes to grading scheme without adequate notice or consent constitute a misrepresentation risk. Contract law principles in higher education (Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410, 7th Cir. 1992): student enrollment constitutes a contract with the institution, and material changes to assessment structure mid-enrollment may breach that contract. ACEN Standard 4: assessment instruments must be fair, consistent, and aligned with course content. The lack of a retake option is significant, since the prior Milestone system allowed up to three retakes, acknowledging that a single exam may not reflect student competency, while the new system provides zero remediation opportunity.

'''Impact.''' Students who were enrolled under the Milestone system with retakes faced an immediate and irreversible change to their academic standing requirements. Students who scored below the HESI threshold without the option to retake faced course failure with no remediation path. The member identified as 946 failed the pathophysiology HESI citing content never covered, direct evidence that curriculum-assessment misalignment, combined with the no-retake policy, caused a student failure that would not have occurred under the prior system. Student CH's account illustrates that a single bad exam day can erase an entire semester of strong performance.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weighting escalation) significantly. {{HU|HU-074}} documented the percentage escalation; {{HU|HU-083}} documents the simultaneous elimination of the retake safety net. Together these constitute a two-part restructuring that dramatically increased the consequences of a single poor exam performance. The petition movement (F68/{{HU|HU-093}}) is directly attributable to this change. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weight escalation), {{HU|HU-076}} (curriculum-assessment misalignment), {{HU|HU-090}} (HESI covers untaught content).

=== HU-088: HESI final examinations cover content not taught in courses; documented across multiple cohorts with direct student testimony and faculty acknowledgment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum-Assessment Misalignment
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Curriculum Committee / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, multiple independent student accounts across multiple cohorts documented that HESI final examinations test content that was not taught in the corresponding courses. A student pseudonymously identified as Student D (February 14, 2025) reported that instructors themselves say they are not aware of how HESI test content is developed, so the material students are assigned does not match the material they are tested on. Sherpath was separately documented as teaching content unrelated to what HESI actually tests.

'''Evidence.''' Student D (February 14, 2025, 19 reactions) reported that instructors are not aware of how the HESI test content is developed, at least as instructors themselves describe it, and that the material students are assigned does not match the material tested on HESI. The anonymous member identified as member 946 (December 13, 2024) reported content on the pathophysiology HESI that had never been covered. Another anonymous member (March 13, 2025) reported finding incorrect content in Sherpath and being told simply to report it, and stated that the HESI exams have nothing to do with what is taught in Sherpath. Student AV (February 16, 2025) reported that HESI tests material not covered in class. An anonymous member (April 3, 2026), after scoring over 1,300 on an exit exam, expressed surprise that the exam covered material the cohort had not learned. Student B (March 24, 2025) reported that RealizeIt does not prepare students for HESI and barely prepares them for in-class exams. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D states that instructors are not aware of how the HESI test content is developed, at least as instructors themselves describe it, and that the material students are assigned does not match the material they are tested on in HESI. The member identified as 946 states there was content on the pathophysiology HESI never covered in class. Another anonymous member states that the HESI exams have nothing to do with what is taught in Sherpath.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: curriculum and assessment must be aligned, and examinations must assess content students were taught. Standard assessment practice in higher education requires that high-stakes examinations be constructed from course content objectives. Faculty reportedly acknowledging they are not aware of how HESI test content is developed, while that test constitutes 45 to 82 percent of the course grade, constitutes a fundamental curriculum design failure. 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation): marketing a course as teaching nursing content while administering exams on different content misrepresents what students receive for their tuition.

'''Impact.''' Students who master all course content may still fail HESI exams because the exams test content not covered in the course, making failure a product of curriculum-assessment misalignment rather than student incompetence. This is illustrated by the student who scored over 1,300 yet still expressed surprise at untaught content. The pattern creates a situation where only students who self-source external resources (YourBestGrade, NAXLEX, Simple Nursing, Bootcamp) are positioned to pass, effectively requiring additional paid resources to compensate for curriculum-assessment misalignment. This compounds {{HU|HU-078}} (systematic external resource reliance) and {{HU|HU-074}} (high HESI weighting).

'''Notes.''' Faculty reportedly acknowledging they do not know how HESI content is developed is a critical program design failure. An institution using a third-party examination as 45 to 82 percent of course grade has a responsibility to either teach to the examination content or disclose that the examination tests beyond course content and provide preparation accordingly. Neither is occurring, per the tracker's evidence. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weight escalation), {{HU|HU-076}} (Realizeit format mismatch), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath incorrect content), {{HU|HU-083}} (Milestones elimination and no retake).

=== HU-099: Discussion board "3 separate calendar days" posting rule results in zero credit for substantively correct posts submitted on same day; arbitrary procedural rule driving grade deductions independent of content quality ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Arbitrary Procedural Grading Rule
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, discussion board assignments in the MSN-DE program require an initial response and two peer replies on three separate calendar days within the assignment window, typically Sunday through Wednesday. Posts made on only two days, even if all content requirements are met and every post is substantively correct, receive zero credit for the timing violation. The rule is enforced even when students are unaware of it and even when the content of all posts fully complies with assignment requirements.

'''Evidence.''' A student pseudonymously identified as Student D (July 10, 2025) warned that posting the required content only at 11:30 PM and 11:59 PM the same night would not earn credit. Student D (March 8, 2026) clarified the rule: an initial post responding to the week's prompt must be posted by 11:59 PM Central time each Wednesday, followed by two peer replies, with all posts required to be on separate days, calling the rule complete busy work. Student D (July 10, 2025) separately noted that Herzing makes concessions elsewhere, allowing appeals, makeups, and countless extensions, while enforcing the three-day posting rule strictly. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D states that posting required content only at 11:30 PM and 11:59 PM the same night will not earn credit, and separately describes the three-separate-days requirement as complete busy work.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 600.2 (credit hour): grading criteria must reflect academic achievement. A rule that awards zero credit for substantively correct posts submitted on two days rather than three conflates procedural compliance with academic achievement, penalizing students for timing rather than content quality. ACEN Standard 4: assessment instruments must measure learning outcomes, and a discussion board timing rule does not measure nursing knowledge, critical thinking, or clinical competency, but rather calendar management. Enforcing this rule strictly while allowing frequent makeups and extensions on other assignments creates an internally inconsistent enforcement posture that compounds the confusion documented in {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).

'''Impact.''' Students who complete all discussion content correctly but post on two days rather than three receive zero credit, the same grade as a student who submitted nothing. In a program where the overall passing threshold is 80 percent and a fraction of a point can mean a four-month delay ({{HU|HU-095}}), a zero on a discussion board assignment for a timing violation rather than a content failure can be academically consequential. Students with unpredictable work schedules, the program's target demographic, are most harmed by a rule that requires precise calendar management across a narrow weekly window.

'''Notes.''' The three-day rule is characterized in the evidence as complete busy work, suggesting it does not advance learning objectives. The contrast between strict enforcement of the three-day posting rule and flexible enforcement of other deadlines reflects an inconsistent institutional approach to academic policy that undermines student trust in the grading system. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-012}} (seven NSG520 grades changed simultaneously with no explanation), {{HU|HU-016}} (grade appeal unmonitored inbox), {{HU|HU-095}} (79.8 percent fails identically to 60 percent).

=== HU-101: HESI exam structure changed for Spring 2026 final semester: now three graded HESI exams (diagnostic, midpoint, exit) all counting toward course grade; prior cohorts had only exit HESI as grade-bearing; change not uniformly communicated across cohorts ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Program Assessment Structure Change / Cohort Inequity
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Curriculum Committee / NSG 635 Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, for the Spring 2026 cohort in NSG 635 (Integration of Concepts, the final semester), Herzing added two additional graded HESI exams, a diagnostic HESI and a midpoint HESI, alongside the existing exit HESI. Prior cohorts had the diagnostic and midpoint as ungraded gauges of readiness, with only the exit HESI determining pass or fail. The exit HESI still requires a score of 900 or higher to graduate; failure results in repeating the entire 16-week course.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 10 (February 12, 2026) reported that the final semester now has three HESI exams, diagnostic, midpoint, and exit, all being added to the overall grade. Student B (February 13, 2026) confirmed the change, stating that grades in the gradebook now reflect scores on all three, and described semester five as HESI exit exam prep requiring a baseline HESI, a midpoint HESI, and then the final exit exam. An anonymous member identified as member 835 (February 12, 2026) initially reported understanding that only the final exit HESI counted, contradicted by students actually in the course. Handle 11 (February 12, 2026) confirmed the exit HESI must be over 900 to graduate, or the student repeats the entire class. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Handle 10 states that in the last semester there are now three HESI exams, diagnostic, midpoint, and exit, all being added to the overall grade. Student B separately observes that Herzing is known for changing things from semester to semester and cohort to cohort.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation): students who enrolled with the understanding that only the exit HESI was grade-bearing in the final semester face a materially different grading structure than disclosed. Contract law principles (Ross v. Creighton University): material changes to grading structure mid-enrollment may breach the implicit enrollment agreement. ACEN Standard 4: assessment instruments must be consistently applied and clearly communicated. The cohort-to-cohort variation, acknowledged in the evidence as an institutional norm, documents a systemic policy inconsistency rather than a one-time adjustment. Students who sought advice from recently graduated alumni received inaccurate information because the grading structure had changed.

'''Impact.''' Students in the Spring 2026 cohort face a higher-stakes final semester than prior cohorts, with three graded HESI exams rather than one. Poor performance on the diagnostic or midpoint HESI, previously advisory, now directly affects the course grade. Students who relied on alumni advice about the final semester structure received incorrect information, potentially underpreparing. The confusion documented in the Facebook thread, with students currently in the course contradicting students who had already graduated from the same course, reflects the institutional inconsistency.

'''Notes.''' This issue extends {{HU|HU-083}} (Milestones elimination) and {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weighting escalation), a continuing pattern of increasing HESI stakes across successive cohorts. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-010}} (exit exam benchmark can change at any time), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covers untaught content), {{HU|HU-083}} (no retake option).

=== HU-118: Student AD received zero on Fundamentals I remediation packet for screenshot submission issue despite scoring 93 on exam; appeal denied; institution then issued revised screenshot with "student name" purple box indicator proving original instructions were unclear; multiple students affected; 10-point running grade impact ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Unclear Assignment Instructions / Post-Denial Instruction Revision
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | NSG Faculty / Program Chair / Grade Appeal Committee
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student AD documented receiving a zero on the Fundamentals I remediation packet because of a screenshot submission issue, despite scoring 93 on the associated exam. The zero dropped her final grade 2.5 points and at the time caused a running 10-point grade drop. She appealed and was denied. For the second remediation, the institution then issued a revised screenshot that included a "student name" indicator in a purple box, a clarification absent from the original instructions. She noted she was not the only student affected and that she did not see her name on the completed screen, suggesting the requirement was not clearly displayed at the time of completion. The institution's post-denial revision of the very instructions at issue is treated in the tracker as implicit acknowledgment that the original instructions were unclear, even though the appeal had already been denied before that revision was made.

'''Evidence.''' GroupMe message from Student AD (April 28, 2026, 9:31 PM) describing a zero on the first remediation packet despite scoring 93 on the exam, a 2.5-point drop in final grade, an appeal that was denied, and a new screenshot for remediation 2 showing student name in a purple box that was not on the original instructions. The message received one sleepy or sad reaction from a cohort member. Source group: GroupMe, Herzing MSN-DE Cohort Chat (Student AD, April 28, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AD states that she got a zero on the first funds remediation packet over a screenshot despite scoring 93 on the exam, that she appealed and was denied, that remediation 2 then used a new screenshot showing student name in a purple box, and that the revised screenshot proved her point that the original instructions were unclear. She adds that she heard she was not the only one affected.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: graded assignments must have clear, unambiguous instructions. An institution that issues a revised instruction screenshot with a new indicator after denying appeals based on the original screenshot has implicitly acknowledged the original instructions were deficient. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): grade appeal processes must be fair and consistent; denying an appeal for non-compliance with instructions and then revising those same instructions is procedurally inconsistent. Due process principles (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150, 5th Cir. 1961): students facing academic penalties have a right to fair notice of requirements, and penalizing students for not following instructions that were subsequently clarified denies them that fair notice. The pattern is consistent with {{HU|HU-099}} (discussion board three-day rule) and {{HU|HU-095}} (79.8 percent equals fail), where procedural or formatting compliance determines academic outcomes independent of content mastery.

'''Impact.''' Student AD experienced a 2.5 point final grade reduction and a 10-point running grade impact from a zero on a remediation packet she completed and scored 93 on the exam for, due to a screenshot formatting requirement subsequently clarified. Her denied appeal was never retroactively revisited despite the revised instructions. If other students were similarly affected, the zero-remediation-packet penalty for the same unclear screenshot requirement represents a systemic grade harm across multiple students that was never remediated. In a program where 0.2 percent can trigger a course retake ({{HU|HU-095}}), a 2.5-point final grade deduction from a procedural technicality is academically significant.

'''Notes.''' The remediation packet requirement appears to be a graded assignment tied to the Fundamentals I course (NSG520 or equivalent). The screenshot requirement, likely requiring students to submit a screenshot showing completion with their name visible, was not clearly formatted in the original assignment. The institution's revision for remediation 2, adding a purple "student name" box, directly contradicts the denial of Student AD's appeal. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-012}} (seven NSG520 grades changed simultaneously with no explanation), {{HU|HU-016}} (grade appeal unmonitored inbox), {{HU|HU-095}} (fraction-of-a-point grade consequences), {{HU|HU-099}} (procedural compliance penalized over content quality).

=== HU-124: Faculty deducted points from the reporting student's NU725-7D discussion for not including working links; links were visibly present in the submission; Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN feedback says "please make certain all references have a working link" but all four reference URLs were submitted and visible in Canvas ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Grading Error / Points Deducted for Work Submitted
! Date added
| 2026-05-11
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN / NU725 Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student submitted three original discussion posts in NU725-7D Unit 1 (Legal and Ethical Issues in Technology) on May 5, 2026, between 5:05 and 5:09 AM, each containing properly formatted APA citations with hyperlinked URLs embedded directly in the Canvas submission. Four reference links were submitted and are visible in the Canvas screenshots, mapped by post as follows. Post 1 contained two references: HHS OCR (2023), a cybersecurity newsletter at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2023/index.html], and Wasserman and Wasserman (2022), an article in Frontiers in Digital Health at [https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.862221]. Post 2 contained one reference: HHS OCR (2024), a cybersecurity newsletter at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2024/index.html]. Post 3 contained one reference: Al Bahrani and Medhi (2023), an article in Cureus at [https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40486]. On May 11, 2026 at 10:25 AM, Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN left feedback stating the student should make certain all references have a working link. Canvas displayed a "Re-submit Assignment" button, indicating points were deducted or grading withheld pending resubmission based on that feedback, even though all four reference URLs were submitted and are legitimate working links to government publications and peer-reviewed journals.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas screenshots of the reporting student's NU725-7D Unit 1 discussion posts (May 5, 2026, 5:05 to 5:09 AM) show the four reference links across three posts: Post 1, HHS OCR (2023) at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2023/index.html] and Wasserman and Wasserman (2022) at [https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.862221]; Post 2, HHS OCR (2024) at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2024/index.html]; Post 3, Al Bahrani and Medhi (2023) at [https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40486]. Faculty feedback and a Canvas "Re-submit Assignment" button appear on the May 11, 2026 grading record. Source group: Canvas NU725-7D Discussion Posts and Faculty Feedback, the reporting student, May 5 to 11, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Great information on unauthorized access. Please make certain all references have a working link please.</blockquote>
The submitted post, dated nine days earlier on May 5, 2026, contains four working links visible in the Canvas screenshots: the HHS OCR 2023 newsletter, the Wasserman 2022 DOI, the HHS OCR 2024 newsletter, and the Al Bahrani 2023 DOI, each shown as an active hyperlink in the submission.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: assessment and grading must be accurate and based on submitted work. Deducting points or withholding grades on the basis that links were not submitted, when those links are visibly present in the Canvas submission, is a factual grading error. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): grading processes must accurately reflect what was submitted. Due process principles in academic grading hold that a student must not be penalized for failing to do something they demonstrably did. The May 11 feedback is factually incorrect as applied to this submission, since the links were present in the post as submitted on May 5, 2026.

'''Impact.''' Points were deducted from a discussion post that fully complied with the reference link requirement. The resubmission workflow required the reporting student to spend additional time correcting a problem that did not exist in his submission. If a resubmission was required and not made before any applicable deadline, he risked a zero or reduced grade for work correctly submitted. In a program where fractions of a point can trigger a four-month delay ({{HU|HU-095}}), grade deductions for submitted work constitute a material academic harm. The feedback also raises a concern about whether faculty are reviewing student submissions before posting feedback.

'''Notes.''' Additional facts from the weekly report for the week ending May 17, 2026: the reporting student emailed Dr. Hart-Flynn on Monday and again on Wednesday with no response, and she did not respond until after that week's discussion post deadline had passed. When she finally responded, her explanation was that the security on her computer prevented her from opening the link, which confirms the links existed and were submitted, attributes the grading error to her own computer settings rather than any deficiency in the student's submission, and reflects faculty non-responsiveness that prevented the reporting student from correcting any perceived issue within the submission window. Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN is a newly identified faculty member for NU725-7D. All four submitted URLs are verifiable published sources. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-016}} (grade appeal unmonitored inbox), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-095}} (grade consequences), {{HU|HU-118}} (Student AD zero for unclear instructions).

=== HU-126: NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review Quiz deadline was 12:59 AM Sunday morning, not 11:59 PM Sunday evening as announced; students flagged as late; the reporting student unable to retake after grade correction because quiz closed before correction was applied ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Incorrect Assignment Deadline / Non-Standard Due Time Causing Late Flags
! Date added
| 2026-05-12
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Heather Gregg / Dr. Stacey Gombar / NSG525 Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review Quiz was set with a due time of 12:59 AM early Sunday morning, not 11:59 PM Sunday evening as announced and as is standard throughout the program. As a result, students were caught off guard and flagged as late for missing the non-standard 12:59 AM deadline, and when Dr. Gregg applied the manual grade correction for duplicate answer coding errors, the quiz had already closed under the 12:59 AM deadline, locking the reporting student out of his remaining attempts before the correction was posted. Dr. Gregg confirmed the coding errors affected all sections and were unintentional, and noted the reporting student's score of 57.5 includes the manual corrections.

'''Evidence.''' Email from the reporting student to Dr. Gregg (May 2026) documenting the mismatched deadline and the resulting late flags. Email from Dr. Gregg confirming that two coding errors were identified in the NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review quiz, that the errors were unintentional and affected all sections, and that the student's current score of 57.5 already includes the manual credit adjustments for those questions. Source group: email chain, the reporting student to Dr. Gregg and Dr. Gombar, May 2026; NSG525 Week 1 quiz Canvas deadline documentation.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>For some reason this assignment was due at 12:59 AM early Sunday morning not 11:59 Sunday evening. This was not the announcement. The announcement notes Wed and Sunday at 11:59. Throughout the program, everything was due Sunday evening at 11:59 PM. So many students were caught off guard that they have now been flagged as late.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must ensure that assignment deadlines are accurately set and consistent with announced due dates. ACEN Standard 4: assessments must be administered under fair and consistent conditions. A quiz deadline set for 12:59 AM Sunday, 23 hours earlier than the announced 11:59 PM Sunday deadline and inconsistent with every other assignment in the program, is an administrative error that caused students to be flagged as late through no fault of their own and caused the quiz to close before the grade correction was applied, eliminating remaining retake attempts. The combination of a coding error in quiz answers ({{HU|HU-112}}) and a deadline coding error in the same quiz constitutes compounding administrative failures in a single assessment.

'''Impact.''' Students flagged as late for the NSG525 Week 1 quiz due to the 12:59 AM deadline error face late submission penalties. The reporting student specifically was prevented from using his remaining attempts (out of 10 allowed) after the grade correction was applied, because the quiz had already closed under the non-standard deadline. His final score of 57.5, after manual corrections, reflects the remaining questions he missed, but he was denied the opportunity to improve that score with the benefit of knowing which duplicate-answer questions would be corrected. The interaction between the deadline error and the coding error created a situation where the grade correction came too late to be useful.

'''Notes.''' This issue is distinct from {{HU|HU-112}} (duplicate answer coding errors) but directly compounds it. The quiz had two simultaneous errors: wrong answer choices ({{HU|HU-112}}) and wrong deadline ({{HU|HU-126}}). Combined with {{HU|HU-125}} (accommodation blocked), these three issues in the same assessment create a comprehensive access and fairness failure for the reporting student in Week 1. Dr. Gregg's explanation that faculty from different courses were responding to the same email thread (Dr. Gombar for NSG621, Dr. Gregg for NSG525) also adds to the confusion, with students receiving multiple emails about different courses from different faculty without clear course identification. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-112}} (NSG525 quiz coding errors), {{HU|HU-125}} (accommodation blocked), {{HU|HU-099}} (three-day posting rule timing), {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).

=== HU-159: Official Herzing transcript dated 04/23/2026 documented a grade of A in NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment and a 4.00 cumulative GPA; a later Unofficial Transcript dated 06/05/2026 shows that grade changed to a B with the cumulative GPA dropped to 3.75; the A-to-B grade change is now CONFIRMED by the before-and-after transcripts; FERPA and grade-change-process concern; same course as the denied Fundamentals final retake (HU-155) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED (grade change from A to B documented by before-and-after transcripts: Official 04/23/2026 showed A and 4.00 GPA; Unofficial 06/05/2026 shows B and 3.75 GPA)
|-
! Issue type
| Grade Change After Official Transcript Documented an A (NSG 521) / Records Integrity
! Date added
| 2026-06-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Office of the Registrar / Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / NSG 521 Course Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student's Official Academic Transcript, dated 04/23/2026 and bearing the Office of the Registrar seal, documents that for the 2026 Spring term (01/05/26 to 04/22/26) he earned a grade of A in NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment (5.00 credits, 4.00 quality points), along with an A in NSG 522 Clinical I, a Term GPA of 4.00, a Program GPA of 4.00, a Cumulative GPA of 4.00, and 37.00 total credits earned. An Unofficial Transcript dated 06/05/2026 shows NSG 521 with a grade of B and 15.00 quality points, a 2026 Spring Term GPA of 3.29, and a Cumulative GPA of 3.75. The two transcripts, issued roughly six weeks apart for the same closed 2026 Spring term, together document a grade change from A to B that lowered the cumulative GPA from 4.00 to 3.75. If the grade was changed after the term closed and after an official transcript documented an A, the change would need to be supported by a documented, properly noticed grade-change process. This course is the same NSG 521 whose RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam retake request was denied ({{HU|HU-155}}), so the grade dispute and the final-exam dispute concern the same course.

'''Evidence.''' Official Academic Transcript, Herzing University (5218 East Terrace Drive, Madison, WI 53718; www.herzing.edu/online), Office of the Registrar, dated 04/23/2026: Student, the reporting student; Student ID [student ID redacted]; Original Start Date 9/3/2025; Program, Master of Science in Nursing; Cumulative GPA 4.00; 2026 Spring term shows NSG 521 (5.00 credits, grade A, 4.00 quality points) and NSG 522 Clinical I (2.00 credits, grade A, 4.00 quality points); Term GPA 4.00; Program GPA 4.00; Total Credits Earned 37.00; marked Official with registrar seal and signature. Per the Herzing grade scale on the transcript key, an A carries 4.00 quality points and a B carries 3.00 quality points, and graduate degrees require a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher. Unofficial Transcript, Herzing University, dated 06/05/2026: Student GPA 3.75; Term 2261 (2026 Spring) shows NSG 521 (5.00 credits, grade B, 15.00 quality points) and NSG 522 Clinical I (2.00 credits, grade A, 8.00 quality points); Term GPA 3.29; Cum GPA 3.75. The 06/05/2026 transcript also lists 2026 Summer courses in progress, named in full as NSG 523 Medical Surgical Nursing I, NSG 524 Mental Health Nursing, NSG 525 Clinical II, and NU 725 Technology and Nursing Informatics, along with a Fall 2025 CR 021 Clinical Readiness Pre-licensure Nursing course marked Pass. Source group: Official Academic Transcript, Herzing University, Office of the Registrar, dated 04/23/2026 (student-provided), compared against the student's report of a subsequent grade change in NSG 521.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Official Academic Transcript, 04/23/2026]: NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment, 5.00 credits, grade A, 4.00 quality points. Cumulative GPA: 4.00. Total Credits Earned: 37.00. [Unofficial Transcript, 06/05/2026]: NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment, 5.00 credits, grade B, 15.00 quality points. Cum GPA: 3.75.</blockquote>
The A on the 04/23/2026 Official transcript became a B on the 06/05/2026 transcript, and the cumulative GPA fell from 4.00 to 3.75.

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99): students have the right to inspect their education records and to request amendment of records they believe are inaccurate, and to a hearing if an amendment request is denied; a grade reflected on an official transcript is an education record, and any change should be documented and explainable to the student. Institutional grade-change and grade-appeal policy (Prelicensure Student Handbook): grade changes after a grade is posted should follow a defined process with notice to the student and a stated basis. HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity): academic records must be accurate and fairly maintained. The transcript itself states that the record is official when it bears the Office of the Registrar seal and that alteration of the transcript may be a criminal offense; this entry does not allege improper alteration, but documents that an official record showed an A and that the student reports a later change to a B, which should be reconciled through the documented grade-change and FERPA amendment processes. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-155}} (NSG 521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam retake denied), {{HU|HU-019}} (NSG 521 testing-time accommodation), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring), {{HU|HU-157}} (CARES closure), {{HU|HU-158}} (decision-maker availability).

'''Impact.''' If the NSG 521 grade was changed from A to B after the official transcript documented an A, the change would lower the reporting student's quality points for a five-credit course from 20.0 (A) to 15.0 (B) and reduce his 4.00 cumulative GPA, affecting his academic standing in a graduate program that requires a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher and any honors or progression implications. A grade change made after an official transcript has issued, without a documented and properly noticed basis, raises records-integrity and FERPA concerns and undermines the reliability of the official record. Because the same course's final exam retake was denied ({{HU|HU-155}}), the student is left with both a denied remedy and a disputed grade in the same foundational course.

'''Notes.''' The confirmed element is that the 04/23/2026 official transcript shows NSG 521 as an A with a cumulative GPA of 4.00. The A-to-B change is now confirmed by the Unofficial Transcript dated 06/05/2026 (NSG 521 as a B, cumulative GPA 3.75) compared against the Official Academic Transcript dated 04/23/2026. The changed grade (B) appears on an Unofficial Transcript while the A appears on the Official Academic Transcript. A remaining open question is who authorized the grade change, on what date, on what stated basis, and whether the student received notice and an opportunity to appeal. This transcript also serves as authoritative documentation of the reporting student's full record to date, including all A grades in Fall 2025 (NSG 520, NSG 633, NU 730, NU 780) and transfer credits in SC 186, SC 154, SC 166, SC 254, and MA 320. Course-name note: the transcript lists the course as NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment, while {{HU|HU-155}} refers to the NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam, which is the final exam within this same course. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-155}} (retake denied, same course), {{HU|HU-019}} (NSG 521 accommodation), {{HU|HU-156}}, {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-158}}. A possible follow-up noted in the tracker is to file a FERPA amendment request and a grade appeal if the change is confirmed and undocumented. Update (2026-07-17): {{HU|HU-179}} documents Dr. Franklin's letter confirming Dr. Black approved a retake of this same exam based on ProctorU's admission of fault, and {{HU|HU-180}} documents that Dr. Soles, the instructor of record, was not notified of an additional retake attempt and the resulting grade change, discovering it only by checking Elsevier herself. {{HU|HU-180}} also documents the multi-step grade-change process (an interim Incomplete grade, then a Canvas roll and registrar sync) that may partly explain how a transitional grade could have appeared on the 06/05/2026 unofficial transcript, which remains an open item to confirm rather than a settled explanation. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-179}}, {{HU|HU-180}}.

=== HU-164e: Reported failure to update the GPA after the grade appeal was approved, placing the reporter on Satisfactory Academic Progress status, with the correction again deferred to the advisor ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| GPA Not Updated After Appeal / Erroneous SAP Status (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Registrar / Financial Aid / Academic Advising
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, the reporter states that even after her grade appeal was approved, her GPA was never updated, which placed her on Satisfactory Academic Progress status. She states she was told to address the SAP and GPA issue with her advisor, who again directed her to file a grade appeal that was already approved. She states this was about three weeks after the approval and nearly two months after she filed the initial appeal.

'''Evidence.''' Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describes a GPA not updated after appeal approval, a resulting SAP status, and being redirected to the advisor and to an already-approved appeal to resolve it.

'''Reported statement.''' Reporter Student I states that her GPA was never updated, so she was placed on SAP, and that she was told to address it with her advisor.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under Satisfactory Academic Progress requirements (34 CFR 668.34) and administrative-capability and records-accuracy expectations (34 CFR 668.14), as well as HLC Criterion 2.A. A grade-appeal outcome that is not reflected in the student's GPA, leading to an erroneous SAP determination, is a records-integrity and financial-aid concern. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-164}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, an erroneous SAP status can carry financial-aid and standing consequences, and the reporter states the correction was delayed by repeated misdirection.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-164}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

=== HU-168c: The NSG523 course grade dropped from 95.01% to 25.91%, approximately 69 percentage points, as documented in two Canvas dashboard screenshots taken 15 seconds apart at 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM on June 15, 2026, apparently during a grading event for the 100-point HESI Exam 1 assignment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| 69-Percentage-Point Course Grade Drop in 15 Seconds Observed in Sequential Screenshots
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, two Canvas dashboard screenshots taken at 3:36:06 PM (Screenshot 3) and 3:36:21 PM (Screenshot 4) on June 15, 2026, show the NSG523-7E, 2262C16 (Medical Surgical Nursing I) course tile grade changing from 95.01 percent to 25.91 percent, a decrease of approximately 69.1 percentage points. The 15-second interval between the screenshots indicates this change occurred during a page refresh or live grading event while the reporting student was viewing his dashboard. The To-Do List in Screenshot 3 shows Unit 6, HESI Exam 1, listed as due 06/14 at 11:59 PM (100 points, overdue), and it no longer appears in Screenshot 4, which instead shows Recent Feedback for Unit 6, HESI Exam 1, confirming the grading event was for this specific assignment.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas submission screenshot for NSG523-7E Unit 6, HESI Exam 1 (June 15, 2026, 3:22 PM). Email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (June 15, 2026, 1:13 PM, marked High Importance). Canvas dashboard screenshots taken at 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM on June 15, 2026. HESI Assessment Results report (NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM). Provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Screenshot 3, 3:36:06 PM]: NSG523-7E 95.01%. [Screenshot 4, 3:36:21 PM]: NSG523-7E 25.91%.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and accurate academic records); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair and clearly stated academic standards). A 69-percentage-point course grade drop resulting from a 0 on the 100-point exam, an exam that was actually completed at the maximum conversion score of 99.99, is a high-impact grading event. The speed of the change, 15 seconds, observed directly by the student, documents the real-time impact on academic standing. Lead: {{HU|HU-168}}.

'''Impact.''' A course grade of 25.91 percent in NSG523 places the student at risk of failing the course and may trigger academic-standing, SAP, and progression consequences if not resolved. The prior grade was 95.01 percent.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-168}} (lead). Confirmed from two timestamped sequential screenshots. The dashboard also shows NSG524-7B at 73.12 percent and NSG525-7E at 94.19 percent in both screenshots, confirming only NSG523 changed. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-180: Herzing's multi-step grade-change process, requiring an interim Incomplete grade before a Canvas roll and registrar sync, combined with a failure to notify the instructor of record of an additional NSG521 HESI retake attempt, caused confusion and delay in finalizing the reporting student's grade change ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Instructor of Record Not Notified of Additional Exam Retake; Multi-Step Grade Change Process Causes Delay and Confusion
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Kellie Soles (Faculty MSN-DE, instructor of record) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Nicole Franklin / Registrar Services
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Dr. Prashad explained to the reporting student and Dr. Soles that to change a grade, Herzing must first issue an Incomplete, after which the grade is adjusted once that Incomplete shows in the system. A separate Student Services notice confirmed that an Incomplete had been processed for NSG521 and that the reporting student would regain Canvas access within five to six hours. The reporting student confirmed the Incomplete appeared on his transcript. Dr. Prashad further explained the change must then wait for a Canvas roll and registrar sync, approved by her in the HUB, taking approximately 48 to 72 hours; Dr. Soles later confirmed the grade had been updated in Canvas and the HUB. Separately, Dr. Soles explained that the reporting student took the Final HESI at the end of April, scored 748, and that she updated his grade from 58 percent to 85 percent based on that score. When the reporting student later followed up about a further change reflecting an A rather than a B for scholarship application purposes, Dr. Soles stated she had not been aware any additional change was needed. After his message, she checked Elsevier and discovered he appeared to have taken the Final HESI again at a later date, of which she had not been notified, and stated she would need to request renewed IT access to the gradebook to address it. The reporting student stated he was surprised that Dr. Soles, as instructor of record, had not been made aware of the retake, since he expected her to submit the resulting grade change. Dr. Prashad then stated the academic MSN-DE team, rather than the individual instructor, would handle the matter going forward.

'''Evidence.''' Email from Dr. Raywattie Prashad to the reporting student and Dr. Kellie Soles, subject "Re: Grade Change for NSG521," explaining the Incomplete-first process and the 48 to 72 hour Canvas roll and registrar sync timeline. Student Services email confirming an Incomplete was processed for NSG521 and that course access would return within five to six hours. Email from Dr. Kellie Soles to the reporting student and Dr. Prashad, subject "Grade Change," stating the reporting student scored 748 on a HESI retake at the end of April, that she updated his grade from 58 percent to 85 percent based on that score, and that after his follow-up message she checked Elsevier and found he appeared to have taken the Final HESI again at a later date without her having been notified. Email from the reporting student to Dr. Soles, Dr. Prashad, Dr. Franklin, Dr. Black, and Dr. Laban, stating he was notified on June 25 by Dr. Franklin that Dr. Black had approved his retake, that ProctorU admitted fault, that the retake changed his grade from a B to an A, and that he was surprised Dr. Soles as instructor of record was not made aware of this.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I noticed it appears he may have taken the Final HESI again at a later date. I was not notified of an additional attempt, so I was unaware that another grade update might be needed.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable and consistent internal communication supporting accurate academic records) and HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including accurate and fairly maintained records). FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) supports a student's interest in accurate and promptly corrected education records. A grade-change process that permits an additional exam retake and resulting grade change to proceed without notice to the instructor of record who must certify or process that change risks inconsistent, delayed, or duplicated grade records, and directly parallels the unresolved question already flagged in {{HU|HU-159}} concerning who authorized a grade change and on what basis.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student stated he needed up to date grade information for scholarship applications and needed a timeframe for when the change would reach the registrar; the notification gap and multi-step process contributed to delay in that respect. The instructor's need to independently discover an additional retake and request renewed gradebook access also risks duplicated or inconsistent edits to the academic record, echoing the broader record-reliability concern already raised in {{HU|HU-159}} regarding the same course.

'''Notes.''' This entry may help partly explain the mechanism behind {{HU|HU-159}}'s open question, since a grade change requires an interim Incomplete before the new grade posts, which could account for a transitional grade appearing on an unofficial transcript pulled mid-process. Whether the B shown on the 06/05/2026 unofficial transcript documented in {{HU|HU-159}} was such a transitional artifact, or a separate and independent grade change, has not been confirmed and remains open. Recommend requesting a complete, dated grade-change audit trail for NSG521 from Registrar Services covering all exam attempts, scores, and grade postings. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-159}} (NSG521 grade change from A to B and the open question of who authorized it and on what basis, same course), {{HU|HU-155}} (original retake request denial), {{HU|HU-179}} (retake approval based on ProctorU's fault admission, same underlying exam).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Financial Aid

2026-09-15T16:37:03Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Financial Aid''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern financial aid. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article collects six tracker records, dated between April 30, 2026 and May 5, 2026, spanning severities from Medium to Critical, with one record marked Critical. Three records are CONFIRMED ({{HU|HU-011}}, {{HU|HU-028}}, {{HU|HU-048}}) and three are POSSIBLE ({{HU|HU-059}}, {{HU|HU-060}}, {{HU|HU-061}}), meaning the latter group rests on single, unverified reports rather than confirmed evidence.

The confirmed records describe recurring process failures inside the Financial Aid Department: duplicate 48-hour ultimatum notices for the same required documents ({{HU|HU-011}}), a backend processing error that misrouted a student's Graduate PLUS loan preference ({{HU|HU-028}}), and a Department of Education rule change that eliminated Graduate PLUS loan eligibility for nurses who withdraw, a change that Herzing did not communicate to students weighing withdrawal after ProctorU-related course failures ({{HU|HU-048}}). The Financial Aid Department is the named or co-named owner on every record in this set, with Central Processing, Academic Affairs, Compliance, Admissions, and the Bursar's office appearing as secondary owners depending on the issue.

The three POSSIBLE records describe undisclosed costs and enforcement practices reported by students on public platforms: a financial aid cap not explained at enrollment ({{HU|HU-059}}), a 500 dollar course retake fee not prominently disclosed ({{HU|HU-060}}), and course lockouts triggered by late or missed payment without adequate notice ({{HU|HU-061}}). None of these three has been verified against Herzing's catalog or enrollment agreements, but the notes on each one point back to the confirmed processing failures above as corroborating context for a broader pattern of financial aid administration problems.

== Issues ==
=== HU-011: Student received multiple 48-hour ultimatum notices for required FA documents (MPN, Entrance Counseling) in July 2025 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid Department
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the student received multiple 48-hour ultimatum notices for required FA documents (MPN, Entrance Counseling) in July 2025.

'''Evidence.''' FA email (2025-07-22) and (2025-07-29) from fa@herzing.edu. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>This notice is to inform you that we are missing critical information needed to process your financial aid. Please provide the requested document(s) listed below within 48 hours to avoid any delay.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14: institutions must maintain adequate student financial aid procedures. Two separate 48-hour ultimatum notices for the same documents suggests either inadequate initial FA counseling or a process failure in tracking completion.

'''Impact.''' Pressure-timeline notifications for required documents may cause undue stress. If unmet, can delay disbursement and enrollment. Two notices for the same items suggest the process was not resolved after the first.

'''Notes.''' Student ID [student ID redacted]. Notices sent July 22 and July 29, 2025.

=== HU-028: Student's Graduate PLUS loan preference not processed correctly; backend team failed to note preference ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Error
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid Department / Central Processing
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the student's Graduate PLUS loan preference was not processed correctly, and the backend team failed to note the preference.

'''Evidence.''' Email chain between McChesney and the reporting student (March to April 2026). Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I think that the backend team did not see the note about the PLUS Loan being your preference. I emailed that team and asked them to review and correct this.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR Part 682 (FFEL/Direct Loan regulations); 20 U.S.C. §1078-2 (PLUS Loan). Failure to process the student's documented loan preference constitutes a financial aid processing error.

'''Impact.''' The student's summer 2026 financial aid was incorrectly packaged. Required multiple follow-up communications to correct. Delay in summer funding could affect enrollment and tuition payment.

'''Notes.''' Summer 2026 funding was not available until mid-May per the FA advisor. The student was anxious about coverage at the term transition.

=== HU-048: DOE rule effective July 1, 2026 reclassifies nurses as no longer "professional students," eliminating Graduate PLUS loan eligibility; students considering withdrawal due to ProctorU incidents not informed of this material financial consequence ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Material Financial Risk / Failure to Notify
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid Department / Academic Affairs / Compliance
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, a Department of Education rule effective July 1, 2026 reclassifies nurses as no longer "professional students," eliminating Graduate PLUS loan eligibility for students who withdraw. Herzing students considering withdrawal due to ProctorU incidents were not informed of this material financial consequence.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing Proctor U Students GroupMe (May 1, 2026): the reporting student warned students considering withdrawal. Students Student BR, Student BS, and Student BQ were all actively considering withdrawal due to ProctorU false-flag course failures at the time of this warning. Source Group: Multiple GroupMe Archives: Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>As of today the Department of Education has released a rule that designates nurses as no longer professional students. If you withdraw and you are not at another program by July 1, you are no longer eligible for the grad plus loan.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR Part 682 (FFEL/Direct Loan regulations); 20 U.S.C. §1078-2 (PLUS Loan); 34 CFR §668.14 (institutional obligations to provide accurate financial information). Institutions have an affirmative duty to inform students of material changes in financial aid eligibility, particularly when those changes are triggered by institutional actions (such as course failures caused by ProctorU false-flags) that may drive students to withdraw.

'''Impact.''' Students who withdrew due to ProctorU-caused course failures after July 1, 2026 may permanently lose Graduate PLUS loan eligibility if not enrolled in another qualifying program. For students whose withdrawals were caused by institutional failures, the financial harm compounds the academic harm.

'''Notes.''' This issue is particularly urgent because the July 1, 2026 deadline is imminent at the time of this document update. The intersection of ProctorU false-flags ({{HU|HU-030}}) causing course failures, driving withdrawal decisions, with this financial aid rule change creates a compounding harm scenario with direct institutional liability.

=== HU-059: Student reports Herzing imposes financial aid cap below full cost of program completion; cap not disclosed or explained at enrollment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Non-Disclosure of Financial Aid Cap at Enrollment
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid Department / Admissions / Compliance
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, at least one student reports that Herzing University imposes a financial aid cap, limiting total aid below the full cost of program completion, and that this cap was not disclosed or explained at enrollment, resulting in the student facing unexpected out-of-pocket costs mid-program.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student BX (January 30, 2026). Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BX states that Herzing caps the amount of financial aid a student can receive and that once the cap is reached, the student is expected to cover the remaining cost out of pocket, and that this limit was never explained at the start of enrollment.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.41-43: institutions must provide clear, accurate, and complete information about the cost of attendance and available financial aid before enrollment. 34 CFR §668.14: institutions participating in Title IV programs must provide students with information about any limitations. HEA §484 (20 U.S.C. §1091). Failure to disclose a cap that results in mid-program out-of-pocket costs constitutes a potential enrollment misrepresentation under 34 CFR §668.71.

'''Impact.''' A student who enrolls expecting financial aid to cover program costs may be unable to continue or complete the program when aid is exhausted mid-program, particularly in a multi-year nursing degree where the final semesters may require out-of-pocket payment.

'''Notes.''' Based on a single public Facebook post; treat as POSSIBLE pending verification. Given the documented patterns of financial aid process errors already in this tracker ({{HU|HU-011}}, {{HU|HU-028}}, {{HU|HU-048}}), the underlying concern about financial aid disclosure adequacy is corroborated by the broader evidentiary record.

=== HU-060: Herzing student (Clarksville/Nashville campus) reported that failing a course requires paying $500 fee to retake; fee not prominently disclosed in enrollment materials ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Undisclosed Per-Course Retake Fee
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid / Academic Affairs / Bursar
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, a Herzing student at the Clarksville/Nashville campus reported that failing a course requires paying a 500 dollar fee to retake it, and that this fee does not appear to be prominently disclosed in enrollment materials, compounding the financial harm for students who fail courses due to documented institutional failures.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment thread (April 7, 2026): Anonymous participant 615, identifying as a Herzing Clarksville/Nashville campus student. Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous participant 615 states that the HESI exam counts for 40 percent of the final grade and that retaking a failed course costs 500 dollars.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.41-43: all costs associated with enrollment, including fees for course repeats, must be disclosed in the cost of attendance information provided to students before enrollment. HEA §484 (20 U.S.C. §1091): students must have access to accurate cost information.

'''Impact.''' A student who fails a course due to an institutional failure (ProctorU false-flag, Sherpath outage, WCAG-inaccessible content) and is then charged 500 dollars to retake the course suffers compounding financial harm.

'''Notes.''' POSSIBLE, the comment comes from an anonymous Facebook user and describes campus-based policies that may differ from the online program. Verification against the current Herzing University catalog and enrollment agreements is required.

=== HU-061: Herzing University locks students out of courses immediately upon late or missed payment without adequate advance notice; former LPN-to-RN student reported lockout as direct cause of withdrawal ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Course Lockout Without Adequate Notice
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid / Bursar / Student Services
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, Herzing University locks students out of their courses immediately upon late or missed payment without adequate advance notice, and a former LPN-to-RN online student reported being locked out as a direct cause of her withdrawal from the program.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student BY (April 25, 2026), a former Herzing LPN-to-RN online student who withdrew. Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BY states that Herzing quickly locks students out of their courses if payment is not made immediately, that some professors did not respond to her in a timely manner, and that she would recommend other schools instead.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14: institutions participating in Title IV programs must not place undue payment conditions on enrolled students' ability to continue their studies. 34 CFR §685.102 (federal loan disbursement timelines): locking students out of courses before disbursements arrive may violate these timelines. HEA §487: institutions must maintain adequate administrative capability, including payment processing, to not disrupt student academic progress.

'''Impact.''' Students who are locked out of courses immediately upon a missed payment cannot complete assignments, attend synchronous sessions, or communicate with faculty. For students using financial aid, particularly those waiting for disbursements, course lockout before aid arrives is particularly harmful.

'''Notes.''' Reported by a single former student. Combined with the documented financial aid processing errors ({{HU|HU-011}}, {{HU|HU-028}}) and the financial aid cap non-disclosure ({{HU|HU-059}}), a pattern of inadequate financial processes harming students emerges. Course lockout practices should be verified against Herzing's published enrollment and financial policies.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design

2026-09-15T16:37:02Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern faculty instruction and curriculum design. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article gathers twenty six tracker entries filed between April 30, 2026 and June 6, 2026 (three lead entries, {{HU|HU-062}}, {{HU|HU-081}}, and {{HU|HU-091}}, along with {{HU|HU-103}}, were later split into lettered sub issues on June 6, 2026, and one sub issue, {{HU|HU-091a}}, traces to an original incident dated July 14, 2025). All twenty six entries carry a CONFIRMED status in the tracker, though {{HU|HU-161}} qualifies that status to the documented facts of two faculty change notifications and cohort chat messages rather than to the unstated reason for the departures. Severity runs from Medium (thirteen entries) through High (eleven entries) to Critical (two entries, {{HU|HU-044}} and {{HU|HU-117}}).

Three threads recur across the set. The first is contradictory or unavailable faculty guidance: students received conflicting instructions on clinical midterm evaluations ({{HU|HU-031}}) and clinical hour totals ({{HU|HU-033}}), a Clinical IV adjunct resigned with zero institutional notice ({{HU|HU-117}}), a Faculty and Course Information page sat blank in week three of a term ({{HU|HU-130}}), and a synchronous session schedule was posted after three of its own sessions had already passed ({{HU|HU-131}}). The second thread is curriculum design and disclosure: exit exam benchmarks that can change without notice ({{HU|HU-010}}), a catalog supersession memorandum that binds enrolled students to later policy versions ({{HU|HU-064}}), a capstone mentor requirement not disclosed until course start ({{HU|HU-097}}), a modules only curriculum with no standalone textbooks ({{HU|HU-102}}), a capstone described as theoretical rather than implemented ({{HU|HU-111}}), and identical assignments required across two concurrent courses ({{HU|HU-113}}). The third thread is faculty retention and instruction quality, most visible in the New Orleans campus cluster ({{HU|HU-062}}, {{HU|HU-062a}}, {{HU|HU-062b}}), the self teaching characterization of the program ({{HU|HU-077}}), the clinical communication failures around care plans and preceptor briefing ({{HU|HU-081}}, {{HU|HU-081a}}, {{HU|HU-081b}}), two unrelated administrative incidents involving a misdirected Needs Improvement contract and check off policy violations ({{HU|HU-091}}, {{HU|HU-091a}}, {{HU|HU-091b}}), and the broader faculty turnover and instruction quality lead ({{HU|HU-103}}, {{HU|HU-103a}}, {{HU|HU-103b}}), which connects to a second documented Clinical IV faculty departure the following term ({{HU|HU-161}}).

Owners named across the set concentrate in the Program Chair, the Dean of Nursing or Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, Academic Affairs, and the Clinical Coordinator, with named faculty members, Dr. Tressler and Dr. Prashad, appearing directly in the evidence for {{HU|HU-113}}, {{HU|HU-117}}, {{HU|HU-130}}, and {{HU|HU-161}}, and Dr. Gregg appearing in the evidence for {{HU|HU-131}}. Several entries cross reference issues logged under other topics, including Clinical Placement, Technology, LMS, and Platforms, Grading and Academic Records, and Workload and Student Communication, indicating that faculty instruction and curriculum design problems in this tracker rarely occur in isolation.

== Issues ==
=== HU-010: Exit exam benchmark scores can be changed 'at any time' without notice to enrolled students ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Transparency Risk
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | School of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, exit exam benchmark scores can be changed at any time without notice to enrolled students.

'''Evidence.''' Handbook p.23 (both RN and PN Exit Exam sections) states that threshold benchmark scores required to pass the exit exams are based on national student performance data and may be changed at any time by the university. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Threshold benchmark scores required to pass the exit exams are based upon national student performance data and may be changed at any time by the university.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: student policies must be clear and consistently applied. Unilateral, unannounced changes to graduation thresholds raise student fairness and transparency concerns. Accreditation standards require predictable, published program requirements.

'''Impact.''' Students cannot meaningfully plan for graduation when a key progression threshold can change without notice or prospective application. Mid-program changes could retroactively affect students already in progress.

'''Notes.''' The identical language appears in both the RN Exit Exam (p.23) and PN Exit Exam (p.23) sections of the handbook.

=== HU-031: Dr. Pannla told students clinical midterm evaluations were no longer required; Dr. Fabry confirmed they were required; students who relied on Dr. Pannla's guidance were penalized ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Contradictory Faculty Guidance
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Clinical Course Director
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Dr. Pannla told students that clinical midterm evaluations were no longer required, Dr. Fabry confirmed that they were required, and students who had relied on Dr. Pannla's guidance were penalized.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (December 1, 2025): Student C reported conflicting guidance, with Dr. Pannla stating that midterm evaluations were no longer required and Dr. Fabry stating that they are required. Source Group: MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (Sept 2025 to May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student C described receiving conflicting guidance, being told the evaluations were no longer required and then told by Dr. Fabry that they were, and reported being drawn into an email chain between the two faculty members about the conflict while expressing frustration with what the student called disorganized clinical classes.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: policies must be clearly communicated and consistently applied. Handbook p.18 Chain of Communication. Promissory reliance doctrine: students who rely on faculty guidance in good faith cannot be penalized for acting on that guidance.

'''Impact.''' Students who followed Dr. Pannla's guidance were required to complete midterm meetings on short notice, disrupting clinical schedules and preceptor relationships.

'''Notes.''' Pattern consistent with {{HU|HU-023}} (inter-departmental communication failures). Same pattern recurred with clinical hour totals (see {{HU|HU-032}} and {{HU|HU-033}}).

=== HU-033: Clinical III total hour requirement stated as 135 in course syllabus but Dr. Prashad announcement stated 140 hours; contradictory official documents within same semester ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inconsistent Published Requirements
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Clinical III total hour requirement was stated as 135 hours in the course syllabus, but a subsequent Dr. Prashad announcement stated 140 hours (90 in person plus 50 virtual), so students received contradictory official documents within the same semester.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (December 4, 2025): Student C posted a screenshot showing the syllabus stated 135 hours, and Student Y confirmed that Dr. Prashad had sent a new announcement stating 140 hours. Student S noted that the new rule required 90 in person hours, so a student who completed 50 hours online lost the benefit of 5 of those hours. Source Group: MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (Sept 2025 to May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student C reacted to the new requirement by asking why the university would not let her complete just half when she needed only 2.5 more hours, pointing out that the syllabus still said 135 hours, and separately noted that the change had not been communicated correctly from the start.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: policies must be consistently communicated; syllabi are binding academic contracts. 34 CFR §668.41. When a course syllabus and a subsequent instructor announcement directly contradict each other on a material graduation requirement, the institution cannot unilaterally enforce the more restrictive version without formal notice and a reasonable accommodation period.

'''Impact.''' Students who met the 135 hour syllabus requirement in good faith were told they were 5 hours short under the revised 140 hour standard. Administrative confusion cost students real time and money.

'''Notes.''' Closely related to {{HU|HU-032}} (mid semester change to in person hour requirements) and {{HU|HU-010}} (exit exam benchmarks can change at any time). Together these suggest a pattern of material program requirements being changed or inconsistently communicated after enrollment.

=== HU-044: Sherpath academic platform routinely teaches factually incorrect clinical nursing information; errors could cause patient harm if acted upon ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum Deficiency / Patient Safety Risk
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Elsevier / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Sherpath academic platform routinely teaches factually incorrect clinical nursing information, and students identified errors that, if acted upon in clinical practice, could cause patient harm.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (March 3, 2025): Student AQ stated that Sherpath was teaching incorrect information on a regular basis. Student X (Feb 7, 2025) identified at least one question where the correct answer was clearly wrong based on clinical logic. Multiple students across cohorts noted the platform was inadequate preparation for HESI. Source Group: multiple GroupMe archives, Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student AQ said that Sherpath teaches incorrect information regularly and warned that a student who does not recognize an error could carry it forward into practice and make a dangerous mistake as a nurse, and separately described a gap between what the platform teaches and what the HESI exams actually ask.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: course content must be current, evidence based, and accurate. ACEN Standard 5: student learning outcomes must reflect competence in safe nursing practice. NCSBN standards for nursing education require that didactic content be accurate and clinically defensible. Elsevier has a contractual obligation to provide accurate educational content.

'''Impact.''' Students who learn incorrect clinical content from Sherpath and apply it in patient care settings could cause direct patient harm. The institution's reliance on Sherpath as the primary educational resource without institutional correction of inaccuracies represents a systemic curriculum and patient safety failure.

'''Notes.''' Student AQ left the program specifically citing Sherpath inaccuracies as a primary reason, transferring to St. Louis University's MSN direct entry program. See also {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath platform failures).

=== HU-062: Lead: the Herzing New Orleans campus produced three distinct failures (curriculum taught did not match what was tested with no correct books, faculty could not be retained, and a student got no accommodation after emergency surgery); see HU-062a, HU-062b, HU-062c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (three independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Campus Director / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for three distinct Herzing New Orleans campus failures reported by Student L, who left the campus in December 2025, in a Facebook comment thread dated April 27, 2026: {{HU|HU-062a}} (students were taught a milestone curriculum but tested on Elsevier and HESI content without being told or given the correct textbooks), {{HU|HU-062b}} (the campus could not retain faculty and a lab instructor taught the students nothing), and {{HU|HU-062c}} (a student received no accommodation after emergency surgery during the semester). See each sub issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-062}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-062}} resolve to this lead. Campus specific failures consistent with broader online program patterns. Reported by Student L (former Herzing NOLA student), documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-062a}}, {{HU|HU-062b}}, {{HU|HU-062c}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-033}} (conflicting curriculum requirements), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness).

=== HU-062a: NOLA students were taught a milestone curriculum but tested on Elsevier/HESI without notice or the correct books ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum-Assessment Misalignment: Taught One Curriculum, Tested on Another, Without Correct Materials
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Campus Director / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence and according to Student L, the NOLA campus taught a milestone based curriculum but tested students on Elsevier and HESI content, without telling students or providing the correct textbooks, and nothing taught correlated with the HESI exams.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment thread (April 27, 2026), Student L: the campus went through a restructure, taught one curriculum meant to be milestone based, then tested on Elsevier and HESI, which would have been fine if students had been told and given the correct books, but they were not, and nothing taught correlated with the HESI exams.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student L said the campus taught one curriculum, supposed to be milestone based, then tested students on Elsevier and HESI content, which would have been fine if students had been told and given the correct books, but they were not.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: curriculum and examination content must be aligned and clearly communicated, and students must be provided appropriate preparation materials. Lead: {{HU|HU-062}}. Compare {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content).

'''Impact.''' Students taught one curriculum but examined on another, without the right materials, were set up to underperform on HESI through institutional misalignment rather than lack of effort.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-062}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student L (former Herzing NOLA student), documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-062b: NOLA campus could not retain faculty and a lab instructor taught the students nothing ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Retention Failure / Inadequate Instruction
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Campus Director / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence and according to Student L, the NOLA campus still could not retain staff, and a lab instructor had taught the students nothing.

'''Evidence.''' Same April 27, 2026 thread: the lab teacher had not taught the students anything, and the campus still could not retain staff.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student L said the lab teacher had not taught them anything and that the campus still could not retain staff.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: faculty must be adequate in number and qualified; an inability to retain staff and an instructor providing no instruction are accreditation concerns. Lead: {{HU|HU-062}}. Compare {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness).

'''Impact.''' Students experienced an instructional gap in lab content while still being held to the same assessment standards.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-062}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student L (former Herzing NOLA student), documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-064: Herzing institutional memorandum (May 4, 2026) states updated catalogs 'supersede all previously published versions'; framework permits retroactive changes binding enrolled students without proactive individual notice ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Retroactive Policy Supersession Framework / Inadequate Change Notification
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Compliance / Office of the Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, a Herzing University institutional memorandum dated May 4, 2026, distributed to all students, states that updated catalogs supersede all previously published versions and that students are responsible for adhering to the most up to date policies, a framework that contractually permits Herzing to change material program requirements at any time and retroactively bind enrolled students to those changes without proactive individual notice.

'''Evidence.''' Photograph of a Herzing University official memorandum (May 4, 2026), shared via a Facebook post, addressed "To: All Herzing University Students" regarding "Catalog and Policy Changes Effective Summer 2026 Semester." Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Students are responsible for adhering to the most up-to-date policies as published in the current students catalogs. Updated catalogs, and the policies contained therein, supersede all previously published versions. Students should seek clarification from the Director of Campus Operations or Academic Dean for Online Learning if they are told or read any information inconsistent or contradictory with the student catalogs.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.41-43 (disclosure requirements): retroactive changes to program requirements may violate disclosure obligations. Contract law and promissory estoppel: students who enrolled based on specific program representations and made irreversible commitments have a reliance interest. OCR Dear Colleague Letter (2011): enrollment agreements and published policies constitute binding commitments to students.

'''Impact.''' The retroactive supersession framework, combined with the documented pattern of mid program policy changes ({{HU|HU-010}}, {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-033}}) and enrollment misrepresentations ({{HU|HU-022}}, {{HU|HU-046}}, {{HU|HU-058}}), creates a legal environment in which Herzing can alter any program requirement after enrollment and defend the change by pointing to the current catalog, regardless of what students were told at enrollment.

'''Notes.''' The memo was distributed via Facebook, not confirmed to have been received through individual direct email or Canvas notification, which means students with email accessibility barriers ({{HU|HU-054}}) or limited Facebook access may not have received it. A separate Facebook post in the same archive contains screenshots of a complete 49 question pharmacology exam with all correct answers highlighted and publicly shared on Facebook, direct photographic evidence of the academic integrity failures documented in {{HU|HU-037}} and {{HU|HU-051}}.

=== HU-077: Faculty explicitly told students program is '80-20' (80% self-taught) and would not lecture; documented across multiple cohorts including mental health professor stating 'this was a self taught program' ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Self-Teaching Expectation Contradicting Marketed Program Structure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, multiple students documented that Herzing faculty explicitly told them the program is 80 percent self taught and 20 percent taught, or refused to lecture entirely, characterizing the program as self taught, which contradicts the institutional marketing of the program as a structured graduate education with faculty instruction. One mental health professor reportedly stated from day one that she would never lecture and that this was a self taught program, and Student BA cited the 80-20 comment as a direct cause of her withdrawal.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student BA (Sep 27, 2024) and Student F (Dec 30, 2023), with corroborating comments from Student D (Apr 26, 2025), Student CB (Oct 20, 2024), and Student M (Sep 26, 2024). Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student BA said she withdrew from the program partly because of what she called the 80-20 comment, and stated that she was paying to be taught rather than to find 80 percent of the material independently or reread directions she did not understand. Student F separately described a mental health professor who told the cohort from day one that she would never lecture and that the program was self taught, and said the first cohort acted as guinea pigs sharing information with classmates about their clinical experiences. Other students corroborated the pattern, describing instructors who gave brief lectures and left students to figure out the material on their own, and describing having taught themselves nearly everything.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): institutions may not make substantial misrepresentations about the nature of their educational programs. Marketing a program as a structured graduate degree while explicitly directing faculty to require 80 percent self teaching constitutes a potential misrepresentation of program structure. ACEN Standard 5: faculty must provide adequate instruction to support student learning outcomes. Herzing Mission: educate, support, and empower all students for success. If faculty are instructing students that the program is fundamentally self directed, this contradicts the educational duty implied by educate. 34 CFR §600.2 (credit hour definition): credit hours assume a balance of direct faculty instruction and student work; a program that is 80 percent self taught may not meet the credit hour standard.

'''Impact.''' Students who enrolled with the expectation of structured graduate education face a fundamentally different educational experience than represented. Student BA's withdrawal cited the 80-20 comment specifically as her reason, indicating this expectation gap drives attrition. Students who succeed do so through self teaching and outside resources ({{HU|HU-081}} documents Bootcamp, Mark Klimek, YourBestGrade, Quizlet, and Studocu use as a documented norm), reducing the institutional value add for the substantial tuition. Cumulative tuition cost (approximately $12,465 per term) for a substantially self taught program raises consumer protection concerns.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-014}} (student documenting systemic inability to succeed), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-073}} (high GPA withdrawals). The 80-20 phrasing appears to be a specific institutional formulation referenced in faculty communications. Verification recommended: faculty training materials, course syllabi expectations of student versus faculty time, and documented faculty office hour engagement should be reviewed. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-081}} (additional faculty instruction failure involving care plans and preceptor communication).

=== HU-081: Lead: two distinct clinical-communication failures (a major assignment given with no guidance, and preceptors not briefed so students had to define their own scope); see HU-081a, HU-081b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for two distinct clinical communication failures reported by Student F in a Facebook comment on December 30, 2023: {{HU|HU-081a}} (18 page care plans assigned without guidance or even mention, discovered only by seeing another school's student carrying her packet) and {{HU|HU-081b}} (the institution did not brief preceptors on Herzing expectations, so students had to tell preceptors what they thought they could do, inverting the preceptorship structure). See each sub issue.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-081}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-081}} resolve to this lead. Verification recommended: clinical syllabi for care plan requirements and preceptor orientation materials. Reported by Student F (2023 to 2024 clinical), documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-081a}}, {{HU|HU-081b}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-023}}, {{HU|HU-031}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, {{HU|HU-045}}, {{HU|HU-077}}.

=== HU-081a: 18-page care plans assigned with no guidance or even mention ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Assignment Not Communicated: Major Requirement Given Without Guidance
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students were expected to complete 18 page care plans with no real guidance or even mention of them, and one student learned of the requirement only by seeing a student from another school carrying her care plan packet on December 30, 2023.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student F (December 30, 2023): students were expected to complete 18 page care plans with no real guidance or even mention, and she only found out when she saw another student from another school carrying her packet around.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student F said students were expected to complete 18 page care plans with no real guidance or even mention of them, and that she only found out about the requirement when she saw a student from another school carrying her packet around.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: assignment requirements must be clearly communicated to students. Lead: {{HU|HU-081}}. Compare {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).

'''Impact.''' Students unaware of a major requirement face academic harm caused by institutional non-communication, not lack of effort.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-081}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student F, documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-081b: Preceptors were not briefed, so students had to define their own clinical scope ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Preceptor Orientation Failure: Scope Inversion
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the institution did not brief preceptors on Herzing's clinical expectations, so students had to tell the preceptors what they thought they could do, inverting the normal structure in which preceptors guide students, on December 30, 2023.

'''Evidence.''' Same December 30, 2023 comment by Student F: the institution did not talk to the preceptors, so the students had to tell the preceptors what they thought they could do.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student F said the institution had not talked to the preceptors, so the students had to tell the preceptors what they thought they could do.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: preceptors are essential partners and must be oriented to program expectations; standard nursing education practice (NCSBN, AACN) places preceptor orientation on the institution, not the student. Lead: {{HU|HU-081}}.

'''Impact.''' A student is not the appropriate party to define their own clinical scope; the inversion creates patient safety risk and undermines preceptor authority.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-081}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student F, documented by the reporting student.

=== HU-091: Lead: two unrelated faculty/administrative incidents (an NI contract issued to the wrong student, and improper conduct during intensive check-offs); see HU-091a, HU-091b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two independent incidents)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for two unrelated administrative and faculty incidents documented in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group export: {{HU|HU-091a}} (a Needs Improvement contract issued to the wrong student, Student C, July 14, 2025) and {{HU|HU-091b}} (faculty check off policy violations during intensives reported by Handle 1, May 4, 2026). They involve different students, dates, and facts and are tracked separately. Both were ultimately resolved on appeal.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-091}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-091}} resolve to this lead. Student C and Handle 1 (cohort students); documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-091a}}, {{HU|HU-091b}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-016}}, {{HU|HU-031}}, {{HU|HU-040}}, {{HU|HU-045}}.

=== HU-091a: Needs Improvement contract issued to the wrong student (Student C); a full day of anxiety before the instructor admitted the error ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Administrative Error: Needs Improvement Contract Issued to the Wrong Student
! Date added
| 2025-07-14 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student C received a Needs Improvement contract at 9:30 AM on July 14, 2025 stating that he had not completed required lab work, with a warning that he would fail clinicals if it was not completed by midnight, and he spent the day searching for the missing work before the instructor admitted the next day that she had been looking at the wrong person.

'''Evidence.''' Student C: received the Needs Improvement contract at 9:30 AM stating lab one work was incomplete, with a midnight deadline or clinical fail; the instructor later said she had been looking at the wrong person and it was a mistake.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student C described the instructor later admitting that she had been looking at the wrong person and that the whole matter was a mistake.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 (faculty professionalism). A Needs Improvement contract that threatens clinical failure without an accurate basis exposes a student to academic harm caused by faculty error. Lead: {{HU|HU-091}}. Compare {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-response), {{HU|HU-016}} (appeal inbox).

'''Impact.''' A full day of extreme anxiety over a faculty administrative error; the burden of remediation fell on the student.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-091}} (lead). Resolved the next day. Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-091b: Faculty check-off policy violations during intensives caused fails; appeal granted a redo (Handle 1) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Policy Violation: Improper Conduct During Intensive Check-Offs
! Date added
| 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Handle 1 reported failing intensives due to instructor check off policy violations, including instructors interrupting check offs, an instructor on her phone missing check offs, and instructors asking questions during check offs; multiple students had the same problem and had to return, and Handle 1 appealed and was granted a redo on May 4, 2026.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 1: failed the first check off, which caused failing two classes, then appealed because instructors broke policy during check offs.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Handle 1 described a head to toe check off in which instructors kept stopping the student, one instructor was on her phone and missed check offs, instructors asked questions during the check off itself, and a lot of people had the same problem and had to come back because of it.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 (faculty competence and professionalism in evaluation); integrity of skills check offs. Lead: {{HU|HU-091}}. Compare {{HU|HU-040}} (intensive validation stamp dispute).

'''Impact.''' Handle 1 failed two classes due to instructor policy violations before a successful appeal; institutional harm occurred before corrective action was available.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-091}} (lead). Appeal granted a redo. Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-097: Synthesis I/II capstone mentor requirement not disclosed until course start; students must independently find MSN/terminal-degree mentor in same state within 2 weeks; Student BH's Maryland mentor rejected; institutional burden-shift for capstone supervision ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Material Requirement Non-Disclosure / Student Burden-Shift
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Curriculum Committee / Synthesis Course Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Synthesis I and Synthesis II capstone courses require students to independently locate, recruit, and secure a nurse mentor who holds an MSN or higher, has at least one year of experience, is actively practicing, and is physically located in the same state as the student, with no advance disclosure before the course begins and approximately two weeks from the course start date to secure a qualified mentor. Student BH documented a Maryland mentor being rejected because Student BH is located in Virginia, adding an undisclosed state restriction layer.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous member 753 (May 28, 2025) said the school should be more upfront about the requirement. Student U (May 28, 2025) said students are not told until the class starts. Student BH (Jul 11, 2025) documented her Maryland mentor being rejected. Student CM (Aug 26, 2025) clarified the requirement as a nurse with a terminal degree and at least one year of experience. Handle 10 (Feb 13, 2026) confirmed that the school does not help find a mentor. Student B (Feb 13, 2026) confirmed the two week deadline. Anonymous member 878 (Jul 11, 2025) advised choosing a mentor close by, since on-site or in-person hours with the mentor are required for Synthesis II. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, Volume 7.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student U said students are not told about the mentor requirement until they start the class. Anonymous member 753 said the school should be more upfront about the requirement, calling it a tall order that is not a simple checkbox for everyone. Student BH described having a willing mentor in Maryland who was rejected because Student BH needed someone located in Virginia. Student CM described the requirement as a registered nurse with a terminal degree and at least one year of experience, and advised students without a mentor in mind to start networking as soon as possible. Handle 10 confirmed the school does not help students find a mentor and recommended starting early because required forms are due early in the semester. Student B confirmed that the mentor must hold an MSN, cannot have gone from BSN to DNP without an MSN in between, and must be secured no later than week two of Synthesis I.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): material program requirements must be disclosed to students before enrollment so they can make informed decisions. A requirement to independently locate a qualified MSN mentor in the student's specific state, within two weeks of course start, is a material requirement that affects whether a student can progress through the program. Non-disclosure until course start is a transparency failure. ACEN Standard 4: capstone supervision is an institutional responsibility; shifting the burden of securing qualified supervision to the student, with no advance notice, no institutional support, and a two week deadline, constitutes a curriculum design deficiency. The state restriction on mentors (mentor must be in same state as student) interacts with {{HU|HU-085}} (frozen or paused states): students in states with enrollment issues may face additional difficulty finding qualified mentors. NCSBN Standards for Nursing Education: clinical and capstone supervision must be adequate and institutionally arranged.

'''Impact.''' Students who cannot locate a qualifying mentor within two weeks face potential course failure or withdrawal at the final stages of the program, after investing approximately 18 months and $60,000 to $95,000 in tuition. Student BH's case documents a concrete harm: a willing mentor was rejected on geographic grounds that were not disclosed in advance, requiring her to restart the networking process. Students without existing professional networks in nursing, particularly career changers with no medical background, are disproportionately harmed. The in person hour requirement for Synthesis II, approximately 27 hours with the mentor on site, adds logistical complexity that students in rural or underserved areas may be unable to meet.

'''Notes.''' The non-disclosure pattern is consistent across the program: care plans not mentioned until students see another school's student carrying them ({{HU|HU-081}}); Virginia Board of Nursing direct care hour requirements not known until a prospective student threatened to contact the board ({{HU|HU-070}}); Alabama Board of Nursing virtual hour limits known only to certain clinical coordinators ({{HU|HU-085}}). The Synthesis mentor requirement is another instance of the same institutional pattern: material information withheld until students are already committed to the course. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-081}} (care plan non-disclosure), {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia Board of Nursing non-disclosure), {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama Board of Nursing non-disclosure).

=== HU-102: No physical textbooks provided in MSN-DE program; students receive modules only; required to purchase outside study resources (YourBestGrade, NAXLEX, Simple Nursing) at additional cost to compensate ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum Resource Inadequacy
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the MSN-DE program provides no physical or digital textbooks as standalone learning materials; all content is embedded in Sherpath and Canvas modules. This creates two compounding problems: students cannot access content independently of the LMS platform, so platform outages ({{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-092}}) eliminate access to all study materials, and because the modules do not adequately prepare students for HESI exams ({{HU|HU-088}}), the effective curriculum requires students to independently purchase outside resources such as YourBestGrade, NAXLEX, Simple Nursing, Bootcamp, and Nurse Sarah tutorials at costs ranging from about $30 to more than $300 per resource.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 11 (Dec 29, 2025) confirmed there are no books, only modules. Anonymous member 533 (Jul 12, 2025) said students need to purchase outside software and materials to study for and pass the HESI exams. Student D (Jul 10, 2025) said the student focuses study time on non-Herzing materials. Student AE (May 29, 2025) described YourBestGrade as the closest study resource for most students, though pricey. Multiple students consistently recommended YourBestGrade (about $30 to $100 or more per month), NAXLEX, Simple Nursing, Level Up RN, and Bootcamp as necessary supplemental resources. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, Volume 7.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student CG asked whether there were books available with an access code that could be added to the VitalSource bookshelf, and Handle 11 replied that there are no books, only modules. Anonymous member 533 said students will need to purchase software and materials outside of Herzing coursework to study for and pass the HESI exams, adding that there is a financial aspect to consider.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): prospective students are not informed that the program's own curriculum is insufficient to pass required examinations and that additional paid resources are effectively mandatory. ACEN Standard 4: curriculum must adequately prepare students for program outcomes including HESI passage. A curriculum that requires systematic student purchase of outside resources to pass its own required examinations is not adequately designed. 34 CFR §600.2 (credit hour): credit hours imply access to sufficient learning materials; a modules only structure with no standalone textbooks may not meet this standard. Consumer protection principles: the effective additional cost of outside study resources, roughly $100 to $500 or more per student, is an undisclosed program cost that affects the total cost of attendance.

'''Impact.''' Students who cannot afford outside study resources are at a competitive disadvantage within the program because the curriculum alone does not prepare them for HESI examinations. The pattern of modules only content combined with HESI exams covering untaught content ({{HU|HU-088}}) creates a structural dependency on paid third party resources, and this financial burden falls disproportionately on lower income students. Platform dependency also means a Sherpath or Canvas outage eliminates access to all study materials simultaneously.

'''Notes.''' This issue connects to {{HU|HU-078}} (systematic third party resource reliance documented in the Facebook group), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covering untaught content), and {{HU|HU-077}} (80-20 self teaching expectation). The modules only structure is consistent with the 80-20 characterization: if 80 percent of learning is student driven using self sourced materials, the institution is effectively outsourcing curriculum delivery to commercial study platforms while charging full tuition. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-047}} (tuition increase), {{HU|HU-048}} (financial aid cap).

=== HU-103: Lead: high faculty turnover and inconsistent instruction quality across cohorts (instructors lost mid-program, and large variation in teaching from cohort to cohort); see HU-103a, HU-103b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (faculty retention, instruction quality)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Human Resources / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for faculty stability and instruction quality problems documented across cohorts. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-103a}} (high faculty turnover and loss of instructional continuity, including an instructor who disappeared on day one of Clinical IV and a mental health instructor not retained for later cohorts) and {{HU|HU-103b}} (inconsistent instruction quality across cohorts, with some students reporting minimal lectures and being left to self teach). See each sub issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Split into lettered sub issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-103}} resolve here. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7). Parts: {{HU|HU-103a}}, {{HU|HU-103b}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-043}} (Clinical IV instructor absent day one), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-077}} (80-20 self teaching expectation).

=== HU-103a: High faculty turnover and loss of instructional continuity, including a Clinical IV instructor who disappeared on day one and a mental-health instructor not retained for later cohorts ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Retention / Instructional Continuity
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Human Resources
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students documented high faculty turnover and loss of instructional continuity, including a Clinical IV instructor who disappeared on day one of the semester with no replacement or communication (tracked in {{HU|HU-043}}) and a first cohort mental health instructor who stated from day one that she would never lecture and was not retained for subsequent cohorts.

'''Evidence.''' Student AY (January 26, 2025) listed very high faculty turnover as a primary deficiency. {{HU|HU-043}} documents the Clinical IV instructor absent on day one. Student F (December 30, 2023) described a mental health instructor who said she would never lecture and that students were left as guinea pigs passing information to classmates. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student AY described very high faculty turnover as a primary deficiency of the program. Student F said the cohort had a mental health professor who told them from day one that she would never lecture and that the program was self taught, leaving the first cohort to act as guinea pigs sharing information with classmates.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 (sufficient, qualified faculty to support program outcomes; instructional continuity); 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability, including stable qualified faculty); HLC Criterion 3.C (sufficient faculty resources). Lead: {{HU|HU-103}}. Extends {{HU|HU-043}}.

'''Impact.''' Loss of instructors mid program disrupts learning and disproportionately affected early cohorts who bore the cost of a developing faculty infrastructure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-103}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-103b: Inconsistent instruction quality across cohorts, with some students receiving minimal lectures and being left to self-teach ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inconsistent Instruction Quality / Faculty Evaluation
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, students reported wide variation in instruction quality, with some faculty providing only brief lectures and leaving students to figure out the material while other cohorts reported adequate teaching, a variability consistent with a high turnover environment in which faculty quality is unpredictable and underperformance may not be addressed.

'''Evidence.''' Student CB (October 20, 2024) described a few great professors and quite a few who put out a ten minute lecture and hope students figure it out. Student F (December 30, 2023) described the first cohort acting as guinea pigs. Anonymous member 261 (August 29, 2025) described the cohort as a disorganized disaster in the context of faculty quality. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, Student CB said there were a few great professors and quite a few who put out a ten minute lecture and basically hoped students would figure it out on their own.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 (faculty must be evaluated and underperformance addressed). Students paying the same tuition receiving materially different instruction depending on assignment is a program quality concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-103}}. See {{HU|HU-077}} (self teaching expectation).

'''Impact.''' Students who pay the same tuition receive materially different instructional experiences depending on which faculty member they are assigned, independent of their own effort.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-103}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-111: MSN capstone project 'not actually implemented, just theoretical'; presented to classmates and professors via Zoom only; raises questions about MSN-level competency assessment for a professional degree ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Capstone Implementation Gap
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Curriculum Committee / Synthesis Course Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the MSN-DE capstone project, framed as a quality improvement initiative in a clinical setting, is not actually executed in that setting; students develop a project proposal and present it virtually but do not implement the intervention, collect real data, or evaluate actual clinical outcomes, raising questions about MSN level competency assessment for a professional degree. This finding is partially captured in {{HU|HU-097}} (mentor requirement not disclosed), but the specific pedagogical concern, that the capstone is a proposal exercise rather than an implemented quality improvement project, warrants its own issue.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous member 753 (May 28, 2025), a student who had completed or was completing Synthesis I and II, disclosed that the capstone is not currently implemented and is presented to classmates and professors only by Zoom. Student CR (May 28, 2025, a December 2024 graduate) said students needed to secure only one mentor for the last two semesters of the capstone project. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, Volume 7.

'''Reported statement.''' According to the tracker, anonymous member 753 said that as of the time of posting, the capstone is not actually implemented, only theoretical, and is presented to classmates and professors by Zoom, and separately described the capstone process as something of a mess so far.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: MSN curriculum must include learning experiences that develop graduate level clinical competencies. A capstone that is purely theoretical, not implemented in a real clinical environment, not generating real data, and not evaluating actual patient or system outcomes, does not meet the standard of a graduate capstone in clinical nursing education. AACN Essentials for Master's Education in Nursing (2011, revised 2021): master's level education requires application of evidence based practice and quality improvement in real clinical contexts, not solely theoretical proposal development. If the capstone is presented as a clinical quality improvement project to state boards of nursing or accreditors but is in fact a theoretical Zoom presentation, this constitutes a potential misrepresentation of curriculum rigor. 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): marketing the program as including a clinical capstone implies a level of implementation that a theoretical Zoom presentation does not provide.

'''Impact.''' MSN graduates whose capstone was a theoretical proposal have not demonstrated their ability to design, implement, evaluate, and disseminate a clinical quality improvement initiative, skills expected of MSN level nurses in practice, leadership, and advanced practice roles. Employers and post graduate programs (NP certificate programs, DNP programs) may expect MSN graduates to have completed a real capstone, which a theoretical only exercise may not satisfy. Students who invested significantly in the mentor finding process ({{HU|HU-097}}), including geographic restrictions, credential requirements, and in person hour requirements, may reasonably expect the capstone to constitute meaningful clinical work in return for that investment.

'''Notes.''' This issue is marked CONFIRMED based on anonymous member 753's firsthand account as a student who had reached Synthesis. It is possible that the capstone format has changed for subsequent cohorts; Student CR's December 2024 graduation account does not specifically address whether implementation occurred. Verification recommended: review of Synthesis I and II syllabi for capstone deliverable requirements, and comparison of those requirements to ACEN and AACN capstone standards for MSN programs. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-097}} (mentor requirement not disclosed), {{HU|HU-077}} (80-20 self teaching expectation).

=== HU-113: Identical assignment questions appearing in two separate concurrent credit-bearing courses (Clinical II and MedSurg I, Week 1, May 2026); confirmed intentional by Dr. Tressler; Dr. Prashad states it happens in 'many courses'; students submitting same answers twice for separate course credit ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Duplicate Cross-Course Assignment Content
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Jessica Tressler (Lead Faculty MSN-DE) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Curriculum Committee
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, on May 4, 2026 the reporting student notified program leadership that Clinical II and MedSurg I contained identical assignment questions in week one of the current semester. Dr. Tressler confirmed on May 5, 2026 that the duplication was intentional, stating the rationale was reinforcement of professionalism and safety content. Dr. Prashad confirmed on May 6, 2026 that the practice extends to many courses across the program and said she would be posting a recording in all courses to emphasize this. Students are completing identical work counted separately toward credit for two distinct courses; both courses appear on the transcript with separate grades, and the identical assignments contribute to both.

'''Evidence.''' Email from the reporting student to Dr. Prashad, Dr. Black, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Gregg (May 4, 2026, 7:07 PM). Email from Dr. Tressler to the chain (May 5, 2026, 2:38 PM). Email from Dr. Prashad to the reporting student (May 6, 2026, 7:29 AM). Source Group: email chain, the reporting student to Dr. Prashad, Dr. Black, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Gregg, May 4 to 6, 2026; Dr. Tressler reply May 5, 2026; Dr. Prashad reply May 6, 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Yes, we are aware that similar assignments appear in both Clinical II and MedSurg I during Week One... You should complete the assignment as directed within each course, even if the questions are the same, as they are tied to course-specific requirements.</blockquote> Dr. Prashad separately stated: <blockquote>There will be many courses where materials will be repeated and that is to reinforce knowledge.</blockquote> The reporting student replied inline that the students were basically doing the exact same work for two courses, and suggested the concepts could still be reinforced by asking different questions.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §600.2 (credit hour definition): each credit hour must represent a distinct, substantive learning activity. Requiring students to complete identical assignments in two separate courses and counting that work toward the credit hours of both courses does not represent distinct learning activity for each course. ACEN Standard 4: curriculum must be designed to build on prior learning rather than repeat identical content within the same semester. The stated rationale of reinforcement does not justify identical questions; reinforcement can be achieved with distinct but related content that builds on prior learning. 34 CFR §668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): students enrolled in two courses expecting two distinct educational experiences are receiving one experience counted twice. Academic integrity principles: submitting the same work for credit in two separate courses, sometimes called double dipping, is typically a prohibited practice when initiated by students; when the institution requires it, the same academic integrity concern applies to the curriculum design itself.

'''Impact.''' Students are spending time completing assignments for which they have already provided identical answers in a concurrent course, time that could be used for actual learning. In a program where students document 90 to 100 assignments per week ({{HU|HU-096}}) and extreme time pressure ({{HU|HU-096}}), institutionally required duplicate work increases assignment burden without increasing educational value. Dr. Prashad's statement that many courses will repeat materials suggests this is a systemic curriculum design feature rather than a one time overlap, potentially affecting multiple course pairs across the program. If accreditors or the Department of Education review whether course assignments represent distinct credit hour learning activity, intentionally identical cross course assignments may not satisfy the regulatory standard.

'''Notes.''' Attachments to the reporting student's May 4 email show the duplicate assignments. Dr. Gregg forwarded the reporting student's email to Dr. Tressler without informing the reporting student, then apologized: <blockquote>I forwarded your email to Dr. Tressler, as she oversees clinicals and communicates directly with the Med-Surg course lead, those are the courses you had questions about. I do not have visibility into courses outside of ours, so I would not have been able to provide accurate information. I apologize for not communicating that more clearly earlier.</blockquote> This documents an internal forwarding practice without student notification. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-096}} (extreme workload, duplicate assignments compound an already documented overload), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covers untaught content, curriculum quality concerns), {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).

=== HU-117: Clinical IV (NSG621) Adjunct Professor Celia Pfaff resigned 'effective this morning' at the start of Week 1 of the current semester; Herzing sent zero notification to students; students discovered the resignation only because Pfaff personally emailed one student (Student AG), who then shared via GroupMe ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Critical
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Mid-Semester Resignation / Zero Student Notification
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Dr. Tressler / Dr. Prashad / HR
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Celia Pfaff, RN MSN, WCC (Wound Care Certified), DWC, CLT, Adjunct Professor I at Herzing University Madison, resigned from the MSN-DE program effective the morning of a day in week one of the current semester (May 2026). Herzing issued zero official communication to students enrolled in Clinical IV, and students discovered the resignation only because Pfaff personally emailed Student AG, who shared the message in the cohort GroupMe.

'''Evidence.''' Email from Celia Pfaff (cpfaffjump@herzing.edu) to Student AG, 3:53 PM (May 2026). GroupMe messages from Student AG at 4:18 and 4:19 PM forwarding and explaining the resignation to the cohort. Source Group: email from Celia Pfaff to Student AG (3:53 PM, May 2026); GroupMe, Herzing MSN-DE Cohort Chat (Student AG, 4:18-4:19 PM, May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I am so glad to hear from you! I regrettably had resigned from the MSN-DE program effective this morning. It truly was a pleasure to have gotten to know you and I wish you nothing but success!</blockquote> Student AG then told the cohort by GroupMe that if Celia had been listed as their Clinical IV professor, she had been Student AG's professor as well, and that a new professor was apparently forthcoming.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: institutions must employ and retain sufficient qualified faculty; a faculty resignation on the first day of a clinical semester constitutes a failure of faculty resource management. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain administrative capacity to notify students of material changes to their enrolled courses; a professor resignation is a material change. HLC Criteria 3.C: institutions must demonstrate sufficient faculty resources to support educational programs. The complete absence of institutional notification, forcing students to rely on a faculty member's personal email to a single student, forwarded informally via GroupMe, demonstrates a breakdown in basic administrative communication. This is a direct recurrence of the pattern documented in {{HU|HU-043}} (Clinical IV instructor absent day one, prior cohort) and {{HU|HU-103}} (high faculty turnover, mental health professor refused to lecture), establishing that mid semester faculty loss in Clinical IV specifically is a documented recurring pattern.

'''Impact.''' Students enrolled in Clinical IV NSG621 did not know who their professor was as of the first week of the semester, and no replacement announcement was made through official channels. Students who needed to communicate with faculty about the week one assignments, including the two assignments added mid week per {{HU|HU-116}}, had no confirmed faculty contact. Clinical IV is a high stakes semester with 135 on site clinical hours and major graded activities, so a faculty vacancy at the semester's start disrupts supervision, feedback, and academic standing management. The zero notification approach also means students who did not happen to see the GroupMe post remained unaware of the change, creating an information asymmetry within the cohort.

'''Notes.''' Celia Pfaff's resignation effective the morning of a day in week one places this event among the most disruptive possible timing for faculty departure. Students have already begun submitting work and attending clinical; the absence of a supervising faculty member creates both academic and clinical safety concerns. This is the second documented instance of a Clinical IV faculty departure without notice, see {{HU|HU-043}} for the prior cohort in the same course. The recurrence in the same course across multiple semesters suggests a structural problem with Clinical IV faculty retention, potentially related to the documented issues in that course, including extreme workload ({{HU|HU-116}}) and clinical placement difficulties ({{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-043}} (Clinical IV faculty absent day one, prior cohort), {{HU|HU-103}} (high faculty turnover), {{HU|HU-116}} (NSG621 week one mid week assignment additions), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness).

=== HU-130: NSG633-7H (2253A18) Safety and Quality: Faculty and Course Information page is a blank unfilled template, with Instructor Name, eMail, Phone, Office Hours, Virtual, Campus, Expectations, Location, Days of the week, and Times all empty; students have no faculty contact information as of Week 3, May 21, 2026 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Information Page Not Completed / Student Contact Information Missing
! Date added
| 2026-05-21
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | NSG633 Faculty / Dr. Tressler / Dr. Prashad
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Faculty and Course Information page for NSG633-7H (2253A18), Safety and Quality, was a completely blank template as of May 21, 2026, week three of the semester, with every field, including Instructor Name, eMail, Phone, Virtual Office Hours, Campus Office Hours, Expectations, Campus Location, Days of the week, Times, and Lab Location, showing only placeholder template labels with no populated content. Students in NSG633-7H have no way to identify their instructor by name, contact them by email or phone, or know when office hours are held. The course also shows Proctorio listed in the navigation sidebar as the exam proctoring tool, distinct from ProctorU/Meazure Learning used in other courses, which may create additional student confusion.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas screenshot, NSG633-7H, 2253A18, Pages, Faculty and Course Information, May 21, 2026, showing all fields blank. Source Group: Canvas screenshot, NSG633-7H, 2253A18 Faculty and Course Information page, May 21, 2026, the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Instructor Name: [blank]; eMail: [blank]; Phone: [blank]; Virtual Office Hours: [blank]; Campus Office Hours: [blank]; all fields contain only unfilled template placeholder labels.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: students must have access to qualified, identifiable faculty and be able to contact them. A Faculty and Course Information page with no faculty name, email, or office hours in week three means students cannot identify or contact their instructor. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional administrative infrastructure including faculty contact information. The blank page also undermines the chain of communication process ({{HU|HU-114}}); students cannot follow chain of communication to their faculty if they do not know who that faculty member is.

'''Impact.''' Students in NSG633-7H could not contact their instructor for week three questions, assignment clarification, or academic support. Any student needing help had to bypass the faculty first chain of communication because the faculty member was unidentifiable from the course page. The course's use of Proctorio in the navigation sidebar, distinct from the ProctorU and Meazure Learning tools used in other courses, added a further proctoring system inconsistency for students preparing for exams.

'''Notes.''' NSG633-7H, 2253A18 is identified as Safety and Quality. The course uses Proctorio for secure exams while other courses in the program use ProctorU or Meazure Learning, an undisclosed proctoring system inconsistency across courses in the same program. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-043}} (Clinical IV instructor absent day one), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-103}} (high faculty turnover), {{HU|HU-117}} (Celia Pfaff resignation day one), {{HU|HU-114}} (chain of communication directives).

=== HU-131: NSG525 synchronous session schedule posted Week 4 (May 27) after Weeks 1-3 already passed; 9-minute notice for Week 4 session; posted by unknown U user; Posted on date blank in Canvas; non-standard times Week 1 and Week 4; Week 15 on Sunday ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Synchronous Session Schedule Posted After Sessions Already Occurred / Missing Posted Date / Unknown Poster
! Date added
| 2026-05-27
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Gregg / NSG525 Faculty / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the NSG525 (Clinical II) Synchronous Session Schedule was posted as a Canvas announcement and emailed to students on Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 9:21 AM, week four of the semester. The schedule listed sessions for weeks one through fifteen, and weeks one (May 6), two (May 11), and three (May 18) had already passed before students received any notice of the schedule. Students had no advance notification of the Week 1, 2, or 3 synchronous sessions. The week four session was listed for Wednesday, May 27 at 0930 to 1030 CST, the same day the announcement was sent, with only nine minutes between the email notification (9:21 AM) and the session start (9:30 AM). The Canvas announcement list view showed the Posted on date as blank, suggesting the announcement was backdated or the date was deliberately omitted. The announcement was posted by an unknown user shown only as U, with no faculty name attached, though it was signed by Dr. Gregg. Additional scheduling irregularities included a non-standard time for week one (1030 to 1130 CST instead of 11 to 12 CST), a non-standard time for week four (0930 to 1030 CST), and week fifteen scheduled for Sunday, August 23 at 0800 to 0900 CST, a different day of the week from all other sessions.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas announcement, NSG525 Synchronous Session Schedule, signed Dr. Gregg, posted by an unknown U user, Posted on date blank. The posted schedule listed: week 1, Wednesday May 6, 1030 to 1130 CST; week 2, Monday May 11, 11 to 12 CST; week 3, Monday May 18, 11 to 12 CST; week 4, Wednesday May 27, 0930 to 1030 CST; weeks 5 through 8, Mondays June 1, 8, 15, and 22, 11 to 12 CST; week 9, Monday July 6; weeks 10 through 13, Mondays July 13, 20, and 27, and August 3; week 14, Monday August 10; and week 15, Sunday August 23, 0800 to 0900 CST. Canvas email notification from ClinicalII(NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16, notifications@instructure.com, to the reporting student, Wed 5/27/2026, 9:21 AM; the week four session started at 9:30 AM CST, nine minutes after the notification email. Source Group: Canvas NSG525 Announcement, NSG525 Synchronous Session Schedule; Canvas Notification Email from ClinicalII(NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16, to the reporting student, Wed 5/27/2026 9:21 AM.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Please review the schedule below for weekly synchronous sessions. We will typically meet every Monday except week 1 when you are just getting access to the course and the week of Memorial Day. Those weeks will be Wednesday.</blockquote> The notification email was sent at 9:21 AM and the week four session began at 9:30 AM, nine minutes later.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must provide students with timely and adequate notice of course requirements including synchronous attendance obligations. ACEN Standard 4: course schedules must be communicated to students in advance of the sessions they govern. Posting a fifteen week synchronous schedule in week four, after three sessions have already occurred, deprives students of the advance notice needed to plan attendance. The nine minute notice for the week four session provides no meaningful opportunity for students to prepare or attend. The missing Posted on date in Canvas raises a backdating concern, since if the announcement was created with a future or past date the timestamp records have been altered or omitted. The unknown U poster identity prevents accountability, since students and administrators cannot identify who posted the schedule or verify its authority.

'''Impact.''' Students missed weeks one, two, and three synchronous sessions without knowing they existed or were required. Synchronous sessions in the MSN-DE program are recorded and posted, per Dr. Gregg: "These will be recorded and posted," but attendance may be tracked separately, so students who did not attend due to lack of notice may face attendance or participation penalties. The nine minute notice for week four effectively eliminated any reasonable opportunity to attend that session. Week fifteen on a Sunday at 8:00 AM CST diverges significantly from the program standard and may catch students off guard when it occurs, and the non standard times in weeks one and four versus all other weeks create additional confusion.

'''Notes.''' The announcement was labeled All Sections and signed by Dr. Gregg (hgregg@herzing.edu). The Canvas notification confirmed the course was NSG525 Clinical II. The blank Posted on date is visible in the Canvas Announcements list view; standard Canvas announcements show a post date, and this field was empty. The unknown U poster identity is unusual, since Canvas typically displays the faculty member's name and profile picture when they post announcements, and a U with no name may indicate a deleted or deactivated account, a system generated post, or a posting under an unrecognized user account. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-096}} (last minute assignment posting), {{HU|HU-098}} (graduation email communication failures), {{HU|HU-126}} (NSG525 quiz deadline discrepancy), {{HU|HU-112}} (NSG525 week one duplicate quiz answers).

=== HU-161: Cohort-level faculty instability and unclear faculty-change communication during 2026 Summer C16: another student's NSG 523 Medical Surgical Nursing I and NSG 525 Clinical II sections lost the same instructor (Dr. Jennings) mid-session, with piecemeal notices and a Clinical II announcement closed for comments while inviting questions ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED for the documented facts (two faculty-change notifications, the closed-for-comments marking, and the student-group messages). This is cohort-wide evidence from another student's sections; the reason for the departures is not stated and is not characterized here.
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Sufficiency and Continuity of Instruction, with Student-Facing Communication Gap (cohort-wide evidence)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | MSN-DE Program Chair (Dr. Raywattie Prashad); Dean of Prelicensure Nursing (Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP); faculty affairs and program communications
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, two Canvas Faculty Change Notifications for the 2026 Summer C16 term, both signed by MSN-DE Program Chair Dr. Prashad, document that Dr. Jennings stepped away mid session from NSG 523 Medical Surgical Nursing I and from NSG 525 Clinical II. For Med-Surg, the Program Chair stated she would cover the course in the interim; for Clinical II, the notification stated Dr. Tressler would cover the section. This entry is cohort wide, program level evidence from another student's sections (7C) and did not involve the documenting student's instructor; the documenting student is enrolled in NSG 523 and NSG 525 this term in a different section (see {{HU|HU-159}}), noted only as context. The reason for the departures is not stated; students speculated a possible family or personal-health reason, and this entry does not characterize the reason.

'''Evidence.''' Med-Surg notification (NSG523-7C): the instructor stepped away from the course this session and the Program Chair covered in the interim. Clinical II notification (NSG525-7C): the instructor stepped away and Dr. Tressler covered the section, though the announcement was marked closed for comments. Nursing '27 student group chat (June 5, 2026): a student noted that two of her instructors had left so far that semester, on only week five, and expressed uncertainty about whether the same instructor had also left Clinical II until another student confirmed it. Source Group: Canvas Faculty Change Notification for Medical Surgical Nursing (NSG523-7C), 2026 Summer C16, and Canvas Faculty Change Notification for Clinical II (NSG525-7C), 2026 Summer C16, both signed by Dr. Raywattie Prashad; Nursing '27 student group chat messages dated June 5, 2026; screenshots captured June 6, 2026, provided by the reporting student as cohort-wide evidence.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Dr. Jennings had to step away from the course this session. I will be covering the course in the interim.</blockquote> (Faculty Change Notification, NSG 523-7C, 2026.) <blockquote>Dr. Tressler will be covering this section for course work.</blockquote> and <blockquote>This topic is closed for comments.</blockquote> (Faculty Change Notification, NSG 525-7C, 2026.) According to the tracker, a student in the Nursing '27 group chat said that made two of her instructors who had left so far that semester and that the cohort was only on week five, and another student clarified that Dr. Prashad's email had mentioned only Med-Surg, before another student confirmed the instructor had stepped away from Clinical II as well.

'''Standards.''' Faculty sufficiency and continuity: accreditation expects sufficient qualified faculty to achieve program outcomes and maintain continuity of instruction (Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, 2023; the tracker references ACEN Standard 5 for faculty sufficiency, to be confirmed against the current ACEN Standards and Criteria). Clear and consistent communication of course and faculty information (ACEN, 2023; the tracker references ACEN Standard 4 for communication of requirements). HLC Criterion 3.C: the institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high quality programs. HLC Criterion 2.A: integrity in communications, applied fairly and transparently. Federal administrative capability and notice: 34 CFR §668.14. This entry documents continuity, staffing, and communication concerns and does not allege wrongdoing by any departing instructor; the reason for the departures is not stated. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-160}} (NSG 525 Clinical II documentation, the documenting student's section 7E), {{HU|HU-158}} (decision maker availability), {{HU|HU-126}} (communication of deadlines), {{HU|HU-090}} (petition non-response).

'''Impact.''' Mid session instructor changes in required prelicensure courses can disrupt continuity of instruction, grading consistency, and clinical supervision, especially when one instructor was covering multiple courses and the Program Chair had to step in. Unclear, piecemeal notices about which courses were affected and who would cover each left students uncertain about who their instructor would be during an active term, and inviting questions while closing the comment thread left students without a clear channel to resolve that uncertainty. Students in the cohort expressed anxiety about the program's stability and their ability to finish. As cohort wide evidence, this supports a broader pattern of faculty instability and communication gaps in the program; it is not logged as direct impact on the documenting student.

'''Notes.''' Recommended verification: the total number of faculty changes in the cohort this term and whether a pattern exists across terms; whether a single consolidated notice clarified all of the instructor's affected courses and their coverage, and whether an open channel for questions was provided after the announcement was closed; and the reason for the departures, which is not provided and is not assumed here. This is cohort wide evidence from another student's sections (NSG523-7C, NSG525-7C); it did not involve the documenting student's instructor, and the documenting student's enrollment in these courses, in a different section, is noted only as context. Recommended follow up: preserve the two notifications and the chat as exhibits; if a pattern of faculty turnover is corroborated across the cohort or across terms, develop it with dates and counts. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-090}}, {{HU|HU-126}}, {{HU|HU-158}}, {{HU|HU-160}}. Canvas announcements and group chat messages are treated as personal communications for citation purposes and are not included in a reference list.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation

2026-09-15T16:37:00Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern ethics and credential representation. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers five tracker issues dated between April 30, 2026 and June 3, 2026. Three are rated Medium severity ({{HU|HU-015}}, {{HU|HU-069}}, {{HU|HU-105}}) and two are rated High ({{HU|HU-119}}, {{HU|HU-143}}). Status ranges from CONFIRMED ({{HU|HU-015}}, {{HU|HU-119}}) to POSSIBLE and POSSIBLE requiring verification ({{HU|HU-069}}, {{HU|HU-105}}), with {{HU|HU-143}} carrying a mixed status: the report and the license record check are CONFIRMED, while the reporter's legal characterization is marked POSSIBLE pending a determination by the Florida Board of Nursing.

The entries split into three threads. The first concerns disclosure and privacy: a handbook provision requiring pregnancy disclosure to a Program Chair rather than confidential health services ({{HU|HU-015}}), and a report that a student shared medical images of a minor child in cohort group communications ({{HU|HU-069}}). The second concerns the institutional climate around speech and legal advocacy: a documented student perception that the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group is monitored and that speaking out carries retaliation risk ({{HU|HU-105}}), and a vendor's outside counsel confirming a records hold and plans to communicate with Herzing about a student who filed claims against that vendor ({{HU|HU-119}}). The third concerns credential integrity and institutional branding: a report that an enrolled MSN student publicly represented himself as a licensed RN while wearing Herzing-branded scrubs, alongside a Florida Board of Nursing record search that returned no license on file ({{HU|HU-143}}).

Recurring owners include the Title IX Coordinator ({{HU|HU-015}}, {{HU|HU-069}}) and Student Affairs ({{HU|HU-069}}, {{HU|HU-105}}), while {{HU|HU-105}} also names the Dean of Nursing and {{HU|HU-119}} and {{HU|HU-143}} bring in external parties: a vendor's outside counsel and the Florida Board of Nursing. Taken together, the issues in this topic trace a pattern in which the institution's channels for disclosure, reporting, and oversight are themselves the subject of the concern, whether the question is who receives a disclosure, whether speech is chilled, how a vendor dispute intersects with a student's institutional standing, or how the institution responds when its own branding appears in a credential-integrity report.

== Issues ==
=== HU-015: Mandatory pregnancy disclosure to Program Chair required; raises Title IX and privacy concerns ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Policy Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Title IX Coordinator / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the Prelicensure Student Handbook requires a student who is pregnant to notify the Program Chair or designee and submit a medical clearance form to continue in clinical.

'''Evidence.''' Handbook p.12: "If a student is pregnant, the student must notify the Program Chair or designee and submit a medical clearance form to continue in clinical." Handbook p.14 repeats this requirement. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Although we consider pregnancy to be a normal event, for the student's safety, the nursing program requires a statement from the student's healthcare provider providing permission to continue clinical experiences or delineate any special needs or restrictions.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Title IX (20 U.S.C. §1681); 34 CFR §106.40; OCR Guidance on Pregnancy (2022). Mandatory disclosure requirements must be narrowly tailored. Routing disclosure through Program Chair rather than confidential health services may chill voluntary disclosure.

'''Impact.''' If accommodations are then limited based on disclosed pregnancy status, this could constitute pregnancy discrimination under Title IX. Disclosure to Program Chair rather than confidential health office is a privacy concern.

'''Notes.''' Clinical safety rationale is legitimate. However, procedure as written requires disclosure to academic supervisor. Compare to ADA/FMLA models where disclosures go to HR/health services, not direct supervisors.

=== HU-069: Student (Student G) shared medical images of a minor child (not her dependent) in cohort group communications, raising ethical and potential HIPAA/child privacy concerns ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE (Requires Verification)
|-
! Issue type
| Ethical Violation (Sharing Medical Images of a Minor)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Affairs / Compliance / Title IX Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, Student G shared medical images of a minor child who was not her dependent in the cohort's Discord/GroupMe group communications. The EthicsPoint report characterizes this as "raising ethical concerns." The context raises potential HIPAA, FERPA, and child privacy concerns depending on the source and nature of the images.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (Sept 18, 2025), Section II (Behavioral and Student Conduct Concerns): "Sharing of medical images of a minor child (not their dependent), raising ethical concerns by Student G." Listed alongside other inappropriate group discussion topics. Source Group: EthicsPoint Reports: Sept 18, 2025 (Report #1); Dec 3, 2025 (Report #2).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Sharing of medical images of a minor child (not their dependent), raising ethical concerns by Student G.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Nursing Program Confidentiality Statement (Handbook Appendix I, p.36): "Protected health information (PHI) including the patient's admission, diagnosis, treatment, and financial status is confidential and is protected by law (HIPAA). You are expected to limit your uses and disclosures of protected health information." If images originated from a clinical setting: 45 CFR §164.502 (HIPAA Privacy Rule): sharing patient PHI without authorization is a violation. 42 U.S.C. §1320d-6: criminal penalties for wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information. ANA Code of Ethics Provision 3.1: the nurse promotes and protects the privacy of the patient. Herzing P.R.I.C.E. Values (Handbook p.14): Integrity and Caring standards.

'''Impact.''' If the medical images originated from a clinical setting, this would constitute a HIPAA violation with potential criminal liability and would be grounds for program dismissal under the Herzing Confidentiality Statement. Even if not clinical, sharing medical images of a non-dependent minor raises serious ethical questions about professional judgment and fitness for clinical practice.

'''Notes.''' Reported as POSSIBLE because the EthicsPoint report does not specify the source of the images (clinical vs. personal), the nature of the medical content, or the identity of the minor. If the images came from a clinical rotation, severity should be elevated to Critical. The EthicsPoint investigation closure (Sept 25, 2025) did not specifically address this allegation, which represents a potential gap in the investigation's scope (see {{HU|HU-067}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-067}} (investigation adequacy), {{HU|HU-066}} (broader pattern of unprofessional conduct in cohort groups).

=== HU-105: Chilling effect on student speech: students documented fear that Herzing monitors the Facebook group and that speaking out results in institutional retaliation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Student Speech Suppression / Institutional Surveillance Concern
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, an anonymous member of the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group stated on July 5, 2023 that comments shared in the group are often relayed to Herzing and that members take a risk by speaking out. This statement documents a fear among students that the group is monitored by the institution and that speech critical of the program creates institutional risk for the speaker. Whether Herzing actively monitors the group or not, the reporter states that the perception of surveillance creates a chilling effect on student advocacy. The reporter ties this perception to documented retaliation against the reporting student after his EthicsPoint report ({{HU|HU-066}}) and to a recurring pattern of petition dismissals ({{HU|HU-090}}), and notes that the group's extensive use of anonymous posting (over 1,000 anonymous posts documented) is consistent with students taking precautions to conceal their identities when raising concerns.

'''Evidence.''' The anonymous member's July 5, 2023 statement, paraphrased above. {{HU|HU-066}} (existing issue): retaliation against the reporting student following a good-faith EthicsPoint report. {{HU|HU-090}}: recurring petitions reported as dismissed without substantive engagement. Anonymous posting pattern: the Facebook group's extensive use of anonymous posting (over 1,000 anonymous posts across the archive) is cited as behavior consistent with a perceived surveillance and retaliation environment. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' An anonymous member of the Facebook group stated that what members say in the groups is often shared with Herzing and that speaking out carries significant risk.

'''Standards.''' First Amendment principles in higher education (Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 1972): students at institutions receiving federal funds have protected associational and speech rights; institutional surveillance of student communications and retaliation for protected speech implicates these rights. 34 CFR §668.46 (campus security and safety): institutions may not create environments that discourage reporting of concerns. ACEN Standard 2 (Governance): students must have meaningful channels for raising program concerns without fear of retaliation. If the institutional environment has created, whether through actual surveillance or documented retaliation, a chilling effect on student speech, this undermines the integrity of all student feedback mechanisms including course evaluations, town halls, and complaint processes.

'''Impact.''' A chilling effect on student speech means the institution receives artificially suppressed negative feedback, creating a false picture of student satisfaction. Students who believe speaking out is risky are less likely to file EthicsPoint reports, contact accreditors, or participate in town halls, making it harder for the institution to identify and address legitimate program deficiencies. The reporter states that the documented pattern of retaliation ({{HU|HU-066}}) and petition dismissal ({{HU|HU-090}}) provides a rational basis for the stated fear, meaning this is presented as a concern grounded in observed institutional behavior rather than perception alone.

'''Notes.''' Marked POSSIBLE because direct evidence of institutional monitoring of the Facebook group is not confirmed; only student perception is documented. The tracker states that the perception itself is the finding: when students believe they are surveilled and that advocacy is risky, the educational environment is materially harmed. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation post-EthicsPoint), {{HU|HU-090}} (petition non-response pattern), {{HU|HU-067}} (EthicsPoint investigation reported as closed inadequately).

=== HU-119: ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning retained outside counsel (Potomac Law Group, PLLC) in response to the reporting student's April 28, 2026 claims letter; records hold issued; Meazure Learning plans to communicate with Herzing University about the reporting student's account, creating potential conflict of interest and retaliation risk ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Legal Response from Institutional Vendor / Records Hold / Conflict of Interest Risk
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | ProctorU / Meazure Learning (Ariel E. Warner, Potomac Law Group); Herzing University Administration
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, on May 7, 2026, Ariel E. Warner of Potomac Law Group, PLLC wrote to the reporting student on behalf of ProctorU, Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning in response to the reporting student's April 28, 2026 letter setting out claims related to Meazure Learning's administration of remote examinations as part of his coursework at Herzing University. The letter confirms three developments: Meazure Learning has issued a records hold notice and taken steps to preserve potentially relevant records; Meazure Learning is reviewing the claims; and, as part of that review, Meazure Learning plans to communicate with Herzing University about the reporting student's account. The third point is the most significant from a conflict of interest and retaliation standpoint: ProctorU/Meazure Learning is a vendor contracted by Herzing University to administer remote exams, and when that vendor's legal team contacts the university about a student who has filed claims against the vendor, the student's institutional standing may be affected by his exercise of legal rights against a third party. This creates a structural conflict between the reporting student's rights and the institutional relationship between Herzing and its exam vendor.

'''Evidence.''' Letter from Ariel E. Warner, Potomac Law Group PLLC (May 7, 2026): "I write on behalf of our client, ProctorU, Inc., d/b/a Meazure Learning, in response to your April 28, 2026 letter setting out claims related to Meazure Learning's administration of remote examinations as part of your coursework at Herzing University. This letter provides confirmation that Meazure Learning has issued a records hold notice and has taken steps to preserve all records that are potentially relevant to your claims. Meazure Learning is in the process of reviewing your claims. Please note that as part of our review, we plan to communicate with Herzing University about your account." Signed /s/ Ariel E. Warner. Potomac Law Group, PLLC, www.potomaclaw.com. Source Group: Letter from Ariel E. Warner, Potomac Law Group PLLC, to the reporting student, May 7, 2026 (Re: April 28, 2026 Correspondence to ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>This letter provides confirmation that Meazure Learning has issued a records hold notice and has taken steps to preserve all records that are potentially relevant to your claims. Please note that as part of our review, we plan to communicate with Herzing University about your account.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Retaliation protections: a student's exercise of legal rights against a third-party vendor contracted by the institution should not affect the student's standing with the institution. The planned communication between Meazure Learning's legal team and Herzing University about the reporting student's account creates a conduit through which his legal advocacy could influence his institutional treatment. This intersects with the retaliation pattern documented in {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation post-EthicsPoint) and {{HU|HU-114}} (conflicting communication directives used to limit advocacy). 34 CFR §668.46: institutions may not retaliate against students for exercising legal rights. Consumer protection principles: a student using a vendor-administered service as part of his educational program has the right to raise claims about that service without those claims being used to his institutional detriment. Records hold significance: Meazure Learning's issuance of a records hold is a formal legal preservation step, indicating the company's legal team has assessed that litigation or formal dispute resolution is a realistic possibility.

'''Impact.''' The planned Meazure Learning-to-Herzing communication creates three specific risks: Herzing could be notified of the reporting student's legal claims against its vendor before the reporting student has had an opportunity to raise those claims through institutional channels, potentially biasing the institution's response; Herzing could take adverse academic action under the guise of unrelated reasons after being notified of the claims; and the vendor-institution communication could result in coordinated responses that are adverse to the reporting student's interests. The records hold is a two-edged sword: it preserves evidence favorable to the reporting student's claims, but also signals that Meazure Learning's legal team is treating this as a serious matter requiring formal response.

'''Notes.''' The underlying April 28, 2026 claims letter sent by the reporting student to ProctorU/Meazure Learning is not in the tracker. The nature of the ProctorU claims should be documented when available. Existing issues related to ProctorU: {{HU|HU-001}} (ProctorU Google Remote Desktop flag), {{HU|HU-002}} (ProctorU software identification), and prior GroupMe documentation of students' ProctorU concerns. The attorney of record for future correspondence is Ariel E. Warner, Potomac Law Group. All future communications with Meazure Learning should be through this attorney of record.

=== HU-143: The reporting student reported to David Steele J.D. (Director of Online Academic Operations) that a Herzing MSN student (Student E) publicly represents himself as a licensed RN with an MSN while using Herzing-branded scrubs and logos; Florida Board of Nursing license verification returned no records for the searched name; reporter asserts this is a felony under Florida law and intends to report to the Board of Nursing; institutional branding implicated ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED (report made and BON record check documented); POSSIBLE (underlying legal characterization requires determination by the Florida Board of Nursing)
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Concern: Student Allegedly Representing Self as Licensed RN with MSN While Using Herzing-Branded Scrubs; Reported to Herzing Leadership
! Date added
| 2026-06-03
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | David Steele J.D. (Director of Online Academic Operations) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Stephanie Black / Florida Board of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student reported a concern to David Steele J.D., Director of Online Academic Operations (cc Dr. Prashad and Stephanie Black), regarding another Herzing MSN student, Student E, who publicly represents himself on Instagram as Student E, RN. The reported concerns are that the student is representing online that he has earned an MSN and is a Registered Nurse; that his Instagram includes a highlight category labeled NURSE consisting of photos of him in Herzing-branded scrubs; and that Herzing school logos appear in the content. The reporting student documented that a search of the Florida Board of Nursing QuickConfirm license verification system returned "No search results were found for Student E, RN, FLORIDA" and a separate License Verification search returned "No records found." The reporting student noted that, by his calculation, the student completed his first term in April 2025 and therefore would not graduate until the end of the year, making a current RN credential chronologically inconsistent. The reporting student asserted that, in the State of Florida where the student resides, representing oneself as a nurse without licensure is a felony, and stated he intends to report the matter to the Florida Board of Nursing but wanted to notify Herzing first because Herzing's school logos are on the content. The legal characterization (felony) is the reporter's assertion and a matter for determination by the Florida Board of Nursing and appropriate authorities; this entry documents the report and the objective record-check evidence, not a finding that any crime occurred.

'''Evidence.''' Email: the reporting student to David Steele J.D. (Director of Online Academic Operations), cc Dr. Prashad, Stephanie Black. The email opens by stating that a student was being very abusive in one of the Facebook groups and that, more concerning, this student is representing online that he has earned an MSN and is an RN. Instagram bio: Student E, RN; he/him; highlight categories include NURSE (stethoscope icon). Florida Board of Nursing QuickConfirm License Verification Search Results: "No search results were found for Student E, RN, FLORIDA." License Verification dialog: "No records found. Please try your search again with other search values." Source Group: Email: the reporting student to David Steele J.D. (Director of Online Academic Operations), cc Dr. Raywattie Prashad and Stephanie Black, June 2026; Instagram profile [Instagram handle redacted]; Florida Board of Nursing QuickConfirm License Verification screenshots; archived profile capture. Reported By: the reporting student. Subject of Report: Student E (Herzing MSN student; Instagram [Instagram handle redacted]).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>This student is representing online that he has earned an MSN and is a RN. He also has a category called nurse which is actually photos of him in his Herzing scrubs... in the State of Florida, where he lives, this is a felony... The Florida Board of Nursing has no record of him as a nurse... Herzing's school logos are all over this. [Florida BON]: No search results were found for Student E, RN, FLORIDA.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Florida Statutes section 464.015 (Titles and abbreviations; restrictions): a person may not use the title Registered Nurse or the abbreviation R.N. unless that person holds an active Florida nursing license or a valid multistate license. Florida Statutes section 456.065 (Unlicensed practice of a health care profession): practicing or holding oneself out as able to practice a licensed health care profession without a license may constitute a third-degree felony. Florida Statutes section 464.016 (Violations and penalties): addresses penalties for nursing-title and practice violations. NURSYS / Nurse Licensure Compact: multistate license verification is available via NURSYS; the Florida BON QuickConfirm result and the License Verification "No records found" result are the documented objective evidence that, at the time of the search, no Florida RN license record was located for the searched name. HLC Criteria 2.A (institutional integrity): institutions have an interest in addressing the misuse of their name, logos, and branded materials in connection with potentially inaccurate credential claims by enrolled students. Licensure databases reflect status at the time of search and can change; this entry documents the report and the search result, and the ultimate legal determination rests with the Florida Board of Nursing and appropriate authorities, not with this tracker.

'''Impact.''' If an enrolled Herzing MSN student is publicly representing himself as a licensed RN before completing the program and obtaining licensure, while wearing Herzing-branded scrubs and displaying Herzing logos, the institution faces reputational and integrity exposure, since the public may associate the alleged misrepresentation with Herzing's brand. There is also a potential public-safety dimension to any unlicensed person holding themselves out as a nurse. The matter was formally reported to Herzing's Director of Online Academic Operations, placing the institution on notice; the institution's response, or lack thereof, to a documented credential-integrity concern involving its own branding is itself trackable. The reporter has stated an intent to escalate to the Florida Board of Nursing. The objective record-check evidence and the chronological inconsistency (first term completed April 2025) are the documented bases for the concern; final determination of licensure status and any legal consequence rests with the Florida Board of Nursing.

'''Notes.''' This entry documents a report made by the reporting student and the objective evidence he gathered; it is not a finding by this tracker that Student E committed any offense. The legal characterization as a felony is expressly the reporter's assertion, supported by citation to Florida Statutes sections 464.015, 464.016, and 456.065, and is a matter for the Florida Board of Nursing and appropriate authorities to determine. New personnel identified: David Steele J.D., Director of Online Academic Operations (the official to whom this was reported). The Instagram profile lists Student E, RN (note: SMSN appears to denote student MSN; the RN claim is the subject of the report), 8 posts, 3,442 followers, with a NURSE highlight category. A parallel or secondary Instagram handle appears in one screenshot (a January 8, 2025 post about classes having started). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-115}} (EthicsPoint AI academic-integrity report against another student), {{HU|HU-102}} / {{HU|HU-103}} (program integrity concerns). POSSIBLE follow-up: Herzing's response to David Steele regarding the report; outcome of any Florida Board of Nursing report; confirmation of the student's actual enrollment status and graduation timeline. Sensitive third-party allegation: handle in accordance with the evidence-first, non-accusatory standard; update status if the Board of Nursing or the institution makes a determination.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing

2026-09-15T16:36:59Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern enrollment, registration, and billing. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article gathers fourteen tracker entries dated between April 30, 2026 and June 6, 2026 that touch enrollment operations, registration, and billing. The severity mix is two High entries ({{HU|HU-114}}, {{HU|HU-140}}), eleven Medium entries, and one Low entry ({{HU|HU-029}}). By status, seven entries are CONFIRMED, one is RESOLVED, and six are POSSIBLE, meaning they are recorded as reported concerns pending institutional verification rather than as established findings.

The entries fall into several recurring threads. A bookstore fulfillment thread ({{HU|HU-013}}, {{HU|HU-029}}) documents repeated problems getting compliant clinical scrubs, including an extended size that was not listed in the ordering system. A financial and tuition thread ({{HU|HU-050}}, {{HU|HU-165e}}) covers a mid-program tuition and fee increase reported without documentation of enrolled-student protection, and a self-paying student's uncertainty over tuition after a scheduling-driven course repeat. A communication and administrative thread ({{HU|HU-098}}, {{HU|HU-114}}) documents a graduation and pinning ceremony email failure and a set of contradictory chain-of-communication directives given to a student by three different institutional leaders on the same day. A prospective-student thread ({{HU|HU-140}}) documents contradictory answers about whether the Oklahoma program exists or is accepting applicants. A reported advising-and-billing thread ({{HU|HU-164}}, {{HU|HU-164a}}, {{HU|HU-164b}}, {{HU|HU-164d}}) documents one former student's account of an automatic re-enrollment during an open grade appeal, repeated advisor non-recall, and a drop delayed past the refund window that she says resulted in a double tuition charge. A separate cluster ({{HU|HU-127}}, {{HU|HU-127a}}, {{HU|HU-127b}}) documents two technical failures at a student honor-society induction ceremony.

Recurring owners across the entries include the Bookstore, Financial Aid, Academic Affairs, the Commencement Team, Academic Advising, the Registrar, and Student Accounts, along with named leadership figures AVP Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, and Dr. Jessica Tressler. Several entries cross reference issues tracked under withdrawals and retention, academic appeals, clinical placement, grading and records, licensure eligibility, technology platforms, and clinical intensives, reflecting how enrollment and billing problems intersect with those other operational areas.

== Issues ==

=== HU-013: Required clinical scrubs sent in wrong size on multiple occasions; student left without compliant clinical attire ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Fulfillment Error
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Bookstore / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Required clinical scrubs sent in wrong size on multiple occasions; student left without compliant clinical attire.

'''Evidence.''' Bookstore email thread and scrub exchange emails (Sept 2025 to Jan 2026). Jeanette Ward (Bookstore Admin) confirmed size issue. Student: scrubs are "humongous." Second set (blue, Jan 2026) also came too large. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' The student reported that the scrubs sent were far too large, requiring a return that would leave the student without scrubs for the intensive, so the student's only option was to buy a replacement pair that could not be used again after the intensive.

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.17: "Approved Herzing scrubs" required for all clinical/lab/simulation. Students not in compliance dismissed for the day. Institutional fulfillment error created compliance risk not attributable to student.

'''Impact.''' Student faced potential clinical exclusion and out-of-pocket costs. Two separate size errors across two distributors suggests systemic fulfillment issues.

'''Notes.''' Student needed 6XL top and 4XL pants. Pattern across both scrub sets suggests distributor issue, not isolated error. Also see {{HU|HU-029}}.

=== HU-029: Extended scrub size (6XL) not available in bookstore system when student attempted to order ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Low
! Status
| RESOLVED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Bookstore
|}
'''Finding.''' Extended scrub size (6XL) not available in bookstore system when student attempted to order.

'''Evidence.''' Student email to Jeanette Ward (Bookstore Admin): "I went to order scrubs from the bookstore, but my size is not listed now. I need a 6X scrub top." Ward worked with distributor to order. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' The student reported to Bookstore Admin Jeanette Ward that the student's size was no longer listed when trying to order scrubs, and that the student needed a 6X scrub top and a 6X scrub jacket.

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.17-18 requires approved Herzing scrubs for clinical. Not stocking required uniform items in all sizes discriminates against students who need extended sizes to meet the uniform requirement.

'''Impact.''' Student unable to self-order required uniform item; required intervention from Bookstore Admin. Delayed uniform acquisition at start of clinical.

'''Notes.''' Bookstore Admin Jeanette Ward worked with distributor to fulfill the order. Marked Resolved but part of a larger pattern; see {{HU|HU-013}}.

=== HU-050: Herzing University announced tuition and fee increase mid-program; no documentation of whether enrolled students were protected or informed before it affected enrollment ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Tuition Increase / Enrolled Student Impact
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Financial Aid / Academic Affairs / Administration
|}
'''Finding.''' Herzing University announced a tuition and fee increase for the next academic year while students were mid-program; no documentation of whether enrolled students were protected from the increase or informed of the rate change before it affected their enrollment.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (June 3, 2025): Student B shared: "Oh looky at that, they're raising tuition and fees next year. And when I say next year, I mean next school year. Which starts in September." Student P confirmed seeing the same email. Source Group: Multiple GroupMe Archives: Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

'''Reported statement.''' Student B reported seeing an announcement that tuition and fees would increase starting the next school year, which she noted would begin in September.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.43: institutions must disclose current tuition and fees before students enroll. 34 CFR §668.41 (General disclosure requirements). Mid-program increases that exceed amounts represented in original financial aid packages may require updated loan disbursements.

'''Impact.''' Students who enrolled with a fixed tuition understanding may face higher total costs than disclosed at enrollment if the increase applies to continuing students.

'''Notes.''' The financial aid offer document already in evidence shows tuition of $12,465 for Fall 2025 and $11,675 for Spring 2026. Any mid-program increase above these amounts for continuing students would require documentation and disclosure.

=== HU-098: Spring 2026 graduation and pinning ceremony emails not delivered to Florida and Tennessee graduates despite promised March 2 delivery date; students forced to use shared links and self-advocate through administrative assistant Darmesha Washington ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Administrative Communication Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Commencement Team / Darmesha Washington / David Steele
|}
'''Finding.''' In February-March 2026, Herzing sent Spring 2026 commencement and pinning ceremony emails to graduates. Multiple graduates, including Student B and others in Florida and Tennessee, did not receive these emails. Handle 10 (Feb 17, 2026) noted emails went out but "some are saying they didn't get one." Student B confirmed she received neither the commencement nor pinning email. An anonymous student in their final semester (Synthesis II, Integration of Concepts, due to graduate April 2026) documented as of March 9, 2026 that they still had not received the email despite: (1) being told emails would go out February 17; (2) being told by administrative assistant Darmesha Washington that Florida/Tennessee grads would receive emails March 2; and (3) the March 2 deadline passing without delivery. The RSVP link shared in the Facebook group was characterized as "not personalized" by the reporting student, meaning students who received a forwarded link could RSVP, but students had no confirmation their self-initiated RSVP was properly recorded in the institutional system.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 10 (Feb 17, 2026): "Emails went out today around 4 pm. But some are saying they didn't get one." Student B (Feb 17, 2026): "I am some too. I never got the email but others did. Apparently there is also a separate one for the Pinning Ceremony. I did not get that either." Anonymous member (Mar 9, 2026): "Update: I was told I would get the email on March 2, never received it. Has anyone else dealt with this? Or did you all get the email now? It is incredibly frustrating!!" Student B (Mar 9, 2026): "She is the contact. She is the one that emailed me, letting me know Florida grads would receive their emails on March 2nd." Anonymous member (Mar 9, 2026): "She said that about TN graduates too. This is so frustrating. Idk why stuff with Herzing always has to have an issue. Even something as basic as graduation invitation." The reporting student (Feb 17, 2026): "Its not a personalized link," confirming students could RSVP via shared link without institutional personalization. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' An anonymous member reported being told the email would arrive March 2 but never receiving it, calling the situation incredibly frustrating, and remarking that something as basic as a graduation invitation should not be a recurring problem for Herzing.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional administrative infrastructure for basic student communications. Graduation is a milestone event; failure to deliver commencement information to graduates who have completed 20 months and approximately $60,000 to $95,000 of investment demonstrates administrative disorganization at the most consequential moment of the student journey. The pattern, promised February 17, promised again March 2, still not delivered by March 9, documents repeated failed commitments by the administrative team. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): official graduation records and commencement participation should be managed through authenticated institutional channels, not student-forwarded links.

'''Impact.''' Graduates who did not receive official commencement communications may not have been properly registered for the ceremony, may not have received pinning ceremony details, and may have relied on a shared RSVP link that was not authenticated to their student record. For students who traveled significant distances for graduation (documented costs: $400 to $600 for hotel near Nashville campus), failing to receive official confirmation of ceremony details created planning uncertainty. The "Idk why stuff with Herzing always has to have an issue" characterization reflects the cumulative erosion of student trust from a pattern of administrative failures.

'''Notes.''' This issue is operationally minor in isolation but significant as part of the documented pattern of institutional communication failures: {{HU|HU-023}} (inter-departmental communication failures), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-082}} (zero communication during grade transfer crisis), {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama BON non-disclosure). The graduation email failure extends that pattern to the program's final moment: the ceremony itself. David Steele (dsteele@herzing.edu) is referenced as a senior escalation contact across multiple issues including {{HU|HU-082}} (grade crisis) and {{HU|HU-098}} (graduation emails), suggesting he is a recurring point of escalation for administrative failures.

=== HU-114: Conflicting chain-of-communication directives: AVP Danielle Laban (May 6, 2026) told the reporting student to cc her and Dr. Franklin on communications; Dr. Prashad (same day, same hour) directed him to start with faculty only; Dr. Tressler also directed him to faculty first; three leadership figures issuing contradictory escalation instructions simultaneously ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Conflicting Institutional Communication Directives
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | AVP Danielle Laban / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Dr. Jessica Tressler
|}
'''Finding.''' On May 6, 2026, the reporting student received contradictory chain-of-communication instructions from three institutional leaders within the same day. Dr. Prashad (7:29 AM, May 6): "I am also asking that if you have concerns, please follow the chain of communication and start with your faculty." Dr. Tressler (May 5): "I would like to gently remind you of the program's chain of communication. Questions or concerns should first be directed to your course faculty." Dr. Laban (2:48 PM, May 6, the same day as Dr. Prashad's directive and approximately 7 hours later): "You are always welcome to cc me or Dr. Franklin on communications if you feel it would be helpful for us to be aware or to provide additional support." The reporting student documented that AVP Danielle Laban had previously told him during a one-on-one conversation to "keep the leadership in the loop when issues arise," instructions he was following when he escalated the duplicate work concern directly to Dr. Prashad, Dr. Black, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Gregg. Faculty then cited chain-of-communication violation for the same conduct the AVP had authorized. The conflicting directives place the reporting student in an impossible position: following one administrator's instructions necessarily violates another's. Dr. Laban's May 6 email also directed future formal grievances to Dr. Nicole Franklin, while also stating she remains available for ProctorU, accommodations, and student services concerns, and confirmed a meeting with the reporting student and Dr. Franklin the following week.

'''Evidence.''' Email: Dr. Prashad to the reporting student (May 6, 2026, 7:29 AM): "I am also asking that if you have concerns, please follow the chain of communication and start with your faculty." Email: Dr. Tressler to the reporting student (May 5, 2026, 2:38 PM): "I would like to gently remind you of the program's chain of communication. Questions or concerns should first be directed to your course faculty." Email: Dr. Laban to the reporting student (May 6, 2026, 2:48 PM): "You are always welcome to cc me or Dr. Franklin on communications if you feel it would be helpful for us to be aware or to provide additional support." The reporting student (inline reply to Dr. Tressler, May 6, 2026): "I have been directed by AVP Danielle Laban to keep the leadership in the loop when issues arise and I intend to follow those instructions." The reporting student (to Dr. Prashad, May 6, 2026, 8:22 AM): "A for communication, I will cc Dr. Laban on my communication since I am being asked not to direct it to program leadership." Personnel identified: Dr. Jessica Tressler (jtressler@herzing.edu), lead faculty MSN-DE; Dr. Raywattie Prashad (rprashad@herzing.edu), Program Chair; Dr. Danielle Laban, AVP; Dr. Nicole Franklin, formal grievance handler; Dr. Heather Gregg (hgregg@herzing.edu); Stephanie Black (steblack@herzing.edu); Tanetshia Brown (tanetbrown@herzing.edu). Source Group: Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Prashad / Dr. Black / Dr. Brown / Dr. Gregg, May 4-6, 2026; Dr. Tressler reply May 5, 2026; Dr. Prashad reply May 6, 2026; Dr. Laban reply May 6, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Dr. Prashad, May 6, 7:29 AM: I am also asking that if you have concerns, please follow the chain of communication and start with your faculty.

Dr. Laban, May 6, 2:48 PM, same day: You are always welcome to cc me or Dr. Franklin on communications if you feel it would be helpful for us to be aware or to provide additional support.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criteria for Accreditation 2.C: institutions must maintain clear, consistent, and accessible processes for students to raise concerns. Contradictory directives from multiple administrators on the same day do not constitute a clear or accessible process. 34 CFR §668.97 (student complaints): institutions must maintain functional complaint processes; a process whose correct steps are contradicted by administrators within the same email thread is not functional. Due process principles (Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 1975): students facing adverse institutional action have a right to fair notice of procedures; conflicting procedures deprive the student of meaningful notice. The pattern of citing chain-of-communication violations for conduct explicitly authorized by the AVP is particularly problematic: it creates a mechanism by which any student advocacy can be characterized as procedurally improper regardless of what the student does.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student is simultaneously instructed to: (1) start with faculty only (Dr. Prashad, Dr. Tressler); and (2) cc leadership freely (Dr. Laban). Any email he sends can be cited as violating one set of instructions. This dynamic mirrors the pattern documented in {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation post-EthicsPoint) and {{HU|HU-105}} (chilling effect on student speech): advocacy is structurally discouraged by making compliance with institutional procedures impossible. The May 6 directive from Dr. Laban to connect the reporting student with Dr. Nicole Franklin for formal grievances also confirms there is an ongoing formal grievance process, cross-referenced with {{HU|HU-066}} and {{HU|HU-067}}.

'''Notes.''' This issue also reveals that Dr. Jessica Tressler (jtressler@herzing.edu) is lead faculty for the MSN-DE program but does not appear as faculty on the reporting student's degree audit, a transparency concern the reporting student himself raised ("do you mind telling me who you are, I don't see you as the faculty for my courses in my degree audit"). Dr. Tressler confirmed she is program lead faculty, not course faculty. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-023}} (inter-departmental communication failures), {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty/administration non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation), {{HU|HU-105}} (chilling effect).

=== HU-127: Lead: the Sigma Theta Tau Alpha Beta Iota 2026 induction ceremony was disrupted by two technical failures (all attendees unmuted at the start, and the MC losing internet connection during the name-calling); see HU-127a, HU-127b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (event technical failures)
! Date added
| 2026-05-12 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student W (MC) / Alpha Beta Iota Chapter Leadership / Event Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for two technical failures that disrupted the Sigma Theta Tau International Alpha Beta Iota Chapter 2026 induction ceremony, held via Zoom. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-127a}} (all attendees were unmuted at the start, making the ceremony inaudible) and {{HU|HU-127b}} (the Master of Ceremonies, Student W, lost her internet connection during the name-calling portion for several minutes). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Source Group: Sigma Theta Tau International Alpha Beta Iota Chapter 2026 Induction Ceremony, Zoom, observed by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' The severity field for the original {{HU|HU-127}} was Medium, and the lead and sub-issues use Medium accordingly (aligning a heading tag that read High to the documented Medium severity). This event is distinct from Herzing's academic operations but connected through the Herzing nursing student community. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-127}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-127a}}, {{HU|HU-127b}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-098}} (graduation email failures), {{HU|HU-120}} (Canvas platform failures during the active academic week).

=== HU-127a: All attendees were unmuted at the start of the ceremony, making the proceedings inaudible (a standard Zoom host configuration error) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Event Technical Failure: Audio
! Date added
| 2026-05-12 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student W (MC) / Event Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' At the start of the ceremony, all attendees were unmuted simultaneously, creating an audio environment so chaotic that the ceremony could not be heard. A properly managed ceremony begins with attendees muted and the host controlling unmuting for individual inductees.

'''Evidence.''' Observed by the reporting student during the ceremony: all attendees unmuted at the start, audio inaudible. Source Group: STTI Alpha Beta Iota 2026 Induction Ceremony, Zoom.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>All attendees unmuted at start, could not hear anything.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Zoom host best practices (attendees muted at start, host-managed unmuting); professional event-management standards for honor-society ceremonies. Lead: {{HU|HU-127}}.

'''Impact.''' The all-attendee unmuting error created an immediate negative impression and made the opening of the ceremony inaudible.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-127}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-127b: The Master of Ceremonies (Student W) lost her internet connection during the name-calling portion of the ceremony for several minutes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Event Technical Failure: Host Connectivity
! Date added
| 2026-05-12 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student W (MC) / Alpha Beta Iota Chapter Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' During the name-calling portion of the ceremony, the most significant moment for inductees, the Master of Ceremonies, Student W, lost her internet connection and was absent from the Zoom session for several minutes (the observation records the absence as approximately five to seven minutes), with no apparent backup plan for host failure.

'''Evidence.''' Observed by the reporting student: Student W lost internet connection in the middle of calling names and was out for several minutes. Source Group: STTI Alpha Beta Iota 2026 Induction Ceremony, Zoom.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>MC Student W lost internet connection in the middle of calling names and was out for around 7 minutes.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Professional event-management standards (the name-calling portion is the ceremony's defining moment and should be protected, including a backup plan for host internet failure); STTI chapter governance standards for event reliability. Lead: {{HU|HU-127}}.

'''Impact.''' Inductees being called during the outage had their induction moment disrupted or delayed; for students in a rigorous program, the ceremony is a rare formal recognition that the failure diminished.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-127}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. The source records the host absence as approximately five to seven minutes.

=== HU-140: Prospective student told three contradictory things about the Oklahoma program: pending acceptance, the program is full, and there is NO Oklahoma program; student confused and considering going elsewhere; connects to documented Oklahoma enrollment freeze (HU-085) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Contradictory Information to Prospective Student About Oklahoma Program Existence and Availability
! Date added
| 2026-06-02
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Admissions / Enrollment / State Authorization / Oklahoma Program Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' A prospective or applying student (posting in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group under the anonymized handle Handle 3) reported receiving three mutually contradictory answers about the Oklahoma program. The student wrote that they had been told: (1) they are pending acceptance; (2) the Oklahoma program is full; and (3) there is NO Oklahoma program. The student expressed confusion and stated they were wondering whether to move on and try somewhere else. These three statements cannot all be true simultaneously: a student cannot be pending acceptance to a program that does not exist, and full and does not exist are themselves contradictory. This documents a failure to provide accurate, consistent information to a prospective student about whether the Oklahoma program exists and whether it is accepting students. This directly connects to {{HU|HU-085}}, which documented Oklahoma (OK) as one of six states frozen for new enrollment. If Oklahoma enrollment is frozen or the program is unavailable, telling a student they are pending acceptance would be inaccurate; conversely, if the student is pending acceptance, telling them there is no Oklahoma program would be inaccurate. The contradictory messaging has direct consequences for the student's enrollment decisions and timeline.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by anonymized member Handle 3, Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, May 27, 2026, 12:35 PM (1 reaction, 8 comments). Post: Is there anyone here from Oklahoma? I've been told: I'm pending acceptance; the Oklahoma program is full; there is NO Oklahoma program. I'm so confused. Just wondering if I should move on and try somewhere else. Source URL: [post link redacted]. Source Group: Facebook post, Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, anonymized member Handle 3, May 27, 2026, 12:35 PM, [post link redacted]; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' Handle 3 reported having received three conflicting statements about the Oklahoma program: that they were pending acceptance, that the program was full, and that there was no Oklahoma program at all, leaving them confused and considering applying elsewhere.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71-668.75 (misrepresentation): institutions participating in Title IV programs must not provide false, erroneous, or misleading statements to prospective students regarding the nature of their educational programs, including program availability. Providing three contradictory statements about whether a program exists and whether it is accepting students implicates accurate-representation obligations. State authorization regulations (34 CFR 668.43(a)(6) and 34 CFR 600.9): institutions must accurately represent in which states a program is authorized and available. HLC Criteria 2.A (integrity) and 2.B (fair and accurate representation to students and the public): institutions must communicate accurately with students and prospective students. The contradictory messaging is inconsistent with these integrity and accurate-representation standards. This connects to the documented Oklahoma enrollment freeze ({{HU|HU-085}}): the institution must reconcile what it tells Oklahoma applicants with the actual authorization and enrollment status of the Oklahoma program.

'''Impact.''' A prospective student cannot make an informed enrollment decision when given three contradictory answers about whether the program they applied to exists. The student is left, in their words, so confused and is considering abandoning their application to try somewhere else. If the student is holding an application, paying fees, or delaying other educational options based on a pending acceptance status to a program that may be full or nonexistent, they face real financial and time costs. More broadly, contradictory messaging about program availability in a state with a documented enrollment freeze ({{HU|HU-085}}, Oklahoma) raises consumer-protection and accurate-representation concerns that could affect multiple Oklahoma applicants.

'''Notes.''' Posted under the anonymized Facebook handle Handle 3; no student name is available, so this is documented as an anonymized prospective-student report rather than attributed to a named individual. The post received 8 comments, suggesting other group members engaged with the question (comment content not captured). This issue is directly linked to {{HU|HU-085}}, which documented six states frozen for new enrollment (CO, IA, KS, MO, OK, SD) plus Georgia paused and Alabama BON enforcement. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-085}} (states frozen for enrollment including Oklahoma), {{HU|HU-090}} (recurring petition non-response), {{HU|HU-087}} (cohort attrition and representation), {{HU|HU-109}} (affiliation agreements). POSSIBLE follow-up: obtain the specific written communications the student received (the pending acceptance, program full, and no program statements) to confirm the sources and dates of each contradictory statement.

=== HU-164: Lead: a former student (reporter Student I) describes a sequence of academic-advising and enrollment-process failures, an automatic re-enrollment during an open grade appeal, repeated advisor non-recall of her documented situation, repeated misdirection to re-file an appeal already open, a double tuition charge with no refund for a class she passed, and an erroneous SAP placement; reported as her account and unverified; see HU-164a through HU-164e ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (reported advising and enrollment-process failures; unverified third-party account)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Advising / Registrar / Student Accounts (specific staff not identified by the reporter)
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for a reported account by a former student, Student I, who states that she ultimately withdrew from Herzing and that her final semester cost her an additional 3,000 dollars because her academic advisor repeatedly could not recall what they had discussed. The account is the reporter's own and is unverified; it is recorded here evidence-first for review against institutional records. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-164a}} (an automatic, reportedly unnecessary re-enrollment in a class while a grade appeal was open, creating double-charge exposure), {{HU|HU-164b}} (repeated advisor failure to recall or act on the reporter's documented situation, including an instruction not to engage in the class followed by a failure to back her out), {{HU|HU-164c}} (repeated misdirection to file a grade appeal that was already open, including for the later SAP issue), {{HU|HU-164d}} (a drop delayed past the refund window, reportedly because drops route through academic advising, resulting in a double tuition charge with no refund for a class she passed), and {{HU|HU-164e}} (a GPA reportedly not updated after the appeal was approved, placing her on Satisfactory Academic Progress status, with the fix again deferred to the advisor). See each sub-issue for the reporter's statements and the standards raised for review.

'''Evidence.''' Source Group: Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted]; provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' All statements are attributed to the reporter (Student I) and are unverified; institutional records (the advising email chain she references, the appeal timeline, the billing and refund records, and the SAP determination) would be needed to confirm. The reporter states the re-enrolled class was not a prerequisite or corequisite. The reporter states the appeal was ultimately approved and that she passed the class. Added 2026-06-06 at the top of the date-added section (newest first). Parts: {{HU|HU-164a}}, {{HU|HU-164b}}, {{HU|HU-164c}}, {{HU|HU-164d}}, {{HU|HU-164e}}. Cross-References: {{HU|HU-073}} (reported high-GPA withdrawals and financial loss), {{HU|HU-090}} (documented institutional non-response pattern), {{HU|HU-132}} (reported advising-related failures).

=== HU-164a: Reported automatic re-enrollment in a class while a grade appeal was open, which the reporter states was unnecessary (not a prerequisite or corequisite) and created exposure to being charged twice for the same class ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Automatic Re-enrollment During an Open Appeal (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Advising / Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that, with a grade appeal open for a class, she was automatically re-enrolled in that same class for Term B. She states she raised a concern about being charged twice for the class if the appeal took longer than expected, and that her advisor agreed to look into backing her out while telling her not to engage in the class. She states the class was not a prerequisite or corequisite, so the immediate re-enrollment was unnecessary.

'''Evidence.''' Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing automatic re-enrollment for Term B during an open appeal and her stated concern about a double charge.

'''Reported statement.''' Reporter Student I stated that she had an open grade appeal for a class and was automatically re-enrolled in the same class for Term B, and that she raised concern about being charged twice for the class if the appeal took longer than expected.

'''Standards.''' Raises a concern under the institution's enrollment, registration, and tuition policies and under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14): automatically re-enrolling a student in a course that is the subject of an open appeal, where the course is not a prerequisite or corequisite, can expose the student to duplicate tuition charges. Recorded for review, not as a finding. Lead: {{HU|HU-164}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the automatic re-enrollment set up the double-charge exposure that the reporter says later materialized.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-164}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

=== HU-164b: Reported repeated failure by the advisor to recall or act on the reporter's documented situation, including telling her not to engage in the class while promising to back her out and then not doing so, despite an email chain documenting their discussions ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Advisor Non-Recall / Failure to Act on Documented Requests (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Advising
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that her advisor repeatedly did not recall what they had discussed, telling her on multiple occasions that he had no idea what she was talking about, even though there was an email chain documenting everything. She states the advisor told her not to engage in the class while he worked on backing her out, then by Week 2 had no word on the appeal or the backing-out, told her he was still working on it, and later again had no recollection of the matter. She attributes the additional 3,000 dollar cost of her final semester to the advisor being unable to read his own notes about their discussions.

'''Evidence.''' Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing multiple instances across Weeks 2 to 4 in which the advisor did not recall the situation despite an email chain, and her statement that he told her not to engage in the class and then did not back her out.

'''Reported statement.''' Reporter Student I stated that the additional 3,000 dollars in cost for her final semester resulted from her advisor being unable to recall their prior discussions, and that when she called again he had no idea what she was talking about despite an email chain documenting everything they had discussed.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14) and HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including reliable and responsive student services). Repeated failure to recall or act on a documented student request, where the student relied on the advisor's instruction not to participate, is recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-164}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the advisor's repeated non-recall left the reporter relying on instructions that were not carried out, exposing her to failing a class she had been told not to engage in and to the financial harm that followed.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-164}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

=== HU-164d: Reported drop delayed past the refund window, which the reporter attributes to drops routing through academic advising and to her advisor's inaction, resulting in a double tuition charge with no refund for a class she passed ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Drop Delayed Past Refund Window / Double Tuition Charge (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Advising / Registrar / Student Accounts
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that when she tried to drop the re-enrolled class herself by calling registration, it did not happen because drops go first through academic advising. She states that after repeated unsuccessful attempts to get her advisor to act, registration ultimately dropped the class for her once she explained her frustration, but by then the refund window had passed and the tuition was not refunded. Because the appeal was approved and she had passed the class, she states she paid twice for the same class.

'''Evidence.''' Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing that drops route first through academic advising, that her self-initiated drop did not process, and that the eventual drop came too late for a tuition refund, leaving her paying twice for a class she passed.

'''Reported statement.''' Reporter Student I stated that when she called registration to drop the class herself, it did not happen because drops route first through academic advising, and that by the time the class was finally dropped the refund window had passed, leaving her paying twice for a class she passed after her appeal was approved.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under the institution's tuition refund and drop or withdrawal policies and under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14), as well as HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in financial practices). Routing all drops through advising, such that a student cannot drop directly even when the advisor is unresponsive, can cause a refund-eligible drop to miss the refund window. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-164}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the reporter incurred a duplicate tuition charge (a stated additional 3,000 dollars for the semester) for a class she passed, attributable to the drop delay rather than her own choices.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-164}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

=== HU-165e: Reported financial impact: the reporter pays for school out of pocket as a single mother and now faces additional tuition to repeat a course and an intensive she did not fail through her own performance ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Tuition Harm from Scheduling-Driven Course Repeat (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Student Accounts / Financial Aid
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states she pays for school out of pocket as a single mother and is trying to determine what will happen with her tuition payments as a result of being required to repeat NSG 122 and the intensive. The financial burden is directly linked to the course failure and mandatory repeat that the reporter attributes to the scheduling and resource failure at the intensive, not to her academic performance.

'''Evidence.''' Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group; provided by the reporting student, stating she pays out of pocket as a single mother and is seeking clarification on her tuition situation.

'''Reported statement.''' An anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443) stated that she pays for school out of pocket as a single mother and was trying to determine what would happen with her tuition payments as a result of being required to repeat the course and intensive.

'''Standards.''' Raises concerns under the institution's tuition and refund policies and administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14). Where a course repeat is imposed for a scheduling-driven non-completion rather than a performance failure, the accompanying financial burden on a self-paying student is a fairness and consumer-protection concern. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-165}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the reporter faces a significant additional out-of-pocket tuition cost for a repeat that she describes as unwarranted.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-165}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations

2026-09-15T16:36:58Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern how complaints, EthicsPoint reports, and CARES cases were investigated and closed. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers six tracker entries: one lead record ({{HU|HU-157}}) with two lettered sub-issues ({{HU|HU-157a}}, {{HU|HU-157b}}), two standalone EthicsPoint entries ({{HU|HU-067}}, {{HU|HU-068}}), and one sub-issue of the {{HU|HU-167}} lead ({{HU|HU-167d}}). One entry is rated High severity ({{HU|HU-067}}); the remaining five are rated Medium. All six are CONFIRMED.

The entries span two distinct complaint channels. {{HU|HU-067}} and {{HU|HU-068}} concern EthicsPoint investigations opened in September and December 2025 and closed within seven and five days respectively, both added to the tracker on 2026-05-05. {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-157a}}, and {{HU|HU-157b}} concern a CARES case closed on 2026-06-05 in the same email that denied a final exam retake, declined proctoring supports, and acknowledged a student's legal-hold request. {{HU|HU-167d}} concerns a June 13, 2026 accommodation failure during which two of the six institutional contacts the reporting student emailed were simultaneously out of office.

The recurring owners across this topic are EthicsPoint Administration, the Provost's office, and the Senior Director of Academic Operations for the EthicsPoint entries, and Dr. Nicole Franklin together with Dr. Danielle Laban for the CARES-related entries. Dr. Stephanie Black also appears as a contact in {{HU|HU-167d}}. The recurring pattern across the topic is speed of closure relative to the volume of evidence and the number of distinct concerns raised, and closures that bundle unrelated or unresolved items (a retake denial, a proctoring decision, and a legal-hold acknowledgment) into a single communication.

== Issues ==
=== HU-067: EthicsPoint investigation of September 2025 academic integrity complaint completed in 7 days with generic closure despite 5 categories of violations, 14 evidence files, and inability to access primary evidence repository ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inadequate Investigation and Resolution
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | EthicsPoint Administration / Compliance / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' The EthicsPoint report filed September 18, 2025 documented at least five distinct categories of alleged violations: (1) unauthorized distribution of exam answers via Notion workspace; (2) distribution of copyrighted textbook content; (3) unauthorized recording of faculty lectures; (4) harassment and retaliation against the reporter; (5) unprofessional conduct including sharing medical images of a minor. The investigation was closed September 25, 2025, seven calendar days after filing, with a single generic statement that did not specifically address any individual category, finding, or protective measure.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (Sept 18, 2025): 14 uploaded evidence files. Reporter follow-up (Sept 22, 12:48 PM): the reporting student stated that the uploaded material was only a fraction of what had been posted, and that there was much more content, questions, and answers involved. Organization (Sept 22, 12:28 PM) stated it was unable to access the Notion URL and requested screenshots instead. Organization closure (Sept 25, 10:47 AM) is quoted below. Source Group: EthicsPoint Reports: Sept 18, 2025 (Report #1); Dec 3, 2025 (Report #2).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Our investigation has been completed. We were able to meet with the other party involved and address the concerns shared here. We have investigated concerns related to recording lectures and information sharing and have addressed them accordingly. While we do not anticipate further issues, please let us know if you continue to have concerns.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 requires institutions to maintain and enforce academic integrity policies. The Herzing Student Code of Conduct's progressive discipline model (reprimand, suspension, dismissal) requires documented findings and proportionate sanctions. 34 CFR 668.46 (Clery Act) requires institutions to address reported misconduct with adequate investigative processes. The generic closure language does not indicate whether the Notion workspace was reviewed, whether copyright infringement was referred to legal, whether the harassment and stalking allegations were investigated separately, or whether protective measures were implemented for the reporter.

'''Impact.''' A seven-day investigation of a multi-category complaint with 14 or more evidence files, where the investigating body could not access the primary evidence repository, raises questions about investigative thoroughness. Combined with the documented absence of disciplinary sanctions against the accused student ({{HU|HU-026}}: student remained eligible for student council), the pattern suggests the investigation may have been procedurally deficient. The failure to separately address the harassment, retaliation, and stalking allegations ({{HU|HU-066}}) in the closure response suggests these concerns may not have been independently investigated.

'''Notes.''' Timeline: filed September 18, then the organization asked for screenshots on September 22 after stating it could not access the Notion workspace, the reporter uploaded evidence on September 22, and the organization closed the investigation on September 25. The organization attempted to call the reporter on September 23 but could not reach him and noted his voicemail was full. Despite this communication gap, the investigation was closed two days later. The reporter's formal request for "Protections for Reporting Students" and a request that the Academic Integrity Committee formally investigate were not addressed in the closure. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-026}} (no disciplinary action), {{HU|HU-065}} (unauthorized recording), {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation and stalking).

=== HU-068: EthicsPoint investigation of December 2025 AI cheating complaint closed in 5 days without individual enforcement; university acknowledged systemic AI use but responded only with general education initiative ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inadequate Investigation and Enforcement
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | EthicsPoint Administration / Senior Director Academic Operations / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student filed an EthicsPoint report on December 3, 2025 documenting AI use in student discussion posts with specific forensic evidence: ChatGPT tracking parameters in citation URLs and hallucinated or dead-link citations. Thirteen screenshots were uploaded as evidence. The university acknowledged the evidence and admitted AI use is systemic and "intensifying," but closed the investigation in five days with no individual enforcement actions. The sole remedial response was a general AI ethics education initiative.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (Dec 3, 2025): 13 screenshots showing ChatGPT tracking parameters and hallucinated citations. Organization (Dec 4, 2025) asked for a specific course and section. Organization closure (Dec 8, 2025) acknowledged the evidence as questionable citations submitted in various courses over the past several months and admitted that AI use is intensifying and that not every case gets caught. Source Group: EthicsPoint Reports: Sept 18, 2025 (Report #1); Dec 3, 2025 (Report #2).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Faculty address the use of AI individually with students when it is recognized, though it is acknowledged not every case gets caught. AI use is intensifying, and the University has taken steps to help students learn how to use it ethically and responsibly. For example, we have developed and deployed assignments in all of our general education courses designed to teach students what AI is, how it can be used, how it cannot be used, and the consequences of violating the University's policy on AI.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' The Herzing AI Policy (Handbook p.12) and ACEN Standard 4.6 require that academic integrity policies be enforced consistently, not merely promulgated. The university's response implicitly acknowledges a gap between policy (AI use prohibited or restricted) and enforcement, since not every case gets caught. Providing educational materials about AI ethics without investigating specific documented instances of AI use constitutes a failure to enforce the policy. 34 CFR 602.16(a)(1)(ix) treats an acknowledgment of systemic non-enforcement while claiming compliance as an accreditation risk.

'''Impact.''' The university's response confirms three concerning facts: AI use in student work is systemic and intensifying, enforcement is acknowledged to be incomplete, and the institutional response is educational rather than disciplinary. For a nursing program, AI-generated discussion posts mean students are not engaging with clinical concepts at the depth required for patient safety competency. The pattern of non-enforcement mirrors {{HU|HU-026}} (exam answer posting) and {{HU|HU-067}} (generic investigation closure), suggesting a systemic institutional pattern.

'''Notes.''' The university's acknowledgment that AI use is intensifying and that not every case gets caught is itself a significant admission. Combined with the reporter's 13 screenshots of specific forensic evidence and the fact that no individual enforcement actions were taken, this suggests the university is aware of a program-level academic integrity failure but has chosen educational outreach over disciplinary enforcement. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-027}} (original ChatGPT concern), {{HU|HU-037}} and {{HU|HU-051}} (broader academic integrity patterns).

=== HU-157: Lead: the CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, and that acknowledged the student's legal-hold request; see HU-157a, HU-157b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (CARES closure with unresolved items; legal-hold acknowledgment)
! Date added
| 2026-06-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP)
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for the June 5, 2026 closure of the reporting student's CARES case by Dr. Nicole Franklin, following up on a May 13 meeting. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-157a}} (the case was closed in the same email that denied the Fundamentals final retake, {{HU|HU-155}}, and declined the proctoring supports, {{HU|HU-156}}, with the four summarized items largely answered not approved, not available, or a workaround) and {{HU|HU-157b}} (the same email acknowledged the student's legal-hold request, with the closure occurring contemporaneously with that litigation-preservation request). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Email: Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban), subject CARES Case: Follow-up, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM; provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-158}}). Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-157}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-157a}}, {{HU|HU-157b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-155}} (retake denied), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring), {{HU|HU-158}}.

=== HU-157a: The CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, with the listed items largely unresolved ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| CARES Case Closed With Denied or Unresolved Items
! Date added
| 2026-06-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin / Dr. Danielle Laban
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin closed the reporting student's CARES case in the same June 5, 2026 email that conveyed the denied Fundamentals final retake and the declined proctoring supports. The four summarized items (computer funds from Financial Aid, an assigned proctor, the exam retake, and a ProctorU pre-test) were largely answered with not approved, not available, or a student-side workaround, yet the case was closed.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026) provided updates on the May 13 meeting items, with the assigned proctor not an available option, the exam retake not approved, and the ProctorU pre-test not a viable option, followed by closing the CARES case. Source Group: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES follow-up, June 5, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>With this email, I will be closing your CARES case.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity) holds that a student-complaint or CARES process should resolve or clearly route the issues raised before closure, and closure should not foreclose remaining avenues. Closing the case while the retake was denied without a stated reason ({{HU|HU-155}}) and proctoring support was reduced to a workaround ({{HU|HU-156}}) is a process concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-157}}. See {{HU|HU-155}}, {{HU|HU-156}}.

'''Impact.''' With the case closed, the reporting student may lose a centralized channel for the unresolved items and may have to re-escalate separately.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-157}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. No conclusion is drawn; the documented facts are the closure and the denied or reduced items.

=== HU-157b: The closure email acknowledged the student's legal-hold (litigation-preservation) request, with the CARES closure occurring contemporaneously with that request ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Legal Hold Acknowledged Contemporaneously With Case Closure
! Date added
| 2026-06-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin / Dr. Danielle Laban
|}
'''Finding.''' In the same June 5, 2026 email, Dr. Nicole Franklin stated that the institution had notified the appropriate parties regarding the reporting student's legal-hold request. The CARES closure thus occurred contemporaneously with a litigation-preservation request; closing the CARES case does not extinguish the institution's preservation obligations.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026) stated that the institution had notified the appropriate parties regarding the legal-hold request, in the same email closing the CARES case. Source Group: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES follow-up, June 5, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Additionally, we have notified the appropriate parties regarding your legal hold request.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' A litigation-hold (legal-hold) request triggers duties to preserve potentially relevant records; administrative closure of a complaint case does not extinguish those preservation obligations. Documented as a factual record of the acknowledgment and timing. Lead: {{HU|HU-157}}.

'''Impact.''' The contemporaneous timing of the CARES closure and the legal-hold acknowledgment is a documented fact relevant to records preservation; the institution remains obligated to preserve relevant records notwithstanding the closure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-157}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. No conclusion is drawn beyond the documented acknowledgment and timing.

=== HU-167d: Nicole Franklin and Stephanie Black, two of the six institutional contacts the reporting student emailed during the active accommodation failure, were simultaneously out of office: Franklin supporting the Birmingham Campus during a transition period and Black on PTO ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Key Escalation Contacts Simultaneously Out of Office During Active Accommodation Failure
! Date added
| 2026-06-13
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Dr. Stephanie Black (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' When the reporting student emailed six institutional contacts at approximately 3:39 PM on Saturday June 13, 2026 to report an active accommodation failure, at least two of the six contacts were unavailable and had auto-replies enabled. Dr. Nicole Franklin's auto-reply stated she was currently supporting the Birmingham Campus during a period of transition. Dr. Stephanie Black's auto-reply stated she was out of the office on PTO and would respond as soon as possible. Both are senior institutional figures who would normally be expected to provide oversight or intervention in a student-accommodation crisis. Their simultaneous absence during a weekend accommodation failure left the student without real-time institutional recourse from at least two of his escalation contacts.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot of the reporting student's Herzing inbox (June 13, 2026, 3:39 PM) showed auto-reply emails from Nicole Franklin and Stephanie Black visible in the open draft compose window. Source Group: seven ProctorU chat and screen screenshots (Saturday June 13, 2026, 3:27 PM to 3:44 PM CDT); email from the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Nicole Franklin, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, David Steele, Dr. Stephanie Black, and Dr. Tanetshia Brown (sent approximately 3:39 PM, June 13, 2026); a follow-up email from the reporting student confirming the exam was completed after a delay of over one hour and fifteen minutes; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Franklin auto-reply:] I am currently supporting the Birmingham Campus during a period of transition. [Black auto-reply:] I will respond to your message as soon as... [PTO notice visible].</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 3.D requires student support services that are adequate, accessible, and appropriately staffed. 34 CFR 668.14 addresses administrative capability, including accessible student services. Two senior institutional contacts being simultaneously unavailable on a weekend during an active accommodation failure raises an institutional-coverage and student-support concern. Recorded as a staffing-availability and escalation-path concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-167}}.

'''Impact.''' The simultaneous absence of two senior contacts reduced the student's realistic escalation paths during a time-sensitive accommodation failure on a Saturday.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-167}} (lead). CONFIRMED from inbox screenshots showing auto-replies. Documented 2026-06-13.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]

Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement

2026-09-15T16:36:57Z

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern clinical placement. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article collects 60 tracker entries concerning clinical placement, added between 2026-04-30 and 2026-08-11, though several entries document underlying events reaching back to the 2023-2024 academic year and December 2024. The severity mix skews heavy: seven entries are rated Critical ({{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}}, {{HU|HU-133a}}, {{HU|HU-141}}, {{HU|HU-141a}}, {{HU|HU-141c}}), the majority are High, several are Medium, and two are Low ({{HU|HU-181}}, {{HU|HU-196}}, the latter a resolved example). Nearly all entries are CONFIRMED from first-party emails, Canvas messages, screenshots, or institutional documents; a smaller set is marked POSSIBLE where the account is secondhand or unverified, including {{HU|HU-042}}, {{HU|HU-063}}, parts of {{HU|HU-132}}, {{HU|HU-178}}, {{HU|HU-190}}, {{HU|HU-190a}}, and part of {{HU|HU-191}}.

Several recurring threads run through the collection. The largest is placement never arranged, arranged late, or arranged at excessive distance, documented for individual students ({{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-136}}, {{HU|HU-137}}) and for entire cohorts ({{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-109}}, {{HU|HU-110}}). A second thread concerns clinical hour counting: mid-semester changes to required hours, credential-type mismatches, and instructor-driven reductions appear in {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, the {{HU|HU-141}} cluster, {{HU|HU-144}}, and {{HU|HU-191}}. A third thread concerns the marketing and reality of placement responsibility for graduate nurse practitioner students, where a "Clinical Placement Pledge" is contrasted with students sourcing their own preceptors ({{HU|HU-058}}, {{HU|HU-063}}, {{HU|HU-190}}, {{HU|HU-190a}}). A fourth thread documents administrative and records failures inside the placement system itself: missing student names on outreach documentation ({{HU|HU-072}}), duplicate and erroneous Clinician Nexus entries ({{HU|HU-133}} cluster), and inconsistent preceptor-agreement requirements across terms ({{HU|HU-170}} cluster). A fifth thread traces personnel turnover and fragmented accountability across regional coordinators, including Christina Kennedy's transition ({{HU|HU-121}}), the regional split that kept three online students from meeting together ({{HU|HU-132}}), Dr. Rachel Powell's response naming four additional administrators ({{HU|HU-134}}), and a misdirected welcome email from a new coordinator ({{HU|HU-181}}).

Recurring owners include Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online), Christina Kennedy, Kate Powell (South Region), Starr Williams-Headen, Ann Zientara, Heather Klanderman, and program chairs Dr. Raywattie Prashad and Dr. Stacey Gombar, alongside clinical faculty Troy Frazier and Heather Gregg. The pattern is not confined to one region or program level: it spans prelicensure and graduate tracks, the National Online, South Region, and Florida/Tennessee placement structures, and recurs across at least three enrollment periods (Spring 2025, Summer 2026, and Fall 2026 planning). One entry, {{HU|HU-196}}, documents the placement office responding promptly and effectively when given advance notice of an external risk, and is retained for contrast with the entries describing unresolved or slow-resolved failures.

== Issues ==

=== HU-007: Spring 2026 clinical placement not arranged during semester; pushed to summer with late notice ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement Specialist / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Spring 2026 clinical placement was not arranged during the semester and was pushed to summer with late notice.

'''Evidence.''' A student email dated 2026-04-25 states that clinicals were scheduled for the following week as a result of the university not being able to find a placement during the semester. A Clinical Placement email dated 2026-04-29 confirmed Ascension Via Christi, Wichita, Kansas for the summer.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I have scheduled the exam for the earliest possible time which is 8 AM on Tuesday. Next week I have clinicals as a result of them not being able to find me a placement during the semester.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5.1 requires that clinical learning opportunities be adequate and appropriate. Handbook page 26 requires timely clinical placement. Late placement disrupts curriculum sequencing and may compromise program integrity.

'''Impact.''' Clinical hours were delayed beyond the scheduled semester, and the exam retake date conflicted with the clinical start. This may affect the graduation timeline and financial aid progression.

'''Notes.''' Christina Kennedy confirmed placement on 2026-04-29 for summer, but the official CORE notice was still pending. This is at least the second placement location; the first was four hours away (see {{HU|HU-024}}).

=== HU-008: Handbook states clinical site dismissal decisions are not subject to appeal through Herzing processes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Policy Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Legal Counsel
|}
'''Finding.''' The Prelicensure Student Handbook states that clinical site dismissal decisions are not subject to appeal through Herzing's appeal processes.

'''Evidence.''' Handbook page 16. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Herzing has no control over these decisions, and such decisions of the clinical sites are not subject to appeal through the Herzing appeal processes.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Due process principles in higher education and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. Institutions retain responsibility for ensuring students have recourse when facing adverse academic consequences; clinical dismissal leads to course failure and potential program dismissal, consequences of a magnitude that require some form of institutional review.

'''Impact.''' A student dismissed from clinical by a facility has no appeal rights at Herzing. Clinical dismissal leads to course failure and potential program dismissal with zero institutional review, a due process gap for a consequential adverse action.

'''Notes.''' This is a policy text finding from the handbook, not specific to the reporting student, but highly relevant to any student in the program.

=== HU-032: In-person clinical hours changed mid-semester without notice (approximately 45-50 hours told by Dr. Fabry in October 2025 versus 84 hours actually required) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Policy Change Without Notice
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Chair / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' In-person clinical hours changed mid-semester without notice, from approximately 45 to 50 hours as told by Dr. Fabry in October 2025 to 84 in-person hours actually required, causing multiple students to face semester-end hour shortfalls.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe. Student CN, on January 5, 2026, said Student CN had asked Fabry about it back in October and was told 45 to 50, state dependent, and that something must have changed since then. Student Y, on December 4, 2025, said the change was bullshit and that they changed it like half way through the semester.

'''Reported statement.''' A student pseudonym known as Student CN paraphrased that Student CN had confirmed the 45 to 50 hour figure with Dr. Fabry in October and believed something had since changed. Another student pseudonym, Student Y, described the mid-semester change as unacceptable.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 requires that program requirements be published and consistently communicated. Handbook policy requires students to complete clinical hours as assigned; a mid-semester change leaves students who planned around the original requirement unable to meet the new one without additional institutional support.

'''Impact.''' Students who planned around the original 45 to 50 hour estimate could not acquire an additional 34 to 39 hours on short notice. Multiple students ended the semester with incompletes or withdrawal grades.

'''Notes.''' Multiple students also reported confusion about whether virtual hours counted toward a combined total or were separate from in-person hours. See {{HU|HU-033}} for related conflicting published totals.

=== HU-035: Student (Student BC, Florida) received only 36 of 84 required in-person clinical hours because university failed to arrange placement; university attempted to issue W grade ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Placement Failure / Wrongful Withdrawal
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' A student, identified as Student BC in Florida, received only 36 of 84 required in-person clinical hours because the university failed to arrange placement for the remaining specialties, and the university attempted to issue a W grade rather than an institutional incomplete.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (April 3 to 4, 2026). Student BC reported being told she would receive a W for Clinical III because the university could not arrange OB and pediatrics placements. A clinical instructor was willing to let her complete all hours in med-surg. The university initially refused an incomplete. Source Group: MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (Sept 2025 to May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BC, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that the university did not even know she was there getting her Clinical III hours, that they were going to withdraw her in a way that would push her back, and that her clinical instructor was willing to let her finish all of the hours in med-surg, but the university would not give her an incomplete.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5.1 requires clinical learning opportunities be adequate and timely. Handbook page 26 addresses clinical placement policies. A W grade for a clinical course failure caused entirely by the institution's failure to arrange placement constitutes an institutional harm. Two W grades equal one failed attempt under Handbook page 20.

'''Impact.''' Issuance of a W grade for an institutionally caused placement failure pushes the student's graduation date back, triggers additional tuition costs, and creates a permanent academic record entry for a failure that was not the student's fault.

'''Notes.''' Multiple other students also reported placement issues in the same semester. See also {{HU|HU-007}}.

=== HU-038: Student (Student E) explicitly confirmed by placement coordinator that 36 hours was total in-person requirement; completed 36 hours; discovered at semester end he was 48 hours short ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Staff Misinformation / Accommodation Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' A student, identified as Student E, was explicitly confirmed by a placement coordinator that 36 hours was his total in-person clinical requirement, completed 36 hours, and discovered at semester end he was actually 48 hours short of the required 84.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe, April 15 to 16, 2026. Student E described calling and asking, mind you, whether he only needed 4 days total, since something did not make sense when the system says 84 hours are needed. He said he was told that whatever was put in his core ELMS was correct, that he asked again to be sure and was told the same thing again, and then boom, the coordinator had been wrong the whole time. The placement coordinator later tried to make everything his fault.

'''Reported statement.''' Student E, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that he had called twice to confirm the requirement, was told each time the number in his records was correct, and later learned the coordinator had been wrong the entire time; he added that the coordinator then tried to place blame on him.

'''Standards.''' Promissory estoppel and reliance doctrine hold that a student who confirms a program requirement with an institutional representative and acts in good faith reliance on that confirmation cannot be held responsible for the institutional error. ACEN Standard 4 and 34 CFR 668.14 are also implicated.

'''Impact.''' The student completed the semester 48 hours short of the clinical requirement through no fault of his own, received an incomplete, and faced delayed program completion, all based on confirmed staff misinformation.

'''Notes.''' The placement coordinator reportedly called the student and tried to make the situation his fault, a response inconsistent with the documented facts. See also {{HU|HU-035}} and {{HU|HU-032}}.

=== HU-042: Hospital administrator reportedly informed Herzing student that hospital no longer accepts Herzing students due to prior practice of sending students to preceptorship without any prior clinical experience ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Readiness / Accreditation Risk
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Clinical Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, a hospital administrator reportedly informed a Herzing student that the hospital no longer accepts Herzing students because Herzing previously sent students to senior-year preceptorship without any prior clinical experience.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe, September 27, 2025. Student E relayed talking with the nurse lead at Student E's hospital, who was telling Student E why the hospital does not allow Herzing students there anymore, saying there was a time when Herzing sent students to preceptorship without having a single clinical experience at all, and that those students were sent into patient rooms with no clinical experience at all.

'''Reported statement.''' Student E, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that the nurse lead at Student E's hospital said Herzing once sent students to preceptorship without any clinical experience at all, placing them in patient rooms unsupervised in what is meant to be the senior-year unsupervised phase.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5.1 requires clinical experiences be adequate, appropriate, and sequenced to build competence. State Board of Nursing regulations typically require progressive supervised clinical experience before unsupervised preceptorship. Sending students into patient care settings without prior supervised experience raises patient safety concerns and potential state nursing board violations.

'''Impact.''' If confirmed, sending students to unsupervised preceptorship without prior clinical experience would represent a patient safety failure, a nursing board violation, and grounds for accreditation concern. The loss of hospital clinical partnership sites due to prior conduct directly harms current students needing placement.

'''Notes.''' This is a secondhand account requiring verification. The loss of clinical placement sites is directly corroborated by documented difficulty placing students throughout 2025 and 2026 (see {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}).

=== HU-049: Clinical placement distances systematically excessive; documented cases include 2+ hour one-way drives; no reasonable distance standard appears to be applied ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Systemic Distance / Accommodation Gap
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / ADA Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Clinical placement distances are systematically excessive, with documented cases including a Fort Myers to St. Pete assignment (over two hours one way), an HCA Osceola assignment (a three-hour drive), and other Florida students placed two to four hours from home. No reasonable distance standard appears to be applied.

'''Evidence.''' Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe. Student B (Fort Myers, Florida) reported placement at Orlando Health Bayfront Hospital in St. Pete, over two hours one way, and knew classmates from Naples (placed in St. Pete) and Ocala (commuting to Tampa). A student named Kristin reported potentially being placed at HCA Osceola, a three-hour drive.

'''Reported statement.''' Student B, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that Student B drives two hours one way for clinicals, calling it inconvenient though manageable, and attributed the pattern to the campuses being concentrated in Tampa and Orlando, where existing agreements already exist rather than local sites for students elsewhere.

'''Standards.''' Handbook page 26 requires clinical placements be within a reasonable distance from the campus or the student's address on file. A one-way two to four hour drive does not constitute reasonable distance. ADA and Section 504 concerns arise for students with documented disabilities (see {{HU|HU-024}}). ACEN Standard 5.1 is also implicated.

'''Impact.''' Students required to drive two to four hours each way for twelve-hour clinical shifts face extreme fatigue, increased accident risk, and significant financial costs. Students with disabilities or health conditions are disproportionately harmed.

'''Notes.''' Student B's observation that clinical partnerships are concentrated near Tampa and Orlando campuses regardless of student home location suggests the online program uses campus-based placement infrastructure without developing online-student-centered relationships. See also {{HU|HU-024}}, {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-035}}.

=== HU-058: The "Clinical Placement Pledge" marketed to graduate NP students appears materially misleading; multiple students confirm they are responsible for finding their own preceptors; some pay $1,000 or more ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Misrepresentation, Clinical Placement Pledge
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Dean of Graduate Nursing / Admissions
|}
'''Finding.''' The "Clinical Placement Pledge" marketed to prospective graduate NP students appears materially misleading. Multiple current and former Herzing FNP, PMHNP, and AGACNP students across at least five states confirm they are largely or entirely responsible for finding their own clinical preceptors, with many cold-calling over 100 sites independently. Some students pay $1,000 or more out of pocket for preceptor matching services, and sites with existing Herzing affiliation agreements have refused to accept students.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook posts, March to April 2026: (1) Student BU (April 24, 2026), to whom a Herzing alumna, Student BV, replied that a student is mostly on their own finding a preceptor. (2) Student BW (March 10, 2026), an FNP student in Nashville, who contacted over 100 possible sites in the past couple of months. (3) Student CI (February 15, 2026), an MSN-FNP student in Baltimore, who is currently in a MSN-FNP program at Herzing University where students are required to find their own clinical placements. (4) Student CJ (February 20, 2026), a PMHNP student in North Carolina, who stated that even places with existing affiliation agreements have stated they will not accept students. (5) Handle 7 (March 13, 2026), who stated they had to pay the majority of their preceptor cost. Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BU, Student BV, Student BW, Student CI, Student CJ, and Handle 7, all student pseudonyms or anonymous handles, collectively described being largely on their own to find a preceptor, contacting well over 100 sites in a couple of months, being required to find their own clinical placements despite the pledge, having affiliated sites decline them anyway, and paying out of pocket, in one case the majority of the cost, for a preceptor.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (misrepresentation) is implicated: marketing a Clinical Placement Pledge while providing no meaningful placement assistance constitutes a potential misrepresentation of a material program characteristic. ACEN Standard 5.1 requires that the curriculum include planned clinical practice experiences adequate in number and type to prepare graduates for the nursing role. CCNE Standard III-E requires the program ensure adequate preceptor availability. FTC Act Section 5 applies to deceptive advertising of educational program features.

'''Impact.''' Graduate NP students across multiple states spend dozens to hundreds of hours cold-calling clinical sites. Students are paying $1,000 or more out of pocket for commercial preceptor matching services. Sites with existing Herzing affiliation agreements are still turning students away, making the pledge functionally empty.

'''Notes.''' The Clinical Placement Pledge language appears in Herzing's NP program marketing. The contrast between the pledge and the documented reality constitutes a textbook misrepresentation under 34 CFR 668.71. This issue is distinct from {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, and {{HU|HU-049}}, which address prelicensure clinical placement failures; this issue specifically concerns the graduate NP programs.

=== HU-063: Herzing NP students directed toward urgent care as acceptable clinical placement; at least one student's urgent care application rejected by Herzing because "they don't offer primary care visits" ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Site Guidance Inconsistency, Urgent Care
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Graduate Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, Herzing NP students are directed toward urgent care settings as acceptable clinical placement options, but at least one student's application to an urgent care site was rejected by Herzing because the site does not offer primary care visits, creating a guidance inconsistency that wastes student placement effort and may delay program completion.

'''Evidence.''' A Facebook comment by Student CP, a mid-program Herzing FNP student, dated April 16, 2026. Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' Student CP, a student pseudonym, paraphrased a warning to classmates to be careful with the urgent care option, stating she had an application for urgent care declined by Herzing because urgent care does not offer primary care visits.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 requires that program requirements be clearly and accurately communicated. 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (Misrepresentation) is implicated: if urgent care is presented as an acceptable placement option during enrollment advising but then rejected during the clinical phase, this constitutes a material misrepresentation. CCNE Standard III requires that graduate nursing programs ensure clinical placement criteria are clearly defined and consistently applied.

'''Impact.''' NP students who spend weeks or months pursuing urgent care placement and then have their application rejected have lost significant time, effort, and opportunity cost. Given the documented preceptor scarcity and deadline pressure (see {{HU|HU-058}}), a false lead from institutional guidance creates direct risk of delayed graduation.

'''Notes.''' This reinforces {{HU|HU-058}} (Clinical Placement Pledge misrepresentation). The commenter did not indicate whether the rejection was communicated before or after the student secured the urgent care agreement; if after, the harm is compounded. Urgent care is generally a primary care setting, so the distinction Herzing is apparently drawing requires clarification and consistent communication before students begin placement searches.

=== HU-071: Spring 2025 cohort: 75% of class without clinical placement two weeks before semester start (5/5/2025); institution responded by substituting 50 of 135 clinical hours with five 10-hour Zoom "virtual clinical" classes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mass Placement Failure / Virtual Substitution of In-Person Clinical Hours
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Dean of Prelicensure Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' In April 2025, two weeks before the Spring 2025 clinical rotation semester began on May 5, 2025, 75 percent of the cohort had no clinical assignment. The institution responded by emailing students that 50 of the 135 required clinical hours for the next semester would be obtained through five 10-hour Zoom "virtual clinical" classes, a 37 percent substitution of in-person hours with synchronous virtual sessions due to the institution's failure to secure placements.

'''Evidence.''' A Facebook post by Student D, a Spring 2025 cohort student, dated April 26, 2025, listing three key issues. First, the newly implemented Sherpath LMS system, which Student D said simply does not work, with constant issues transferring grades to Canvas, grades transferring incorrectly, etc, and course grades frequently changed with no explanation, and several people in the cohort indicating they failed a class due to this issue and trying to appeal. Second, instructors provide no instruction, so students had to be ready to do it on their own. Third, the institution being unable to place everyone for clinicals: the cohort was supposed to start clinical rotations on 5/5 and 75 percent of the class did not have a clinical assignment, and it was so bad that an email went out about two weeks earlier stating that 50 of the 135 clinical hours for next semester would have to be obtained in five 10-hour virtual classes going forward. Student D added that there were so many more things like this, and that while any one of the items might seem insignificant, the continual litany of issues, misrepresentations, and chaos adds up. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that the institution is unable to place everyone for clinicals, that the cohort was supposed to start rotations on 5/5 with 75 percent of the class lacking a clinical assignment, that an email sent about two weeks earlier said 50 of the 135 clinical hours for next semester would have to come from five 10-hour virtual classes, and asked rhetorically whether anyone could imagine sitting in a Zoom call for 10 hours.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5.1 requires that the curriculum include planned clinical practice experiences adequate in number and type to prepare graduates for the nursing role. Substituting 37 percent of in-person clinical hours with 10-hour Zoom sessions does not constitute adequate clinical practice for the development of psychomotor nursing skills. Virginia's Board of Nursing, and several other state boards of nursing, cap simulation hours at 25 percent of total clinical hours; substituting Zoom sessions for in-person clinical hours likely violates these state caps for affected students (see {{HU|HU-070}}). Handbook page 26 (clinical placement standards) and 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (misrepresentation) are implicated, since students who enrolled with the understanding of in-person clinical experience are receiving a materially different educational experience. NCSBN nursing simulation guidelines state that virtual simulation is not equivalent to in-person clinical experience for skill acquisition.

'''Impact.''' Seventy-five percent of a cohort lacking clinical placement two weeks before the semester represents a systemic placement infrastructure failure. The institution's solution, 10-hour Zoom "virtual clinical" sessions, is pedagogically inappropriate for nursing skill development and likely violates state board of nursing simulation caps for students in regulated states. Spring 2025 cohort graduates may face NCLEX licensure ineligibility in states with strict simulation hour caps. The educational quality of an all-day Zoom "clinical" is not equivalent to in-person clinical practice; students cannot perform vital signs, medication administration, IV insertion, or patient assessment via Zoom.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, {{HU|HU-049}} (placement deficiencies) and {{HU|HU-070}} (Virginia BON 25 percent simulation cap). The substitution of in-person hours with Zoom sessions is a particularly significant escalation: prior placement failures resulted in W grades or delayed graduation, while this systemic substitution affects 75 percent of an entire cohort and dilutes the quality of clinical education program-wide. A cohort member identified as Student B, described as a faculty advisor, partially refuted the timing in the comments, stating that they did not get their clinical assignment at the start of the semester, that it was about two to three weeks into the semester, and that other students might still get placed somewhere, which acknowledges the late-placement pattern rather than refutes it. Multiple students in the Spring 2025 cohort indicated they failed classes due to the related Sherpath grade transfer failures (see {{HU|HU-075}}).

=== HU-072: Clinical placement documentation sent to affiliated hospitals without student name, causing hospitals to not respond; institution then blamed hospitals for non-response rather than acknowledging the documentation error ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Misrepresentation about Clinical Outreach Efforts
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Compliance
|}
'''Finding.''' Multiple students reported that Herzing's clinical placement office told them affiliated hospitals did not respond to placement requests, when in fact Herzing had sent placement documentation without the student's name listed, preventing hospitals from identifying or responding to the request. When students contacted hospitals directly, hospital staff confirmed they never received an identifiable student request, because Herzing had been unable to include the student's name in what it sent. The institution shifted blame to the hospitals rather than acknowledging the documentation error.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student N, August 13, 2024: Baptist has an active affiliation with Herzing, and even that did not stop the institution from sending Student N far away; the school said Baptist did not respond, but another student described in the post as a girl said the documentation was sent with no student name at her hospital of choice, so the hospital did not respond; Student N wondered whether the same explained Student N's own case and said Student N was trying to fight it for the next semester, adding that Student N loves this site. Corroborating post by Student F, May 25, 2024: clinical placement is not reliable, and the office seems to have a standard of telling students it reached out to hospitals, when contacting the hospital directly reveals the hospital never received an email. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student N, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that Baptist has an active affiliation with Herzing but that did not prevent a distant placement, that the school claimed Baptist did not respond, and that another student, described as a girl, learned documentation sent with no student name explained a hospital's non-response, leaving Student N wondering whether the same happened in Student N's own case and stating Student N was trying to fight it for next semester. Student F, a separate student pseudonym, paraphrased that clinical placement is not reliable and follows a pattern of claiming outreach was made to hospitals when, once a student contacts the hospital directly, the hospital says it never received an email.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (misrepresentation) provides that institutions may not make substantial misrepresentations to students about the nature of services they provide. Telling a student that an affiliated hospital did not respond, when in fact the institution sent inadequate documentation, constitutes a misrepresentation about the institution's clinical outreach efforts. ACEN Standard 5.1 treats clinical placement as an institutional responsibility, and misrepresenting placement efforts harms student academic progression. The Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5 (deceptive practices) requires that institutional statements to enrolled students about placement efforts be truthful and substantiated.

'''Impact.''' Students relied on the institution's representation that hospitals did not respond and accepted distant placements as the only option. Had they known the actual cause was inadequate institutional documentation, they could have demanded the placement be re-attempted with proper documentation. The pattern wastes student time, forces unnecessary travel costs (see {{HU|HU-024}}, {{HU|HU-049}}), and shifts institutional responsibility for placement failures onto affiliated hospitals. Multiple students in the same cohort identifying this same pattern across different placement attempts indicates a systemic institutional documentation practice rather than an isolated error.

'''Notes.''' This issue substantially expands {{HU|HU-007}}, {{HU|HU-035}}, {{HU|HU-038}}, and {{HU|HU-049}} by identifying a specific institutional practice, incomplete documentation, that may be the root cause of many reported placement failures. It also intersects with {{HU|HU-042}} (hospital reportedly refusing Herzing students). Recommended verification should include: an audit of placement requests sent to affiliated hospitals to determine whether student names were consistently included; an interview of the clinical placement coordinator about documentation practices; and hospital partner interviews about communications received from Herzing. The Student F corroboration, from a different student in a different cohort, strengthens the finding: the practice is documented across multiple cohorts.

=== HU-080: Mid-rotation clinical requirement changes documented across multiple semesters: mental health hours retroactively required to be with social worker or mental health nurse despite prior alternative (for example, AA meetings) being acceptable ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mid-Rotation Requirement Changes
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair / Mental Health Course Director
|}
'''Finding.''' Students reported that clinical requirements have been changed mid-rotation, requiring them to redo or supplement work already completed under original guidance. A documented case describes a student halfway through her mental health clinical hours being told the hours must be done with a social worker or mental health nurse, after she had already completed hours under prior guidance that AA meeting attendance also satisfied the requirement.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student F, December 30, 2023. Student F said this was, so to say, a perfect example of a lack of communication in clinicals: while halfway done with her mental health hours, her clinical instructor said the hours had to be done with a social worker or a mental health nurse, even though sitting in an AA meeting had also met the requirement. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student F, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that a lack of communication in clinicals was exemplified by being told halfway through her mental health hours that they had to be completed with a social worker or mental health nurse, despite AA meeting attendance previously meeting the requirement.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 requires that program requirements be clearly and consistently communicated. Promissory reliance and good-faith reliance doctrine hold that students who completed clinical hours in good-faith reliance on stated requirements cannot fairly be required to redo those hours when requirements change mid-rotation. Handbook page 26 addresses clinical requirements. The pattern is consistent with {{HU|HU-032}} (mid-semester in-person hour changes) and {{HU|HU-033}} (conflicting published clinical hour totals).

'''Impact.''' Students who completed mental health clinical hours under the original guidance lose either the time invested or face additional clinical hour requirements they did not anticipate. Mental health clinical placements are particularly difficult to secure, per Handbook page 26, which states that for mental health a student has to find their own site, so requiring last-minute additional placement adds significant burden. This pattern continues to support the broader finding that clinical requirements change without adequate advance notice.

'''Notes.''' This is a documented historical instance from the 2023 to 2024 academic year, but the underlying pattern, mid-rotation clinical requirement changes, continues into 2025 (see {{HU|HU-032}}, {{HU|HU-033}}, {{HU|HU-071}}). Recommended verification is a review of mental health clinical syllabi from multiple semesters to determine whether the requirement was formally changed or whether it represented inconsistent enforcement by individual clinical instructors.

=== HU-093: Mass clinical placement crisis email December 2024, institution had 5 months advance knowledge of Spring 2025 crisis; Detroit contracts lost; Student AL forced to compress 135 hours into 2.5 months ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Advance Knowledge / Crisis Management Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement Team / Dean of Nursing / Amanda Howell / Karl Bayly
|}
'''Finding.''' In December 2024, Herzing sent an email to students in clinical-track semesters disclosing significant clinical placement difficulties, including loss of Detroit-area contracts and inadequate placement availability for Spring 2025. This email documents that the institution had at least five months of advance knowledge of the placement crisis that became {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025, 75 percent without placement two weeks before semester start). Karl Bayly and Amanda Howell were identified in the thread as the primary contacts for placement. Student AL documented being required to compress all 135 clinical hours into approximately 2.5 months because placement was not secured in advance, a workload intensity that is clinically and professionally unreasonable. The Detroit contract losses were attributed in part to poor student behavior at those sites, adding a reputational harm dimension. Students confirmed through the Facebook thread that institutional communication about the crisis was minimal and that the December email was the primary formal disclosure.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook discussion thread referencing the mass clinical placement crisis email of December 2024. A Karl Bayly email is referenced by multiple students as the primary placement contact. Student AL is documented in the thread as having been forced to compress 135 hours into approximately 2.5 months due to delayed placement. The loss of Detroit clinical contracts is attributed to poor student behavior at affiliated sites. Amanda Howell is identified as the secondary clinical placement contact. The thread cross-references {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025, 75 percent without clinical placement two weeks before semester start): the December 2024 email demonstrates institutional advance knowledge of the crisis that {{HU|HU-071}} documents. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' The December 2024 institutional email disclosed placement difficulties and the loss of Detroit-area contracts, identified Karl Bayly and Amanda Howell as contacts, and cited poor student behavior as the cause of the contract losses.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that institutions ensure adequate clinical placement availability before students begin clinical semesters. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to maintain the administrative capacity to fulfill their educational obligations. Having advance knowledge of five or more months of a clinical placement crisis and failing to resolve it before the semester start, while only minimally communicating with affected students, constitutes an administrative capability failure. If Detroit contracts were lost due to poor student behavior, the institution bears responsibility for not providing adequate clinical supervision that would have prevented the conduct issues (see {{HU|HU-081}} preceptor communication failures).

'''Impact.''' Students forced to compress 135 clinical hours into 2.5 months face unreasonable physical and professional demands. Clinical learning quality is degraded by compressed timelines. Students who could not accommodate a compressed schedule faced graduation delays. The contract losses create a shrinking placement network for future cohorts, compounding an already documented shortage. The attribution of contract losses to poor student behavior, without institutional self-examination of whether inadequate preceptor orientation contributed (see {{HU|HU-081}}), represents a blame-shift to students.

'''Notes.''' This issue directly bridges {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis) and {{HU|HU-072}} (documentation sent without student names). The December 2024 email establishes that {{HU|HU-071}}'s crisis was foreseeable and known, making the institution's failure to resolve it before the semester start a deliberate or negligent institutional choice rather than an unexpected event. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-007}} (Spring 2026 placement not arranged during semester), {{HU|HU-024}} (excessive placement distances), {{HU|HU-049}} (systemic placement distance failures).

=== HU-109: Clinical affiliation agreement requests from students routinely denied; Student H tried many times with no success; one successful case took months; students cannot expand clinical network to address placement shortages ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Affiliation Agreement Non-Responsiveness
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Compliance / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' Student H, on October 3, 2024, documented that student requests for Herzing to establish new clinical affiliation agreements with additional sites are routinely denied. He said he tried many times with no success, and that the only person he knows of who succeeded was one girl, whom Herzing took months to make legit with a new site. This means students facing clinical placement shortages ({{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}) cannot resolve their own placement crisis by identifying willing clinical sites, because the institution will not execute the necessary affiliation agreement. Students who find their own willing preceptors, as documented in Student D's Clinical II experience, face an institutional bottleneck that prevents them from obtaining placement even when they have done the work of finding it.

'''Evidence.''' Student H, October 3, 2024, paraphrased description: a student can try to request that Herzing obtain an affiliation agreement, but Student H tried many times with no success, and knew of one girl who did get Herzing to sign on with a new site, though that process took months. Student D, May 28, 2025, paraphrased description: Student D found their own site and Herzing got a contract in place, but finding the site was easy while getting Herzing to make it legit was a bit more challenging. The contrast between Student H's repeated failures and Student D's eventual success, achieved only with significant difficulty, documents inconsistent institutional responsiveness to affiliation agreement requests. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student H, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that requesting an affiliation agreement rarely succeeds despite repeated attempts, and that the one classmate who succeeded waited months. Student D, a separate student pseudonym, paraphrased that finding the site independently was easy but getting Herzing to make it official was more challenging.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that institutions ensure sufficient clinical placement infrastructure to support student learning. If the institution is simultaneously experiencing clinical placement shortages ({{HU|HU-071}}: 75 percent without placement two weeks before semester start) and routinely denying student-initiated affiliation agreement requests, the institution is both failing to provide placements and blocking students from self-resolving the deficit. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to maintain the administrative capacity to process clinical affiliation agreements in a timely manner. A process that takes months and succeeds only rarely is not functioning adequately given the documented urgency of placement shortages.

'''Impact.''' Students facing clinical placement shortages have no effective self-help mechanism: they cannot find and formalize their own placements without institutional cooperation, and that cooperation is routinely withheld. Students who identified willing preceptors and sites were blocked from using them, while simultaneously being told their placement delay was due to limited available sites. The combination of institutional placement failure ({{HU|HU-071}}) and institutional refusal to process student-sourced affiliations compounds the harm and extends placement delays.

'''Notes.''' This issue directly compounds {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis), {{HU|HU-072}} (documentation errors in placement), {{HU|HU-093}} (mass placement crisis December 2024 email), and {{HU|HU-024}} (excessive placement distances). Students who could resolve their own placement crisis are blocked by institutional inaction on affiliation agreements. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-007}} (Spring 2026 placement not arranged), {{HU|HU-084}} (library volunteering for OB/Peds hours, students accepting inadequate placements because proper affiliations were not available).

=== HU-110: Alabama clinical network: single preceptor for entire state as of December 2024; that preceptor considering leaving; single point of failure threatening all Alabama students' clinical placement simultaneously ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Single Point of Failure / Preceptor Network Inadequacy
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / State Relations
|}
'''Finding.''' Student AF, on December 30, 2024, documented that as of December 2024, the entire state of Alabama had only one clinical preceptor available for Herzing MSN-DE students, and that the preceptor had stated she might not continue on. This creates a catastrophic single point of failure: if that one preceptor leaves, all Alabama students requiring clinical placement simultaneously lose access to any placement in their state. This finding predates and helps explain the Alabama BON enforcement action documented in {{HU|HU-085}} (April 2026), where Alabama students were unable to sit for NCLEX due to insufficient in-person clinical hours. If the state had only one preceptor, students who could not access that preceptor may have been forced into virtual-only hours, exactly the situation the Alabama BON later enforced against.

'''Evidence.''' Student AF, December 30, 2024, stated the single-preceptor situation in the context of students discussing clinical placement availability in Alabama. The statement was not challenged or corrected by other Alabama students in the thread, suggesting it was accepted as accurate. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AF, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that there was only one preceptor in Alabama and that she had indicated she might not continue on.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires institutions to maintain sufficient clinical infrastructure to support student learning without creating single points of failure. A state with a significant student population relying on a single preceptor who is considering leaving constitutes an administrative capability failure under 34 CFR 668.14. NCSBN guidelines require that adequate clinical supervision include sufficient preceptor availability across all student locations; a single preceptor serving an entire state cannot provide adequate supervision for the volume of students enrolled. Business continuity principles hold that if the institution knew the sole Alabama preceptor was considering leaving and took no action to identify backup preceptors, this constitutes negligent management of clinical infrastructure.

'''Impact.''' If the single Alabama preceptor left, all Alabama students requiring clinical placement, potentially dozens across multiple semesters, would face simultaneous placement loss with no state-based alternative. Students who could not obtain placement would face graduation delays, loan accrual without progress toward degree completion, and potential program dismissal if clinical hours could not be completed. The December 2024 timing, the same month as the mass placement crisis email ({{HU|HU-093}}), suggests Alabama's precarious preceptor situation was part of the broader institutional clinical capacity crisis.

'''Notes.''' This finding connects the December 2024 mass placement crisis email ({{HU|HU-093}}), the Alabama BON enforcement action ({{HU|HU-085}}), and the Student AH 90-plus day ATT delay ({{HU|HU-094}}): a state with one preceptor leads to students being pushed to virtual hours, which leads to BON enforcement of insufficient in-person hours, which leads to NCLEX ineligibility and a 90-plus day ATT delay. The chain of events was predictable from the December 2024 single-preceptor disclosure. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-085}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-094}}, {{HU|HU-109}}.

=== HU-121: Lead: Christina Kennedy's May 7, 2026 email disclosed two distinct problems (no onsite clinical faculty finalized at Week 1, and the placement specialist transitioning out); see HU-121a, HU-121b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two disclosures)
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Christina Kennedy (transitioning) / Faculty Clinical Coordinator / Jeff Ramsey / Rachel Powell / nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for two distinct problems disclosed in Christina Kennedy's May 7, 2026 4:16 PM email to the reporting student: {{HU|HU-121a}} (no onsite Clinical Faculty Member finalized at the start of Week 1) and {{HU|HU-121b}} (the Clinical Placement Specialist transitioning out of her role, with future questions routed to a generic inbox). Both are tracked separately. The email was copied to Jeff Ramsey, Rachel Powell, and nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-121}} entry on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-121}} resolve to this lead. Summer break was confirmed as June 27 to July 5, 2026, with no clinicals. Parts: {{HU|HU-121a}}, {{HU|HU-121b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-103}}, {{HU|HU-117}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-161}}.

=== HU-121a: No onsite Clinical Faculty Member finalized at the start of Week 1 for the reporting student; supervisory gap ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Faculty Not Assigned at Semester Start / Supervisory Gap
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty Clinical Coordinator / Rachel Powell / nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu
|}
'''Finding.''' As of Week 1 (May 7, 2026), clinical placement was secured for the reporting student, but no onsite Clinical Faculty Member had been finalized; the Faculty Clinical Coordinator was still working on it with no confirmed dates, times, or assignment.

'''Evidence.''' Christina Kennedy's email, May 7, 2026, 4:16 PM, stating the team was working to secure an onsite Clinical Faculty Member but had not finalized it.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>We are currently working to secure a Clinical Faculty Member to be onsite with you, but that has not been finalized yet.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires qualified clinical faculty supervision confirmed before rotations begin, and 34 CFR 668.14 requires administrative capability. Beginning clinical without a confirmed onsite supervisor is a supervisory gap affecting patient safety and competency evaluation. Lead: {{HU|HU-121}}. Compare {{HU|HU-117}} (Pfaff resignation), {{HU|HU-128}} (no placement Week 3), {{HU|HU-138}}, {{HU|HU-161}} (faculty continuity).

'''Impact.''' The student had no identified person to contact for clinical guidance, safety concerns, or grade disputes at rotation start.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-121}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-121b: Clinical Placement Specialist (Christina Kennedy) transitioning out mid-process; future questions routed to a generic inbox ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Placement Staff Transition / Loss of Named Point of Contact
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Christina Kennedy (transitioning) / Jeff Ramsey / nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu
|}
'''Finding.''' In the same email, the Clinical Placement Specialist Christina Kennedy disclosed she was transitioning out of her role and directed future questions to a generic inbox, nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu, removing a named point of contact during an active placement process. This compounds other Week 1 personnel departures, including Celia Pfaff's classroom resignation ({{HU|HU-117}}).

'''Evidence.''' Christina Kennedy's email, May 7, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I do want to let you know that I am transitioning out of this role. If you have additional questions in the coming weeks, you can reach nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu for assistance.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and continuity) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. Loss of a named placement contact mid-process, alongside other Week 1 departures, reflects administrative instability. Lead: {{HU|HU-121}}. Compare {{HU|HU-103}} (faculty turnover), {{HU|HU-117}} (Pfaff resignation), {{HU|HU-161}} (faculty continuity).

'''Impact.''' Future placement questions are routed to a generic inbox rather than an identified individual during an unresolved clinical setup.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-121}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-123: Initial Preceptor Meeting assignment due Week 1 but no clinical site has been assigned; students cannot complete a meeting with a preceptor they have not been given; institutional deadline imposed before institutional obligation fulfilled ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Assignment Due Before Clinical Site Assigned / Institutional Sequencing Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Heather Gregg / Clinical Placement Team / Christina Kennedy (transitioning)
|}
'''Finding.''' The Unit 1 Initial Preceptor Meeting assignment, a required graded assignment worth 0 pts but mandatory for clinical progression, was shown as due in Week 1 (May 10, 2026), but the reporting student had not yet been assigned a clinical site or preceptor. Christina Kennedy's email ({{HU|HU-121}}) confirmed that as of May 7, 2026, no Clinical Faculty Member had been finalized. A student cannot complete an Initial Preceptor Meeting if the institution has not yet assigned a preceptor or clinical site. The institution is imposing a Week 1 deadline for an activity that depends entirely on the institution completing its own prior obligation of assigning the clinical site and preceptor.

'''Evidence.''' Email from the reporting student to Dr. Gombar and Dr. Gregg (May 2026), stating that the initial preceptor meeting is showing due this week but he had not yet been assigned a clinical site. NSG621 Canvas assignment screenshot ({{HU|HU-116}} evidence) showing "Unit 1: Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement," due May 10, 0 pts. Christina Kennedy's May 7, 2026 email to the reporting student ({{HU|HU-121}}), confirming the team was currently working to secure a Clinical Faculty Member to be onsite with him and that it had not yet been finalized. Source Group: Email, the reporting student to Dr. Gombar / Dr. Gregg, May 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>The initial preceptor meeting is showing due this week, but I have not yet been assigned a clinical site.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical supervision be arranged by the institution before clinical activities begin. Imposing a Week 1 deadline for a preceptor meeting when the institution has not yet assigned a preceptor inverts the proper sequence: the institution must fulfill its obligation first, by assigning the preceptor and site, before the student can fulfill theirs, by completing the initial meeting. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical and academic schedules so that academic requirements can actually be fulfilled. The Unit 1 Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement being due May 10 while the preceptor was not yet assigned as of May 7 gave the student only a three-day window to complete an assignment that depends on an institutional action that had not yet occurred.

'''Impact.''' If the Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement was not submitted by May 10, the reporting student faced a missed assignment, even though the failure to complete it is directly attributable to the institution's failure to assign a preceptor. This is a structural harm: the student is penalized for institutional non-performance. The assignment is listed as worth 0 points but required, meaning it may be a prerequisite for clinical progression; failure to submit it on time may affect clinical standing regardless of points. This connects directly to {{HU|HU-121}} (Kennedy email confirming no Clinical Faculty Member assigned) and {{HU|HU-117}} (Celia Pfaff resigned without replacement).

'''Notes.''' This issue illustrates the compounding effect of the Week 1 institutional failures: the professor resigned ({{HU|HU-117}}), the clinical placement specialist was transitioning out ({{HU|HU-121}}), clinical faculty had not yet been assigned ({{HU|HU-121}}), and now a graded clinical prerequisite assignment was due before the institution had arranged the clinical relationship it requires. Dr. Gombar's email did not address this concern specifically; she acknowledged the duplicate assignments and the empty content assignments but made no mention of the preceptor meeting sequencing issue. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-121}} (clinical faculty not assigned, Kennedy transitioning), {{HU|HU-117}} (Celia Pfaff resignation), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis), {{HU|HU-109}} (affiliation agreement requests denied).

=== HU-128: Week 3 of semester: the reporting student has no clinical placement for 96 required hours; Rachel Powell confirms team still onboarding clinical faculty with no timeframe; cannot approve virtual options; Dr. Prashad states she cannot provide accommodations for one student not provided to all; 27 virtual hours already in course for all students confirmed ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Week 3 No Clinical Placement / Accommodation Denied for One-Student Basis
! Date added
| 2026-05-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Rachel Powell (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Danielle Laban / Emilie Thompson
|}
'''Finding.''' Going into Week 3 of the May 2026 semester, the reporting student has no clinical placement secured for the 96 required clinical hours of the term. The escalation chain is fully documented. Christina Kennedy, transitioning out of her role ({{HU|HU-121}}), referred the reporting student to nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu. Rachel Powell responded that the team is still onboarding the clinical faculty for this clinical rotation, that unfortunately this does take time because the team is at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule, and that unfortunately she does not have an exact timeframe and is not able to approve virtual options, which would need to come from the program chair. The reporting student then escalated to Dr. Prashad, who responded that she needs some additional information since she cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students, asked whether she was understanding correctly that the reporting student was reaching out because he had approved accommodations based on conditions reviewed by accommodations to do what is allowable by his state, asked that this be forwarded to her as the first step, stated that since the course already has 27 virtual hours for all students she would need to connect with several stakeholders about state requirements, and asked whether Rachel Powell is his clinical coordinator. The reporting student then escalated to disability services, Danielle Laban and Emilie Thompson. Dr. Prashad's statement that she cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students is legally significant: disability accommodations under the ADA and Section 504 are precisely designed to provide individualized modifications that may not be provided to all other students. Treating an accommodation request as a general equity problem fundamentally misunderstands disability law.

'''Evidence.''' Weekly Report, week ending May 17, 2026. Rachel Powell email: our team is still onboarding the clinical faculty for this clinical rotation, unfortunately this does take time, as we are at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule. Rachel Powell: unfortunately, I do not have an exact timeframe, I am not able to approve virtual options, that would need to come from the program chair. Dr. Prashad email: I cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students, am I understanding correctly that you are reaching out because you have approved accommodations based on conditions reviewed by accommodations to do what is allowable by your state, since we already have 27 virtual hours for this course for all students I will need to connect with several stakeholders about state requirements, Rachel Powell, are you his clinical coordinator? Source Group: Weekly Report week ending May 17, 2026; Email chain: the reporting student to Rachel Powell, Dr. Prashad, Danielle Laban, Emilie Thompson, May 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Our team is still onboarding the clinical faculty for this clinical rotation. Unfortunately, this does take time, as we are at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule. [Rachel Powell:] I do not have an exact timeframe. I am not able to approve virtual options. [Dr. Prashad:] I cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students. Since we already have 27 virtual hours for this course for all students, I will need to connect with several stakeholders about state requirements.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' The Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12132) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794): disability accommodations are by definition individualized modifications that may differ from what is provided to other students. Dr. Prashad's statement that she cannot provide something for one student not provided to all others directly contradicts the legal framework of disability accommodations. ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be secured before students are required to fulfill clinical hours. Week 3 without a placement means the reporting student cannot complete clinical hours that are accumulating as missed. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical and academic schedules so requirements can be fulfilled. Rachel Powell's confirmation that the team is at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule, with no exact timeframe, documents institutional incapacity to fulfill its clinical placement obligation. The 27 virtual hours statement by Dr. Prashad is also significant: it confirms virtual hours exist in the course structure, which intersects with the Alabama BON enforcement action ({{HU|HU-085}}) regarding virtual hour limits.

'''Impact.''' Week 3 with no clinical placement means the reporting student is accruing missed clinical hours with no timeline for resolution. The total requirement is 96 hours for the term; with no placement in Weeks 1 through 3, he faces a compressed or impossible catch-up schedule. Dr. Prashad's framing of his accommodation as something requiring connecting with several stakeholders about state requirements suggests a lengthy bureaucratic process rather than timely accommodation. Rachel Powell's inability to approve virtual options, requiring program chair authorization, adds another approval layer that further delays resolution. The escalation to Laban and Thompson, disability services, documents that standard faculty and clinical coordinator channels have been exhausted without resolution.

'''Notes.''' Rachel Powell is confirmed as the reporting student's clinical coordinator, based on Dr. Prashad's question, "Rachel Powell, are you his clinical coordinator?" and the email context. The 27 virtual hours figure from Dr. Prashad is important cross-reference data: if all students in NSG621 already have 27 virtual hours, and Alabama's BON is enforcing limits on virtual hours ({{HU|HU-085}}), this raises a question of whether the virtual hour component of NSG621 has been disclosed to all relevant state boards of nursing. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-121}} (Kennedy transitioning, clinical faculty not assigned), {{HU|HU-123}} (preceptor meeting due without clinical site), {{HU|HU-125}} (accommodation blocked pending Prashad), {{HU|HU-085}} (Alabama BON virtual hour enforcement), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis).

=== HU-132: Lead: three online MSN-DE students with parallel clinical-placement problems were split across regions so they could not meet collectively with the Director of Clinical Placement; the situation produced documented student distress, and the reporter referenced advisor disrespect and prior clinical-site harassment; see HU-132a through HU-132d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED (regional fragmentation, student distress); POSSIBLE (advisor misconduct, prior harassment), the latter attributed to the reporter pending verification
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (regional fragmentation; student distress; reported advisor misconduct; referenced prior harassment)
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell DNP RN (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) / Program Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for an email chain dated May 26 to 27, 2026 documenting several concurrent issues, tracked separately as {{HU|HU-132a}} (Dr. Powell declined to include Student A and Student AA in a group meeting because they are not in her region, fragmenting three online students with the same problem into parallel conversations with different administrators), {{HU|HU-132b}} (the reporter documented that affected students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school, establishing mental-health harm), {{HU|HU-132c}} (a reported instance of an advisor being disrespectful to one of the other students by phone), and {{HU|HU-132d}} (a referenced prior-term harassment of the reporter by the Director of Nursing at his clinical hospital). The reporter also stated that students lose points or fail for late work while the university does not reciprocate with timely placement. A meeting with Dr. Powell was scheduled for May 28, 2026. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Student A and Student AA are identified students with parallel clinical-placement issues. The advisor disrespect ({{HU|HU-132c}}) and prior clinical-site harassment ({{HU|HU-132d}}) are the reporter's accounts, documented as POSSIBLE pending verification. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-132}} resolve here. Source Group: Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Rachel Powell / Student A / Student AA, May 26 to 27, 2026 (Re: Meeting). Parts: {{HU|HU-132a}}, {{HU|HU-132b}}, {{HU|HU-132c}}, {{HU|HU-132d}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-109}}, {{HU|HU-121}}, {{HU|HU-125}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}} (Student A placement error), {{HU|HU-134}} (Powell's response).

=== HU-132a: Three online MSN-DE students with parallel clinical-placement problems were split across regions, so they could not meet collectively with the Director of Clinical Placement ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Regional Fragmentation of Online Students
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell DNP RN (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online)
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student attempted to arrange a group meeting with Dr. Rachel Powell to address parallel clinical-placement concerns affecting himself, Student A, and Student AA, all enrolled in the same online MSN-DE program. Dr. Powell declined to include Student A and Student AA, stating they do not reside in a state within the National (Online) region and must meet with their respective directors. The reporting student responded that it makes little sense for online students not to be in the National (Online) region and that the split breaks continuity, forcing three students with the same institutional problem into parallel conversations with different administrators.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Powell, May 27, 2026, 10:04 AM, stated she would meet with the reporting student since he resides in a state within her region, but that neither Student A nor Student AA resides in a state within the National (Online) region, so they must meet with their respective directors. The reporting student's reply, May 27, 2026, 10:10 AM, stated it does not make sense for them not to be in the National (Online) region since they are both online students, and that the split breaks down continuity. Source Group: Email chain, May 26 to 27, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I will meet with you, the reporting student, as you reside in a state within my region. However, neither Student A nor Student AA resides in a state within the National (online) region.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires consistent clinical infrastructure and support for all students in a program regardless of location. HLC Criterion 2.C requires clear, consistent processes for student concerns. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) is also implicated. Fragmenting an online program's students across regions for clinical oversight means the same complaint is processed through multiple parallel channels rather than at the program level. Lead: {{HU|HU-132}}.

'''Impact.''' Student A and Student AA, experiencing the same problems as the reporting student, could not participate in the same conversation with the same administrator, producing several parallel conversations instead of one institutional response to a systemic problem.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-132}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-132b: The reporter documented that the affected students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school as a result of the clinical-placement situation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Documented Student Distress / Mental-Health Harm
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Program Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student documented that the affected students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school as a result of the institutional response to the clinical-placement issues.

'''Evidence.''' Statement by the reporting student, May 27, 2026: the students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school as a result. Source Group: Email chain, May 26 to 27, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>we are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 and the ADA are implicated where students with documented disabilities experience panic attacks as a result of institutional failures in clinical placement and accommodation implementation: the emotional harm compounds the accommodation-compliance concerns already documented in {{HU|HU-125}}. Lead: {{HU|HU-132}}.

'''Impact.''' The documented distress establishes concrete mental-health harm attributable to the cumulative institutional failures across {{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-121}}, {{HU|HU-123}}, {{HU|HU-125}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, and {{HU|HU-129}}, beyond mere administrative inconvenience.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-132}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Documented as the reporter's account of the students' distress.

=== HU-132c: The reporter reported that an advisor was disrespectful to one of the other students by phone on the morning of May 26 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE, attributed to the reporter, pending verification
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Advisor Misconduct (POSSIBLE)
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Program Leadership / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student reported that an advisor was disrespectful to one of the other students, either Student A or Student AA, on the phone on the morning of May 26. The advisor is unnamed and the specific conduct is not detailed; the item is preserved as the reporter's account pending verification.

'''Evidence.''' Statement by the reporting student, May 26, 2026, 12:39 PM: one of the advisors was disrespectful to her that morning on the phone. Source Group: Email chain, May 26, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>One of the advisors was disrespectful to her this morning on the phone.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing's Student Code of Conduct and professional-conduct expectations for staff apply. The characterization is the reporter's; documented as POSSIBLE pending identification of the advisor and the specific conduct. Lead: {{HU|HU-132}}.

'''Impact.''' If substantiated, disrespectful conduct by an advisor toward a student in distress would compound the documented harm; the item requires verification before any conclusion.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-132}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Allegation by the reporting party; not an adjudicated finding.

=== HU-132d: The reporter referenced a prior-term harassment of him by the Director of Nursing at his clinical hospital ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE, attributed to the reporter, pending verification
|-
! Issue type
| Referenced Prior Clinical-Site Harassment (POSSIBLE)
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordination / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student referenced that in a prior term the Director of Nursing at his clinical hospital was harassing him, framing it to Dr. Powell as something she already knew about, suggesting it was previously reported. The item is preserved as the reporter's account pending verification.

'''Evidence.''' Statement by the reporting student, May 26, 2026, 12:39 PM: as Dr. Powell knows, last term the Director of Nursing at the hospital was harassing him, and this needs to stop. Source Group: Email chain, May 26, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>as you know last term the Director of Nursing at the hospital was harassing me. This needs to stop.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Title IX and the Herzing Annual Security Report harassment prohibitions apply, along with clinical-site conduct expectations. The characterization is the reporter's; documented as POSSIBLE pending verification and identification of the prior report. Lead: {{HU|HU-132}}.

'''Impact.''' If substantiated, prior harassment by a clinical-site supervisor is a serious safety concern bearing on clinical placement decisions.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-132}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Allegation by the reporting party referencing a prior term; not an adjudicated finding.

=== HU-133: Lead: Student A was left in an incorrect clinical rotation group days before her clinical start, with duplicate Clinician Nexus entries, documented priority-placement accommodations violated, and a coordinator removal entry with an inaccurate reason applied to the wrong course; see HU-133a through HU-133d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (incorrect rotation; duplicate records; accommodation violation; erroneous removal entry)
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) / Clinical Coordinator / Starr Williams-Headen (Clinician Nexus)
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for Student A's clinical-rotation assignment problems documented May 25 to 26, 2026, tracked separately as {{HU|HU-133a}} (remained incorrectly assigned to Group K despite a confirmed Group H assignment, uncorrected since May 12, with clinical beginning May 28 and no facility, supervisor, location, or onboarding information), {{HU|HU-133b}} (Clinician Nexus showed three simultaneous NSG 525 entries, including a duplicate Group K with no supervisor, while IT confirmed the fix takes under a minute), {{HU|HU-133c}} (documented medical accommodations for priority clinical placement, structured communication, and advance notice violated by the uncorrected error, tracked under ADA and Disability Accommodations), and {{HU|HU-133d}} (a coordinator, Starr Williams-Headen, entered a removal with the reason that the student no longer needs placement due to a summer schedule change, applied to NSG 223 rather than NSG 525, risking an eliminated rather than corrected placement). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Group H (correct): Professor Joanna Hogan, Monarch Maplewood Care Center, Fridays 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. Group K (incorrect): Vicki K, Mercy Hospital (Allina), Wednesdays 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. The accommodation letter (Allina Health) documents anxiety and mood concerns; the health information is referenced only as relevant to the documented accommodation violations. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-133}} resolve here. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain: Student A, Urgent: Clinical Rotation Assignment Still Incorrect (May 25 to 26, 2026); Clinician Nexus screenshots; medical accommodation letter (Allina Health); provided by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-133a}}, {{HU|HU-133b}}, {{HU|HU-133c}}, {{HU|HU-133d}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-132}} (Student A identified, parallel issues), {{HU|HU-125}} (the reporting student accommodation blocked), {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement), {{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-109}}, {{HU|HU-121}}.

=== HU-133a: Student A remained incorrectly assigned to Group K despite a confirmed Group H assignment, uncorrected since May 12, with her clinical beginning May 28 and no facility, supervisor, location, or onboarding information ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Incorrect Rotation Assignment / Imminent Start Without Details
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' Student A was informed she should be in Group H but remained incorrectly assigned to Group K, uncorrected despite communication since May 12, 2026. Her clinical began May 28, 2026, yet she lacked facility assignment details, site supervisor and contact information, meeting location and time, and onboarding and rotation information.

'''Evidence.''' Student A's email, "Urgent: Clinical Rotation Assignment Still Incorrect," May 25, 2026, 6:21 AM. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Student A email, May 25 to 26, 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that her clinical began on 5/28/26, and despite communicating since 5/12, she had not been added to the correct group rotation, remaining incorrectly in Group K when she should be in Group H; she requested confirmation by May 26 at noon.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires clinical placements be accurately assigned and confirmed before students begin rotations. 34 CFR 668.14 requires accurate clinical-placement records. Lead: {{HU|HU-133}}.

'''Impact.''' Student A began clinical with no confirmed facility, supervisor, location, or onboarding information, and risked presenting at the wrong site or being absent from her correct Group H records.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-133}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-133b: The Clinician Nexus rotation schedule showed three simultaneous NSG 525 entries, including a duplicate Group K with no supervisor, while IT confirmed the correction takes under a minute ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Duplicate Placement Records / Administrative (Not Technical) Barrier
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Coordinator / Starr Williams-Headen (Clinician Nexus)
|}
'''Finding.''' The Clinician Nexus rotation schedule showed three NSG 525 Clinical II entries simultaneously: Group H at Monarch Maplewood (correct), Group K at Mercy Hospital/Allina (incorrect), and a duplicate Group K entry at Mercy/Allina with no supervisor listed. Clinician Nexus IT confirmed that updating the rotation assignment takes under a minute and that coordinators are responsible, establishing the barrier as administrative rather than technical.

'''Evidence.''' Clinician Nexus rotation-schedule screenshot; Student A's email, May 25, 2026, relaying the IT confirmation from a contact named Peter. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Clinician Nexus screenshots; Student A email, May 25, 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that IT confirmed the fix takes under a minute once the coordinator makes the change.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and accurate records) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. The IT confirmation establishes that the barrier is administrative rather than technical. Lead: {{HU|HU-133}}.

'''Impact.''' Duplicate and conflicting records create ambiguity about Student A's actual placement and risk her presenting at the wrong site; a sub-minute fix left undone reflects an administrative failure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-133}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-133d: A coordinator entered a removal with an inaccurate reason applied to the wrong course (NSG 223 rather than NSG 525), risking an eliminated rather than corrected placement ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Erroneous Removal Entry / Inaccurate Reason / Wrong Course
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinician Nexus coordinator) / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Clinician Nexus records show that Starr Williams-Headen proposed and accepted a change removing Student A from the NSG 223 Group K rotation with a note that the student no longer needs placement due to a summer schedule change. This appears erroneous: it was applied to NSG 223 (Clinical I) rather than NSG 525, and the stated reason does not describe Student A's situation, raising the risk that a placement was eliminated without substituting the correct one.

'''Evidence.''' Clinician Nexus notification screenshot documenting the proposed and accepted change. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Clinician Nexus notification screenshot.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>proposed changes from Starr Williams-Headen: Student no longer needs placement due to schedule change for Summer.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (accurate administrative records) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. A removal entered against the wrong course with an inaccurate reason can eliminate a placement record rather than correct it. Lead: {{HU|HU-133}}.

'''Impact.''' The removal with an inaccurate reason may eliminate Student A's clinical record entirely rather than transfer her to Group H, creating a gap in her clinical documentation.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-133}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-134: Lead: Dr. Powell's May 27 response to the HU-132 escalation fragmented accountability across additional leadership layers and put institutional admissions on the record (a 48-business-hour response policy, and that the regional model replaced a prior centralized model); see HU-134a, HU-134b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (accountability fragmentation; institutional admissions)
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell DNP RN (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online)
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for Dr. Rachel Powell's May 27, 2026 response to the reporting student's {{HU|HU-132}} escalation, tracked separately as {{HU|HU-134a}} (Powell stated many placement determinations are outside her direct control and directed higher-level concerns to additional leadership layers, identifying four administrators across two regions and adding escalation steps) and {{HU|HU-134b}} (institutional admissions on the record, including confirmation of a 48-business-hour response policy and that the current regional model replaced a prior centralized model, with Powell disagreeing that the regional model disrupts continuity). The May 28, 2026 meeting was confirmed. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' New clinical-placement leadership identified: Jessica Ferra (Midwest), reporting to Jeff Hill (Regional VP, Midwest); Jolanda Smith (Florida), reporting to LeShawn Roberts (Regional VP, Florida). Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-134}} resolve here. Source Group: Email: Dr. Rachel Powell (rapowell@herzing.edu) to the reporting student, May 27, 2026 (RE: Meeting). Parts: {{HU|HU-134a}}, {{HU|HU-134b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-132}} (regional fragmentation), {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement, prior Powell responses), {{HU|HU-133}} (placement error, accommodation).

=== HU-134a: Powell stated many placement determinations are outside her direct control and directed higher-level concerns to additional leadership layers, fragmenting accountability ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Accountability Fragmentation / Additional Escalation Layers
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Jessica Ferra (Midwest) / Jeff Hill (Midwest VP) / Jolanda Smith (Florida) / LeShawn Roberts (Florida VP)
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Powell stated that many placement determinations are outside her direct control and asked that concerns about delays or higher-level placement decisions be directed to the appropriate leadership, identifying four additional administrators across two regions.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Rachel Powell's email to the reporting student, "RE: Meeting," May 27, 2026, asking that concerns about delays or higher-level placement decisions be directed to the appropriate leadership as many determinations are outside her direct control, and identifying the Midwest and Florida directors and their regional vice presidents. Source Group: Dr. Rachel Powell email to the reporting student, May 27, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I would respectfully ask that concerns about delays or higher-level placement decisions be directed to the appropriate leadership overseeing those processes, as many of these determinations are outside my direct control.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) is implicated: clinical placement decisions requiring escalation through multiple institutional layers add structural complexity that delays resolution. Lead: {{HU|HU-134}}. See {{HU|HU-132}}, {{HU|HU-128}}.

'''Impact.''' Students in the Midwest and Florida who cannot resolve issues with their regional directors must escalate to vice presidents, adding steps and delays, while higher-level decisions are deflected elsewhere, fragmenting accountability.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-134}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-134b: Institutional admissions on the record: a 48-business-hour response policy is confirmed, and the current regional model replaced a prior centralized model, while Powell disagrees the regional model disrupts continuity ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Admissions and Position on the Record
! Date added
| 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' Powell's response put several institutional facts on the record: that teams have 48 business hours for response, confirming the baseline in Student A's accommodation letter ({{HU|HU-133}}), and that the institution previously adopted a centralized model and replaced it with the current regional model because the regional model was found to better benefit prelicensure students. Powell stated she disagrees that the regional model disrupts continuity.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Rachel Powell's email to the reporting student, May 27, 2026, stating the teams have 48 business hours for response, that the institution previously adopted a centralized model and found the regional model better benefits pre-licensure students, and defending the regional model. Source Group: Dr. Rachel Powell email to the reporting student, May 27, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Our teams do have 48 business hours for response. [And:] we previously adopted a centralized model and have already found that the regional model better benefits our pre-licensure nursing students.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) is implicated. The 48-business-hour confirmation is the institutional baseline against which documented response delays ({{HU|HU-071}}, {{HU|HU-093}}, {{HU|HU-121}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}}) can be measured; the admission that the regional model replaced a centralized model confirms the structure was a choice. Lead: {{HU|HU-134}}. See {{HU|HU-133}} (48-hour accommodation request), {{HU|HU-132}} (continuity concern).

'''Impact.''' The 48-business-hour confirmation, set against documented response delays, establishes a gap between stated policy and actual practice; the admission that the structure was a deliberate change documents that it can also be reversed.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-134}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Documented as institutional admissions and position; no separate deficiency is asserted beyond the policy-versus-practice gap noted.

=== HU-136: Student K: Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vascular/General Surgery clinical rotation postponed June 1, 2026 because remaining items necessary for placement approval were not completed before scheduled start; students carrying a previous term incomplete hours affected; cross-regional pattern with National Online placement failures; Kate Powell (South Region Clinical Coordinator) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Rotation Start Date Postponed / Placement Approval Items Incomplete at Start
! Date added
| 2026-06-02
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Kate Powell (Clinical Coordinator, South Region) / South Region Clinical Team / Elizabeth Mazzo
|}
'''Finding.''' On June 1, 2026, Kate Powell, Clinical Coordinator for the South Region, emailed students assigned to the Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vascular/General Surgery clinical rotation to notify them that the rotation would not begin as originally scheduled and that the start date had to be postponed. The stated reason was circumstances outside of the team's control and remaining items necessary for placement approval that had not been completed. The email confirms that the institution had not finalized placement approval requirements before the scheduled start date, mirroring placement readiness failures documented for other students and regions ({{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}}, {{HU|HU-135}}). The email also references students whose rotation includes hours needed to satisfy a previous term's incomplete, confirming that some students carrying incomplete clinical hours from prior terms are affected by this postponement, compounding the delay for students already behind through no fault of their own. The email was sent to multiple students, and this issue is attributed to student Student K among the affected students. The pattern is consistent with systemic clinical placement readiness failures across multiple regions and terms: National Online ({{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}}, {{HU|HU-135}}) and now South Region ({{HU|HU-136}}).

'''Evidence.''' Email from Kate Powell, Clinical Coordinator (South Region), subject associated with Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vasc/Gen Surgery, June 1, 2026, 12:17 PM. Powell wrote that due to circumstances outside of the team's control, the upcoming clinical rotation would not begin as originally scheduled, that the start date would need to be postponed while the team worked through the remaining items necessary for placement approval, and that for students whose rotation includes hours needed to satisfy a previous term's incomplete, the team would plan accordingly to ensure all required hours are properly accounted for and completed. Powell directed recipients to contact the South Region Clinical Team or Clinical Coordinator, Kate Powell. Recipients included Kate Powell, Elizabeth Mazzo, and at least one additional student (attributed: Student K). Student: Student K. Source Group: Email, Kate Powell (Clinical Coordinator, South Region) to students re Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vasc/Gen Surgery clinical rotation, June 1, 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>due to circumstances outside of our team's control, your upcoming clinical rotation will not begin as originally scheduled. At this time, the start date will need to be postponed while we work through the remaining items necessary for placement approval. [And:] For students whose rotation includes hours needed to satisfy a previous term's incomplete, please be assured that we will plan accordingly to ensure all required hours are properly accounted for and completed.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be secured and approved before students are scheduled to begin. A rotation that cannot begin because remaining items necessary for placement approval are incomplete documents that the institution did not finalize placement readiness before the start date. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires that institutions coordinate clinical placement logistics so students can fulfill required hours on the published schedule. The reference to students carrying a previous term's incomplete hours indicates the postponement affects students already behind, increasing the risk they cannot complete required hours within program timelines. The phrase circumstances outside of the team's control echoes language used by the National Online clinical placement team ({{HU|HU-128}}: at the mercy of the clinical site; {{HU|HU-134}}: many of these determinations are outside my direct control), establishing a cross-regional pattern of attributing placement failures to external factors.

'''Impact.''' Students assigned to the Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vascular/General Surgery rotation, including Student K, cannot begin clinical on the originally scheduled date. Students carrying incomplete hours from a previous term face compounded delay. The postponement with no confirmed new start date creates uncertainty regarding when students can begin accruing required clinical hours. This South Region postponement, occurring contemporaneously with National Online placement issues ({{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-133}}, {{HU|HU-135}}), demonstrates that clinical placement readiness failures are not isolated to one region or coordinator but appear across multiple regions in the same enrollment period.

'''Notes.''' New personnel identified: Kate Powell, Clinical Coordinator, South Region, distinct from Dr. Rachel Powell, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online. These are two different people sharing a surname. Elizabeth Mazzo is identified as a co-recipient. Clinical site: Ascension Saint Thomas West, 5D Vascular/General Surgery unit. Attributed to student Student K. The cross-regional pattern is significant: the same enrollment period shows placement readiness failures in both the National Online region (the reporting student, Student A) and the South Region (Student K), suggesting a systemic rather than regional problem. Corroborating data point, from a different, unnamed student: a separate cohort member, identified in the Nursing 2027 GroupMe only by [phone redacted], reported receiving the same type of not-cleared-to-start email for the Clarksville-Vanderbilt clinical location, stating it was supposed to start on the 6th. This is a distinct student from Student K at a different site, Clarksville-Vanderbilt, Tennessee, versus Ascension Saint Thomas West, included here to document that the placement-readiness failure pattern extended to multiple sites in the same period. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement), {{HU|HU-133}} (Student A placement error), {{HU|HU-134}} (Powell organizational structure), {{HU|HU-135}} (8-hour accommodation), {{HU|HU-137}} (Student R, Palmetto General), {{HU|HU-138}} (Janel Rizo not-cleared email), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis), {{HU|HU-109}} (affiliation agreements).

=== HU-137: Student R: clinical scheduled at Palmetto General Hospital (Hialeah, FL) with no approval confirmation; last email said not yet approved but would update asap, no follow-up came; I'm so lost, I'm worried; part of multi-site cohort pattern across Florida and Tennessee; Ann Zientara identified as Florida coordinator ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Placement Not Approved / No Follow-Up Communication / Multi-Site Cohort Pattern
! Date added
| 2026-06-02
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Ann Zientara (Florida Clinical Coordinator) / Florida Clinical Placement Team / South Region Clinical Team
|}
'''Finding.''' Student R, a student in the Nursing 2027 cohort, reported in the GroupMe that she had clinical scheduled at Palmetto General Hospital in Hialeah, Florida, but had not received confirmation the site was approved to begin. She wrote asking whether anyone else was set to do clinical tomorrow at Palmetto General, noting that the last email she had received the prior week stated they weren't yet approved to begin but would be updated asap, and that she still haven't heard back, adding that she felt so lost, and separately that she was worried. The last communication she received stated the site was not yet approved but that an update would come soon; no update followed. The GroupMe thread documents that this was not an isolated incident but part of a multi-site pattern across Florida and Tennessee: Student R at Palmetto General; a student, Student BE, whose clinical was in Stuart, Florida, who did not go, emailed, and was then started the following week; an unnamed student who received a not-cleared email for the Clarksville-Vanderbilt location, supposed to start on the 6th; and a student with clinical scheduled in Tennessee who had not received any email and had been emailing for weeks about not having enough information to know where to go. Peers advised each other to email the Florida clinical placement contact, identified as Ann Zientara, and, in some cases, to simply not go and email stating they had received no update. The pattern documents that students across multiple Florida and Tennessee clinical sites were left without confirmed placement approval immediately before scheduled start dates.

'''Evidence.''' Nursing 2027 GroupMe, June 2026. Student R asked whether anyone else was set to do clinical tomorrow at Palmetto General Hospital in Hialeah, Florida, stating that the last email received the prior week said the site weren't yet approved but would be updated asap, and that she still haven't heard back, adding that she felt so lost. Student R separately said she was worried. A cohort member identified as Student BE told her to just dont go and send an email saying she didnt get an update, reasoning that if no update was received she wouldnt know, and said she think Student R would be fine, since that approach worked for Student BE the prior week when Student BE was fine and was started that week; Student BE also advised emailing the Florida clinical placement email, adding that Student BE's own clinical was in Stuart that week. Student R asked whether the coordinator was Ann Zientara, saying she's the one who has been coordinating. An unidentified student, shown only by [phone redacted], stated they received the exact same email for the Clarksville-Vanderbilt location, which was supposed to start on the 6th. Another unidentified student, in Tennessee, stated they had clinical scheduled for tomorrow in Tennessee and hadn't got an email at all, and that today the email finally arrived after weeks of emailing about not having enough information to know where to go. Student: Student R. Source Group: Nursing 2027 GroupMe, Student R and cohort members re Palmetto General Hospital (Hialeah, FL) and multiple Florida/Tennessee clinical sites, June 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' Student R, a student pseudonym, paraphrased asking whether anyone else had clinical the next day at Palmetto General, noting the last email said she was not yet approved but would be updated soon and that no update had come, and expressing that she felt lost and, separately, that she was worried. Other students, including Student BE and unnamed cohort members, described similar not-cleared or no-information situations at Stuart, Florida; the Clarksville-Vanderbilt location in Tennessee; and other Tennessee sites, and advised each other to email the Florida placement coordinator, identified as Ann Zientara, or simply not attend and email that no update had been received.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be approved and confirmed before students are scheduled to begin. A student scheduled for clinical the next day at Palmetto General Hospital who has received no approval confirmation, after being told an update would come as soon as possible, documents that the institution did not finalize placement approval before the scheduled start. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical placement logistics and communicate approval status to students in time for them to plan. The multi-site nature of the failure, Palmetto General, Stuart, Clarksville-Vanderbilt, and other Tennessee sites, indicates a systemic coordination breakdown rather than an isolated site issue. The fact that students resorted to advising each other to simply not go reflects a breakdown in authoritative institutional guidance.

'''Impact.''' Student R and other cohort members could not determine whether to report to clinical, having received no confirmation that their sites were approved. Students faced the choice of either traveling to a site that might not be ready or not attending and risking attendance consequences. The lack of follow-up after being promised an update as soon as possible left students, in Student R's words, so lost and worried. The cohort-wide, multi-site nature of the failure, Florida and Tennessee sites simultaneously, demonstrates that the placement readiness problem documented for individual students ({{HU|HU-136}} Student K, {{HU|HU-133}} Student A) is a broad systemic failure affecting many students across the program in the same enrollment period.

'''Notes.''' Attributed to student Student R (Palmetto General Hospital, Hialeah, FL). Ann Zientara is identified as the Florida clinical placement coordinator, per Student R's statement that she has been coordinating. Other cohort members referenced: Student BE (Stuart, FL); an unnamed student at [phone redacted] (Clarksville-Vanderbilt, also referenced in the {{HU|HU-136}} notes); and an unnamed student with a Tennessee clinical. This issue documents the cohort-wide pattern; the Janel Rizo not-cleared email is documented separately as {{HU|HU-138}}. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-136}} (Student K, Ascension Saint Thomas West), {{HU|HU-138}} (Janel Rizo not-cleared email), {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement, National Online), {{HU|HU-133}} (Student A), {{HU|HU-134}} (Powell organizational structure), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis), {{HU|HU-109}} (affiliation agreements).

=== HU-138: Janel Rizo BSN RN (Adjunct Clinical Faculty) emailed students at 10:33 PM stating "Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start" with casual sign-off "Hope to see you all next week"; faculty uncertainty and late-night casual tone for a significant placement failure; recipients included Doreen Palmer and Ann Zientara ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Late-Night Clinical Faculty Notification of Placement Not Cleared / Casual Tone for Significant Failure
! Date added
| 2026-06-02
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Janel Rizo BSN RN (Adjunct Clinical Faculty) / Ann Zientara (Florida Clinical Coordinator) / Doreen Palmer
|}
'''Finding.''' Adjunct Clinical Faculty member Janel Rizo BSN RN (jrizo@herzing.edu) emailed students at 10:33 PM to notify them that their clinical rotation was not cleared to start. The full message read: Hi students, Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start. Hope to see you all next week! The email was sent to multiple recipients including Doreen Palmer and Ann Zientara plus four additional recipients. Two concerns are documented. First, timing and tone: a notification that a clinical rotation is not cleared to start was sent at 10:33 PM with a casual sign-off, "Hope to see you all next week!", and qualified, secondhand language, "Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start," which does not convey the certainty or seriousness students need to plan around a placement that is not proceeding. Second, faculty uncertainty: the phrase "Last I heard it seems" indicates the clinical faculty member herself did not have definitive information about whether the placement was cleared, reflecting the same information breakdown documented elsewhere in the clinical placement process. This email corroborates the multi-site placement readiness failures documented in {{HU|HU-136}} (Student K, Ascension Saint Thomas West) and {{HU|HU-137}} (Student R, Palmetto General).

'''Evidence.''' Email from Janel Rizo BSN RN, Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online (jrizo@herzing.edu, www.herzing.edu), sent 10:33 PM to Palmer, Doreen; Zientara, Ann; plus four recipients. Full text: Hi students, Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start. Hope to see you all next week! Janel Rizo, BSN, RN, Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online. Shared via the Nursing 2027 GroupMe by a student, Student R, who remarked, "Look what I just got at this hour."

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Hi students, Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start. Hope to see you all next week! Janel Rizo, BSN, RN, Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be confirmed and communicated to students through reliable, authoritative channels. A clinical faculty member communicating that a placement is not cleared to start using qualified secondhand language, "Last I heard it seems," indicates the faculty member lacks definitive placement information, which is itself a communication and coordination failure. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to maintain functional administrative processes for clinical placement confirmation and student notification. A 10:33 PM notification with a casual tone for a significant placement failure does not meet the standard of clear, timely, professional communication students need to manage their academic obligations. The student receiving the email noted the late hour, remarking, "Look what I just got at this hour."

'''Impact.''' Students who received this 10:33 PM email learned only the night before, or shortly before, their scheduled clinical that the placement was not cleared, and even then through uncertain language, "Last I heard it seems." Students could not reliably plan whether to report to clinical, arrange travel, or coordinate work and family obligations. The casual "Hope to see you all next week!" provided no confirmed alternative start date. The faculty member's own uncertainty signals that the information breakdown extends to the clinical instructors responsible for supervising students, not just the placement coordinators.

'''Notes.''' New personnel identified: Janel Rizo BSN RN (jrizo@herzing.edu), Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online. Ann Zientara is identified as a recipient and, per the Nursing 2027 GroupMe, the coordinator who has been coordinating Florida clinical placements, based on a student's statement that she is the one who has been coordinating. Doreen Palmer is identified as a recipient, likely a student or co-faculty member. This email was shared in the Nursing 2027 GroupMe by Student R (see {{HU|HU-137}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-136}} (Student K, Ascension Saint Thomas West postponed), {{HU|HU-137}} (Student R, Palmetto General not approved), {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement), {{HU|HU-071}} (Spring 2025 placement crisis).

=== HU-141: Lead: Student A's prolonged clinical-placement struggle (May 5 to 22, 2026), including an 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout, a credential-type hours mismatch, 9-hour shifts and carryover-hours confusion, an onboarding squeeze with childcare and work disruption, and a placement target that changed mid-correspondence; see HU-141a through HU-141f ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (lockout; hours mismatch; scheduling; onboarding squeeze; moving target)
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator, Online Pre-Licensure) / Kate Powell (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, South Region) / Dr. Prashad / Dr. Black / Jessica Ferra
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for the prolonged correspondence (May 5 to 22, 2026) underlying the {{HU|HU-133}} snapshot, tracked separately as {{HU|HU-141a}} (an 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout despite being told she was added, with Nexus support confirming she was never actually added to the Group H rotation), {{HU|HU-141b}} (repeated failed fix attempts and a records-integrity failure, with the coordinator stating records showed she was added by two people while she remained locked out), {{HU|HU-141c}} (a credential-type hours mismatch, 90 Med-Surg hours scheduled when NSG 525 requires 60 Med-Surg and 48 mental health hours, combining pending program-chair approval), {{HU|HU-141d}} (9-hour shifts and an hours shortfall, plus 24 carryover incomplete hours from Clinical 1 with an August 26 deadline), {{HU|HU-141e}} (a Memorial Day onboarding squeeze with childcare and work disruption and a raised prospect of being penalized through no fault of her own), and {{HU|HU-141f}} (a placement target that changed mid-correspondence and a regional-overlap inconsistency). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' New personnel: Kate Powell (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, South Region) and Starr Williams-Headen BSHM MHRM (Clinical Coordinator, Online Pre-Licensure, cwilliamsheaden@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]). The correct Group H rotation in this chain: RN 261402, MCY 4W Neuro Med/Surg, Thursdays 6 a.m. to 3 p.m., May 28 to August 20 (skip July 2), twelve 9-hour shifts totaling 108 hours. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-141}} resolve here. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain (15 pages): Student A with Kate Powell, Starr Williams-Headen, Dr. Prashad, Dr. Gombar, Jessica Ferra, Rachel Powell, Susan Schlueter, May 5 to 22, 2026; provided by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-141a}}, {{HU|HU-141b}}, {{HU|HU-141c}}, {{HU|HU-141d}}, {{HU|HU-141e}}, {{HU|HU-141f}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-133}} (Student A rotation error snapshot), {{HU|HU-132}} (regional fragmentation), {{HU|HU-134}} (organizational structure), {{HU|HU-135}} (8-hour and 9-hour scheduling), {{HU|HU-128}} (Week 3 no placement), {{HU|HU-071}}.

=== HU-141a: An 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout, despite being told she was added, with Nexus support confirming she was never actually added to the Group H rotation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Prolonged Clinical-System Permission Lockout
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Clinician Nexus
|}
'''Finding.''' From May 14 through May 22, 2026, Student A repeatedly received permission-denied errors at Clinician Nexus, even after being told she had been added to the Group H rotation. Clinician Nexus support told her that Starr Williams-Headen had not actually added her to the Group H rotation, which is why she received the error.

'''Evidence.''' Student A, May 14, 2026: she saw she was added to the Neuro Med Surg rotation in Nexus, but it showed permission denied and was not reflecting in Core ELMs. Student A, May 21, 2026, on her third attempt: each time she accessed it, it said permission denied, with only one week left to do all of her onboarding. Student A, May 22, 2026: Nexus said Starr had not added her to the Group H rotation, which is why she got the error. A Clinician Nexus error screen was also provided. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 14 to 22, 2026; Clinician Nexus error screen.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that each time she accessed the system it showed permission denied, that she had only one week left to do all of her onboarding, and that Nexus support said the issue was that she had never actually been added to the Group H rotation, "you do not have permission to perform this action, please contact an administrator."

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (functional clinical-placement systems and accurate records) and ACEN Standard 5 (placements must be functional before students begin) are implicated. An 8-plus-day lockout after the student was told she was added documents a placement-configuration failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}.

'''Impact.''' Locked out for over a week, Student A could not complete onboarding or confirm her placement as her clinical start approached.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-141b: Repeated failed fix attempts and a records-integrity failure: the coordinator stated records showed she was added by two people while she remained locked out, and a sub-minute fix was left undone ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Records-Integrity Failure / Repeated Failed Fixes
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator)
|}
'''Finding.''' On May 22, Starr Williams-Headen stated that records showed Student A had been added by both herself and the site coordinator, yet acknowledged it did not seem to have gone through and requested it be done again. The add was attempted on May 12 and again on May 22, while the Nexus IT contact, Peter, said the change takes only a few minutes once the student is added to the rotation and schedule, documenting that the institution could not reliably execute a quick change and that its records did not match reality.

'''Evidence.''' Starr Williams-Headen's statement, May 22, 2026; Student A's email relaying the Nexus IT contact's confirmation. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 12 to 22, 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that IT confirmed the fix only takes a few minutes once she is properly added to the rotation and schedule, and that the underlying issue was she had never actually been added to the Group H rotation.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and records integrity) is implicated: records showing the student was added while she remained locked out reflect a records-integrity failure, and repeated failed attempts at a sub-minute change reflect an administrative-execution failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}.

'''Impact.''' The institution's records did not reflect the student's actual access, so even internal verification could not be relied upon, prolonging the lockout.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-141c: A credential-type hours mismatch: 90 Med-Surg hours scheduled when NSG 525 requires 60 Med-Surg and 48 mental health hours, with combining pending program-chair approval ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Hours Allocation / Credential-Type Mismatch
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Kate Powell (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, South Region) / Dr. Prashad / Dr. Black
|}
'''Finding.''' Kate Powell scheduled Student A for a Group K rotation of 90 hours on a Med-Surg unit, but NSG 525 (Clinical 2) requires 60 Med-Surg hours and 48 mental health hours, which cannot be satisfied entirely on a Med-Surg unit. Kate Powell stated the hours could be combined under Minnesota Board of Nursing guidelines if Dr. Prashad and Dr. Black approved, an approval that was still pending.

'''Evidence.''' Kate Powell's email, May 6, 2026: NSG 525 requires 60 Med-Surg hours and 48 mental health hours, but under MN BON guidelines they can be combined if Dr. Prashad and Dr. Black approve. Student A repeatedly asked how 90 Med-Surg hours would satisfy a requirement that includes 48 mental health hours. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 5 to 6, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>NSG 525 requires 60 MedSurg hours and 48 mental health hours but due to the MN BON guidelines we can combine them if Dr. Prashad and Dr. Black approve.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires placements include the correct required clinical-experience types. Minnesota Board of Nursing clinical-hour requirements govern the 60 Med-Surg and 48 mental health split, and any combining must comply with MN BON rules and be properly approved. Scheduling 90 Med-Surg hours against a 60 Med-Surg plus 48 mental health requirement, with approval pending, is a credential-type allocation error. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}.

'''Impact.''' Even if Student A completed the Med-Surg rotation, she risked not satisfying the mental health hour requirement for NSG 525 unless the combining was properly approved.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-141d: 9-hour shifts and an hours shortfall, plus 24 carryover incomplete hours from Clinical 1 with an August 26 deadline ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Shift Length / Hours Shortfall / Carryover-Hours Tracking
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Kate Powell / Starr Williams-Headen / Dr. Prashad
|}
'''Finding.''' The Group K schedule used 9-hour shifts (2 p.m. to 11 p.m.), and Student A calculated that this did not give her the 108 hours needed for Clinical 2. Separately, she was told 24 incomplete hours from Clinical 1 (NSG 522) would be added onto her Clinical 2 schedule with an August 26, 2026 deadline, with ongoing confusion about where those hours would be completed.

'''Evidence.''' Student A's emails, May 5 to 12, 2026: the Wednesday 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. 9-hour shifts do not give her enough hours (108 needed for Clinical 2), and she was told the 24 incomplete Clinical 1 hours would be added onto Clinical 2; the corrected Group H rotation was described as twelve 9-hour shifts totaling 108 hours. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 5 to 12, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Doing the math that does not give me enough hours (108 that I need for Clinical 2).</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires accurate hours configuration; the carryover of 24 incomplete Clinical 1 hours must be tracked against the August 26, 2026 deadline. The 9-hour shift scheduling and resulting hours math mirror concerns in {{HU|HU-135}}. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}.

'''Impact.''' Miscalculated shift hours and untracked carryover hours create a risk that Student A does not complete required hours on schedule or is confused about where to complete them.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-141e: A Memorial Day onboarding squeeze with childcare and work disruption, and a raised prospect of being penalized for not attending through no fault of her own ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Onboarding Squeeze / Childcare and Work Disruption / Penalty Risk
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen / Clinical Coordinator / Dr. Prashad
|}
'''Finding.''' Locked out until the last minute, Student A noted that with the Memorial Day long weekend she would have only two business days to complete onboarding if accepted by May 28 at 8 AM, and could not arrange childcare or time off work without locked clinical dates. She asked whether she would be penalized for not showing up through no fault of her own.

'''Evidence.''' Student A, May 22, 2026: with the Memorial Day long weekend she would have two business days to onboard if accepted by May 28 at 8 AM, and asked whether she would be penalized for not showing up Thursday because she had no proper communication about her clinical site; Student A repeatedly emphasized she needed locked clinical dates to arrange childcare and time off work. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 21 to 22, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>If I don't show up on Thursday because I haven't had any proper communication about my clinical site, will I be penalized for this?</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 and 34 CFR 668.14 require functional, timely placement so students can prepare. Penalizing a student for nonattendance caused by the institution's own placement and communication failures would be an unfair-grading concern, paralleling the accountability asymmetry documented in {{HU|HU-132}}. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}.

'''Impact.''' Student A faced a real risk of missing her clinical start, and of an academic penalty, because of institutional delays she did not cause, and could not plan childcare or work around unlocked dates.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-141f: The placement target changed mid-correspondence, and a South Region coordinator handled a National Online student, a regional-overlap inconsistency ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Shifting Placement Target / Regional-Overlap Inconsistency
! Date added
| 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Kate Powell (South Region) / Starr Williams-Headen / Clinical Coordination
|}
'''Finding.''' The correct Group H placement itself changed over the correspondence: the {{HU|HU-133}} snapshot referenced NSG 525 Group H with Professor Joanna Hogan at Monarch Maplewood, while this chain shows a different correct placement, Group H at MCY 4W Neuro Med/Surg with RN 261402. In addition, Kate Powell, the Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator for the South Region, handled Student A's placement even though Student A is in the National Online region, a regional-overlap inconsistency relevant to the regional-fragmentation concerns in {{HU|HU-132}} and {{HU|HU-134}}.

'''Evidence.''' Comparison of {{HU|HU-133}} evidence with the May 5 to 22 email chain: {{HU|HU-133}} referenced Group H at Monarch Maplewood (Joanna Hogan); this May 5 to 22 chain shows the correct Group H as MCY 4W Neuro Med/Surg (RN 261402, Thursdays 6a to 3p); Kate Powell (South Region) corresponded on the placement for a National Online student. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 5 to 22, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Starr, you can move her to Regions with Professor Tesfay with the NSG 123 Group E or Group G with Professor Beh-Grear.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and consistency) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. A correct-placement target that shifts mid-correspondence, and cross-region handling of an online student, compound the confusion and connect to the regional-fragmentation concerns. Lead: {{HU|HU-141}}. See {{HU|HU-132}}, {{HU|HU-134}}.

'''Impact.''' A moving placement target makes it harder for the student and the institution to confirm the correct rotation, and cross-region handling adds ambiguity about who owns the placement.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-141}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-144: Student A and Student Q: Group K clinical rotation (Vicki K, MCY 5E) cut from 10 days/90 hours to 6 days/54 hours after instructor canceled four clinical days mid-rotation; 36-hour shortfall and compliance risk; instructor directed students to escalate to Starr and Dr. Prashad for a make-up plan; compounds Student A hours problems in HU-141 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Hours Reduced 40 Percent by Instructor Mid-Rotation (90 to 54 Hours) / Compliance Risk
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Vicki K (Clinical Instructor, Group K)
|}
'''Finding.''' Student A and Student Q, both in the Group K clinical rotation (Vicki K, MCY 5E Ortho/Spine/Med-Surg), reported to Starr Williams-Headen and Dr. Prashad that their clinical hours have been reduced by 40 percent due to clinical days being canceled by the instructor mid-rotation. The rotation was originally scheduled for ten clinical days from June 3 through August 5, meeting Wednesdays 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM at 9 hours per day, totaling 90 clinical hours. The clinical instructor, Vicki K, informed the group that they would not meet during the weeks of July 1 or July 8 and that the final clinical day would be July 22, which also eliminates the previously scheduled July 29 and August 5 dates. This removes four scheduled clinical days, reducing the rotation from 10 days (90 hours) to 6 days (54 hours), a loss of 36 clinical hours. Student Q independently identified the same concern. The clinical instructor herself, Vicki K, recommended that the students contact Starr and Dr. Prashad for clarification on how the lost hours would be addressed. The students asked four specific questions: how the missing hours will be made up; whether additional clinical dates are being scheduled; how the program will ensure Group K meets required clinical hour requirements; and whether students need to take any action to remain in compliance. This compounds the clinical hours problems already documented for Student A in {{HU|HU-141}}, where the Group K 90-hour Med-Surg schedule was already in tension with the NSG 525 requirement of 60 Med-Surg plus 48 mental health hours.

'''Evidence.''' Email: Student A and Student Q to Starr Williams-Headen and Dr. Prashad, June 2026, stating that they were reaching out regarding a significant concern about their current Group K clinical rotation with Vicki K on MCY 5E Ortho/Spine/Med-Surg. According to the schedule provided, the rotation was originally scheduled for ten clinical days from June 3 through August 5, meeting Wednesdays from 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM; at 9 hours per clinical day, this would have provided a total of 90 clinical hours. However, yesterday evening, the clinical instructor, Vicki K, informed them the group would not be meeting during the weeks of July 1 or July 8 and that the final clinical day would be July 22, also eliminating the previously scheduled July 29 and August 5 dates. As a result, four scheduled clinical days were removed from the rotation (10 days times 9 hours equals 90; 6 days times 9 hours equals 54). Another student in the same rotation, Student Q, independently identified the same concern. After discussing the issue with them, Vicki recommended they contact Starr and Dr. Prashad as soon as possible for clarification regarding how the lost clinical hours would be addressed. Student: Student A ([email redacted]) and Student Q. Source Group: Email, Student A and Student Q to Starr Williams-Headen and Dr. Prashad re Group K clinical rotation hours reduction, June 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A and Student Q, student pseudonyms, jointly described the schedule reduction, noting the rotation originally provided 90 clinical hours over ten Wednesday shifts at 9 hours per day, and that four canceled days left the group with only 54 clinical hours instead of the 90 originally scheduled. They asked how the missing hours would be made up, whether additional clinical dates were being scheduled, how the program would ensure the group met required clinical hour requirements, and whether they needed to take any action to remain in compliance.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical experiences provide sufficient hours and learning opportunities to meet course and program outcomes; a 40 percent reduction in scheduled clinical hours, from 90 to 54, mid-rotation jeopardizes the program's ability to deliver required clinical experience. State Board of Nursing clinical hour requirements require nursing programs to ensure students complete the minimum clinical hours required for licensure eligibility; a unilateral reduction of 36 hours by a clinical instructor, without a documented make-up plan, places students at risk of not meeting those requirements. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical scheduling so that students can complete required hours; the fact that the clinical instructor canceled four days and directed students to contact the program for a solution indicates the reduction was not planned or coordinated with the program. The students appropriately requested written clarification on the make-up plan and their compliance obligations, and the institution's response and any make-up scheduling should be tracked.

'''Impact.''' Student A and Student Q face a 36-hour shortfall in clinical hours for the Group K rotation, which could prevent them from meeting course and licensure clinical hour requirements if not remedied. Without a documented make-up plan, the students cannot plan their schedules, including work and childcare, or confirm they remain on track. For Student A, this stacks on top of the hours-allocation and credential-type problems already documented in {{HU|HU-141}} (90 Med-Surg hours versus a 60 Med-Surg plus 48 mental health requirement, plus 24 carryover hours from Clinical 1); the further loss of 36 hours deepens an already precarious hours situation. That two students independently identified the same problem, and that the clinical instructor herself directed them to escalate, indicates this is a real scheduling and hours deficiency rather than a misunderstanding. If Group K students do not receive make-up hours, they risk course failure or delayed progression through no fault of their own.

'''Notes.''' New personnel identified: Student Q (student in Group K clinical rotation). Clinical instructor Vicki K (Group K, MCY 5E Ortho/Spine/Med-Surg, Wednesdays 2 p.m. to 11 p.m.) confirmed the cancellations and directed students to the program. Canceled dates: weeks of July 1 and July 8, with the rotation ending July 22, eliminating July 29 and August 5, four clinical days, 36 hours. This issue connects directly to {{HU|HU-141}} (Student A Group K hours allocation and credential-type mismatch) and the broader clinical placement failures. Note the recurring theme of the 9-hour clinical day in Group K (2 p.m. to 11 p.m.), which also bears on the 8-hour accommodation concerns documented for the reporting student in {{HU|HU-135}}. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-141}} (Student A clinical placement, Group K hours), {{HU|HU-133}} (Student A rotation error), {{HU|HU-128}} (no placement), {{HU|HU-071}} (placement crisis pattern), {{HU|HU-135}} (9-hour shift, accommodation). Possible follow-up: the program's response on make-up hours and whether Group K students are brought back to the required hour total.

=== HU-148: Clinical schedule changed four times in one week before clinicals even began (June 4, 2026 meeting account; expands HU-135) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Schedule Instability / Repeated Last-Minute Changes Before Clinical Start
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Dr. Rachel Powell / Clinical Placement
|}
'''Finding.''' In the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student described that his clinical schedule changed four times in a single week before clinicals had even started. He recounted the times shifting from 7:30 to 6:00 (about ten and a half hours), to 7:30 with a potential debrief afterward, to 6:45 to 2:30, all within one week, and stated that his schedule had changed four times that week alone and he had not even started clinicals yet. He attributed the instability primarily to the professor, Troy Frazier, a new faculty member, rather than to the clinical site, noting the site had indicated there was flexibility. This expands the schedule-instability and over-eight-hours concerns already documented in {{HU|HU-135}} with the specific account of four changes in one week and the new proposed time blocks.

'''Evidence.''' Recorded meeting (audio and transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student stated that his schedule had changed four times that week alone and he had not even started clinicals yet; that at one point it was 7:30 to 6, which is way over the eight hours; then 7:30, but potentially after for debrief; and that it had changed again to 6:45 to 2:30, all within the span of a week; that the clinical site had said there is flexibility; and that what he needs is consistency and effective communication. He added that Frazier first had him on a 10-hour schedule, and he pushed back. Student: The reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>my schedule has changed four times this week alone, and I have not even started clinicals yet. At one point it was 7:30 to 6, which is way over the eight hours. Then 7:30, but potentially after for debrief. Now he has changed it again to 6:45 to 2:30, and this has all happened in the span of a week. The clinical site has said there is flexibility... what I need is consistency and communication that is effective. First, he had me on a 10-hour schedule, then I pushed back.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical scheduling be communicated clearly and consistently to students. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical logistics so students can plan. The repeated last-minute changes, combined with an initial schedule exceeding the approved eight-hour accommodation, reflect a coordination and communication failure. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-135}} (same clinical, same accommodation), {{HU|HU-149}} (no meeting point), {{HU|HU-150}} (insufficient notice).

'''Impact.''' The repeated schedule changes prevented the reporting student from arranging a dog sitter, coordinating his sleep schedule (relevant to narcolepsy), and planning medication and meals (relevant to diabetes and the GI medication). The instability compounded the difficulty of starting clinicals with adequate planning.

'''Notes.''' Expands {{HU|HU-135}} with the specific four-changes-in-one-week account. Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC (trofrazier@herzing.edu) is identified in {{HU|HU-135}}. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-149}}, {{HU|HU-150}}. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).

=== HU-149: No clinical location or meeting point provided less than 24 hours before the clinical start (June 4, 2026 meeting) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| No Meeting Point / Reporting Location Confirmed Less Than 24 Hours Before Start
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Clinical Placement
|}
'''Finding.''' During the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student stated that, with clinicals starting the next day, less than 24 hours away, he still did not know where to report. Dr. Danielle Laban messaged Dr. Rachel Powell during the meeting and relayed that the reporting student had the location but not the meeting point, and that Powell would direct the faculty member, Troy, to message the reporting student the meeting point that day. The reporting student had emailed Dr. Rachel Powell the night before asking for the location and confirmation of times and had not received it. This documents that the specific reporting location and meeting point were not confirmed to the student until the institution scrambled to provide it during a meeting held the day before the clinical start.

'''Evidence.''' Recorded meeting (audio and transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student stated he still did not have a location, did not even know where he was going the next day, and that was less than 24 hours away; he stated he had emailed Rachel Powell asking her to please get back to him with the location and confirm the times. Dr. Danielle Laban stated she was messaging Rachel on the side, that Rachel said the reporting student has the location, just not the meeting point, and that she was going to ask Troy, the faculty member, to message him about that, since the meeting point is the piece that needs to be communicated, and she was directing Troy to make sure he sends that today. Student: The reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I still do not have a location. I do not even know where I am going tomorrow at this point, and that is less than 24 hours away. I emailed Rachel Powell and said, can you please get back to me with the location and confirm these times.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that students be informed of clinical placement details, including reporting location, in advance of the start. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate placements so students have the information they need to attend. Not providing a confirmed meeting point until the day before the clinical start reflects a placement-readiness and communication failure consistent with the broader pattern ({{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-136}}, {{HU|HU-137}}). Cross-reference {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-148}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student could not plan travel or confirm logistics for a clinical starting in under 24 hours because he did not have a confirmed meeting point. This is the same placement-readiness failure documented for other students and adds to the stress and uncertainty around his clinical start.

'''Notes.''' Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-148}}, {{HU|HU-128}}, {{HU|HU-136}}, {{HU|HU-137}}, {{HU|HU-141}} (placement-readiness pattern). Dr. Rachel Powell (rapowell@herzing.edu); Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).

=== HU-150: Less than one week notice to begin clinicals (June 4, 2026 meeting account) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Insufficient Advance Notice of Clinical Start
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Clinical Placement / Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' In the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student stated that he was given less than a week to plan for his clinical start. He found out the prior Thursday that he would begin clinicals that week, and contrasted this with his experience at a prior nursing school where students were typically told three to four weeks in advance and had time to plan. He noted that the short notice, combined with the repeated schedule changes ({{HU|HU-148}}), made it very difficult to arrange the logistics tied to his accommodations (dog sitter, sleep schedule, medication, meals).

'''Evidence.''' Recorded meeting (audio and transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student stated he was given less than a week's notice to plan all of this out; that he found out on Thursday that he was going to start clinicals that week; that he attended a nursing school prior to coming to Herzing, and students there are usually told three to four weeks in advance and have time to plan; and that he was told less than a week. Student: The reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I was given less than a week's notice to plan all of this out. I found out on Thursday that I was going to start clinicals this week. I was at a nursing school prior to coming to Herzing, and students are usually told three, four weeks in advance and have time to plan. I was told less than a week.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical assignments be communicated with adequate lead time for students to prepare. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate placements so students can plan. Less than a week's notice for a clinical start is inconsistent with reasonable advance-notice practice and compounds the accommodation-related planning burden. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-148}} (schedule instability), {{HU|HU-149}} (no meeting point), {{HU|HU-135}}.

'''Impact.''' The short notice gave the reporting student minimal time to arrange care for his service dog, adjust his sleep schedule (narcolepsy), and plan medication and meals (diabetes, GI medication), increasing the burden of an already difficult clinical start and contributing to the overall sense of being overwhelmed he described.

'''Notes.''' Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-148}} (schedule instability), {{HU|HU-149}} (no meeting point), {{HU|HU-135}}. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}).

=== HU-154: Lead: the evening before clinical, two officials gave conflicting start times four minutes apart, and the correction was not sent reply-all, leaving team records unreconciled; see HU-154a, HU-154b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (conflicting start times; non-reply-all correction)
! Date added
| 2026-06-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC (Adjunct Clinical Instructor)
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for a clinical-scheduling communication failure on June 4, 2026, hours after the meeting held to align everyone on the reporting student's schedule ({{HU|HU-153}}), tracked separately as {{HU|HU-154a}} (two officials gave conflicting clinical start times four minutes apart, Dr. Powell stating 6:45 am at 4:49 PM and Professor Frazier stating 6:30 am at 4:53 PM) and {{HU|HU-154b}} (Frazier's differing time was sent only to the reporting student, not reply-all, so the ADA office and other staff may still have the 6:45 start on record). In fairness, Frazier's schedule otherwise concludes at 2:30 PM, within the eight-hour and 4:30 PM limits. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' A possible reconciliation, a 6:30 brief preceding a 6:45 floor start, is not stated by either email and is documented as a possibility, not a fact. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-154}} resolve here. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Two emails dated June 4, 2026: Dr. Rachel Powell (4:49 PM) to the reporting student, Thompson, Laban, ADA, Frazier, cc Prashad and nationalprelclinical; Troy Frazier (4:53 PM) to the reporting student only; provided by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-154a}}, {{HU|HU-154b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-153}} (alignment meeting), {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-148}}, {{HU|HU-149}}, {{HU|HU-151}}.

=== HU-154a: Two officials gave conflicting clinical start times four minutes apart the evening before clinical (Dr. Powell 6:45 am at 4:49 PM; Professor Frazier 6:30 am at 4:53 PM) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Conflicting Clinical Start Times From Two Officials
! Date added
| 2026-06-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC
|}
'''Finding.''' Hours after the alignment meeting, two officials sent conflicting clinical start times four minutes apart. At 4:49 PM, Dr. Rachel Powell wrote that Professor Frazier would meet the reporting student in the front lobby for a clinical start time of 6:45 am. At 4:53 PM, Professor Troy Frazier wrote that clinic would begin at 6:30 am, with a fifteen-minute brief, hospital shift change beginning at 6:50, an eight-hour shift concluding at 2:30 PM, and a debrief before the end of the shift. Neither email reconciled the difference, leaving the reporting student with two arrival times the evening before clinical.

'''Evidence.''' Email 1, Dr. Rachel Powell (DNP, RN, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online), June 4, 2026, 4:49 PM. Email 2, Troy Frazier (Adjunct Clinical Instructor), June 4, 2026, 4:53 PM. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Emails June 4, 2026: Dr. Rachel Powell (4:49 PM) and Troy Frazier (4:53 PM).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Powell, 4:49 PM] Professor Fraizer will meet you in the front lobby for your clinical start time of 6:45 am. [Frazier, 4:53 PM] We will begin clinic at 6:30am... Since this is an 8-hour shift, We will conclude at 2:30pm.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability: clear, consistent communication about academic obligations) and ACEN Standard 5 (clinical scheduling details must be accurate and consistent) are implicated. Two officials issuing different start times within four minutes, the evening before the start and immediately after a meeting convened to align everyone, reflects a coordination failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-154}}. See {{HU|HU-153}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student was left with two arrival times the night before clinical, affecting accommodation-related planning, including medication timing, dog sitter, and sleep schedule for narcolepsy; following the 6:45 instruction risked missing the 6:30 brief.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-154}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Frazier's schedule otherwise respects the eight-hour and 4:30 PM limits; the documented issue is the conflicting start times.

=== HU-154b: The corrected start time was sent only to the reporting student, not reply-all, leaving the ADA office and other staff with the 6:45 start on record and the team's records unreconciled ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Correction Not Sent Reply-All / Records Unreconciled
! Date added
| 2026-06-04 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Powell's 6:45 am email went to the full group, including Emilie Thompson, Danielle Laban, the ADA mailbox, Frazier, Dr. Prashad, and the national prelicensure clinical alias, but Frazier's differing 6:30 am time was sent only to the reporting student, leaving other staff and the ADA office with the earlier time on record.

'''Evidence.''' Email 1 recipients (Powell, 4:49 PM): the reporting student, Thompson, Laban, ADA, Frazier, cc Prashad and the national pre-clinical alias. Email 2 (Frazier, 4:53 PM): to the reporting student only. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Emails June 4, 2026 (distribution lists).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Frazier, 4:53 PM, to the reporting student only] We will begin clinic at 6:30am.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and recordkeeping consistency) is implicated. A correction not shared with staff holding the original creates inconsistent institutional records. Lead: {{HU|HU-154}}.

'''Impact.''' Because the correction was not sent reply-all, the ADA office and other staff may hold a different start time than the instructor, increasing the chance of further miscommunication about attendance and timing.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-154}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

=== HU-170: Lead: Professor Heather Gregg blocked approval of the reporting student's clinical hour submissions for at least two weeks pending a preceptor agreement form that Dr. Rachel Powell later clarified was not required in the form Gregg demanded, Professor Frazier is the only individual who should be listed on the log; this is inconsistent with last term's waiver; preceptors are assigned the morning of each shift making a pre-signed list structurally impossible; and Dr. Gregg's communications were described by the reporting student as blaming him and disregarding the faculty member's circumstances; see HU-170a through HU-170d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (clinical hours blocked pending incorrect preceptor requirement; inconsistent policy across terms; structurally impossible same-day preceptor list requirement; faculty conduct concern)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online) / Herzing Clinical Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' This is a lead entry for a cluster of clinical documentation and policy-consistency issues arising from the NSG525 Clinical II course. On June 15, 2026, Dr. Heather Gregg, course professor, communicated via Canvas that she was not permitted to approve the reporting student's clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form was uploaded and completed. The reporting student's email to Professor Troy Frazier, on-site clinical faculty of record in ELMS, and Dr. Rachel Powell, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, documented that Gregg had been blocking hour submissions for at least the prior two weeks. Dr. Powell responded clarifying that Professor Frazier is the clinical faculty member on site and is the only individual who should be listed on the Clinical Hours Report Log, as he is the one verifying hours in ELMS. This directly contradicts how Gregg had communicated the requirement, a signed preceptor agreement listing individual nurses. The reporting student noted that last term the requirement had been waived by Rachel Powell, then clinical lead, for students who had on-site clinical faculty. The reporting student also noted that preceptors are typically assigned the morning of each clinical shift, making a comprehensive pre-signed list impossible to produce in advance. The reporting student additionally described Dr. Gregg's communications as implying he was being irresponsible, stating she did not care that the faculty member was traveling and had a lot going on, and as disrespectful. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-170a}} (clinical hours blocked for two-plus weeks pending an incorrectly applied requirement), {{HU|HU-170b}} (inconsistent requirements between current and prior term), {{HU|HU-170c}} (preceptors assigned same day, structurally impossible pre-condition), and {{HU|HU-170d}} (faculty communication conduct concern).

'''Notes.''' Course: NSG525-7E Clinical II, 2262C16, confirmed from the Canvas dashboard. Clinical faculty of record in ELMS: Professor Troy Frazier (Adjunct Clinical Instructor). Course professor applying the requirement: Dr. Heather Gregg. Dr. Rachel Powell's email title: Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National (Online). The reporting student referenced a contact named Tiffany who may be able to provide the preceptor list; this person is not further identified in the evidence. Powell clarified Frazier should be the only individual listed on the log; the reporting student noted Frazier precepts him two days a week and was described by Gregg as traveling four hours away. Added 2026-06-15. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-170a}}, {{HU|HU-170b}}, {{HU|HU-170c}}, {{HU|HU-170d}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-133}} (clinical placement fragmentation and inconsistent process), {{HU|HU-134}} (Student A clinical placement error), {{HU|HU-135}} (8-hour clinical accommodation, clinical scheduling at same site), {{HU|HU-141}} (Clinician Nexus/ELMS clinical documentation system issues).

=== HU-170a: Professor Heather Gregg blocked approval of the reporting student's clinical hour submissions for at least two weeks pending a preceptor agreement form; Dr. Rachel Powell later clarified that Professor Frazier, as the on-site clinical faculty member of record in ELMS, is the only individual who should be listed on the Clinical Hours Report Log ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Hour Approval Blocked Pending Incorrectly Applied Preceptor Requirement
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Heather Gregg communicated via Canvas on June 15, 2026 that she was not permitted to approve the reporting student's clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form was uploaded and completed. The reporting student's email to Frazier and Powell documented that Gregg had been blocking hour submissions for the prior two or more weeks, holding up clinical logs he had already submitted. Dr. Rachel Powell responded, clarifying that Professor Frazier, as the on-site clinical faculty member who verifies hours in ELMS, is the only individual who should be listed on the Clinical Hours Report Log. Powell's clarification is directly inconsistent with Gregg's stated requirement, which was for a preceptor agreement listing and signed by the nurses the reporting student works alongside, a different document from the faculty-signed log.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM): "I am not permitted to approve these clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form has been uploaded and completed." The reporting student's email: "She is holding up all of my clinical logs from this point (last two weeks) forward." Dr. Rachel Powell's email: "Professor Frazier should be the only individual listed on your Clinical Hours Report Log, as he is the individual verifying your clinical hours in ELMS." Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Gregg:] I am not permitted to approve these clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form has been uploaded and completed. [Powell:] Professor Frazier should be the only individual listed on your Clinical Hours Report Log, as he is the individual verifying your clinical hours in ELMS.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including consistent and accurate clinical-hour tracking), HLC Criterion 2.A (clear, fair, and consistently applied processes), and ACEN Standard 4 (clinical evaluation methodologies) are implicated. Blocking clinical hour approval for two or more weeks based on a requirement that the institutional Director of Clinical Placement later clarifies was not the correct requirement is a process-consistency and academic-progress concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-170}}.

'''Impact.''' At least two weeks of clinical hours remained unlogged and unapproved while the dispute was pending, potentially affecting hour count, course standing, and progression.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-170}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party Canvas message and email thread. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-170b: The preceptor agreement requirement as applied by Professor Gregg this term is inconsistent with the practice last term, when Dr. Rachel Powell (then clinical lead) waived the preceptor agreement for students who had on-site clinical faculty supervising both the student and the preceptor ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inconsistent Clinical Documentation Requirements Across Terms
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance) / Herzing Clinical Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student states that last term, when he had on-site clinical faculty, Dr. Rachel Powell, now Director of Clinical Placement but then the clinical lead, waived the preceptor agreement requirement for students with faculty oversight, because the faculty member was supervising both the student and the preceptor. This term, Professor Gregg applied a different standard, requiring the preceptor agreement to be completed and uploaded before approving any clinical hours, even though Professor Frazier is again the on-site faculty of record. The inconsistency means a student who complied fully with last term's documented process is now being held to a different and more burdensome standard without documented notification of the change.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student's email: "Last semester if we had a clinical faculty, this requirement was waived. I had @Powell, Rachel who is now the lead on the clinical team and she simply waived the preceptor agreement for those who had faculty since the faculty was overseeing the student and preceptor." Dr. Rachel Powell's clarification email confirming that faculty-level oversight, Frazier on ELMS, is the correct process. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Last semester if we had a clinical faculty, this requirement was waived. I had @Powell, Rachel who is now the lead on the clinical team and she simply waived the preceptor agreement for those who had faculty since the faculty was overseeing the student and preceptor.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear and consistently applied policies for all students) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) are implicated. Applying a more stringent documentation requirement this term without documented policy change notification, when the same scenario was handled differently last term by the individual now responsible for clinical placement policy, is a policy-consistency and fair-process concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-170}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student followed the process as applied last term and was penalized this term for doing the same thing, with no documented notice the requirement had changed.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-170}} (lead). The reporting student describes this as trying to hit a moving post, different requirements than explained and applied in prior terms. CONFIRMED from first-party email. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-170c: Clinical preceptors at the reporting student's facility are typically assigned the morning of each shift, making it structurally impossible to provide a comprehensive signed preceptor list in advance as a pre-condition for clinical hour approval ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Structurally Impossible Pre-Condition for Clinical Hour Approval
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Herzing Clinical Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student states that preceptors at his clinical facility are typically assigned the morning he starts each assignment, not in advance. Requiring a pre-signed preceptor agreement listing all preceptors before approving clinical hours therefore creates a requirement that cannot actually be met at the time of submission for any given shift, because the preceptor's identity is not known until that morning. Dr. Powell's clarification, that only the faculty member, Frazier, needs to be listed on the log, resolves this for the log itself, but the underlying design of requiring a pre-signed preceptor list is noted as impractical in the context of how clinical assignments are structured.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student's email: "It's so unfortunate that the university is requiring us to get a list of all of my preceptors even though they're typically assigned the morning that I start the assignment. I'm not really sure how to proceed. I'm kind of at a loss for words." Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>It's so unfortunate that the university is requiring us to get a list of all of my preceptors even though they're typically assigned the morning that I start the assignment. I'm not really sure how to proceed. I'm kind of at a loss for words.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including reasonable and workable clinical documentation requirements), HLC Criterion 2.A (fair process), and ACEN Standard 4 (clinical evaluation methodologies should reflect the realities of practice) are implicated. A documentation requirement that is structurally impossible to fulfill based on how clinical assignments are organized at the placement site is an administrative design concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-170}}.

'''Impact.''' If the preceptor agreement list were strictly enforced as a blocking condition in the future, the reporting student would have no practical path to having his clinical hours approved, since the preceptor's identity is not known until the day of the shift.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-170}} (lead). Powell's clarification resolves the immediate issue by directing that only Frazier be listed; the broader structural concern is noted for the record. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-170d: The reporting student describes communications from Professor Heather Gregg as implying he was irresponsible, stating she did not care that the faculty member was traveling and had significant obligations, and as disrespectful, a faculty conduct and communication concern ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Disrespectful Faculty Communication; Attribution of Blame to Student (faculty conduct concern)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty)
|}
'''Finding.''' In his email to Powell, Frazier, and others, the reporting student describes communications from Professor Gregg that he found disrespectful and that attributed fault to him rather than to the university's changing policies. He states Gregg said or implied she did not care that the faculty member was traveling four hours away and had a lot going on during the week, given that Frazier precepts him only two days a week. He states she did not acknowledge the institutional role in the situation and instead placed the burden on the reporting student. He describes her email as very disrespectful. The Canvas message from Dr. Gregg in evidence (June 15, 10:01 AM) is itself professional in tone; the characterizations relate to a different Gregg communication that is described but not directly in evidence as a document.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student's email: "She also said or implied at least that she didn't care that the faculty member was far away and had a lot going on during the week as he only precepts me two days a week that she was going to not approve this or wave it and now she's going to withhold approval of my clinical hours. ... I found her email to be very disrespectful towards me. I'm not the one who continues to have a moving post with regards to requirements for clinicals." Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I found her email to be very disrespectful towards me. I'm not the one who continues to have a moving post with regards to requirements for clinicals.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in faculty-student interactions) and institutional professional conduct expectations are implicated. Communication that attributes fault to a student for institutional policy inconsistencies, and that disregards the practical constraints of the student's clinical placement arrangement, raises a faculty conduct and student-welfare concern. This is CONFIRMED that the reporting student made this characterization in writing; the underlying Gregg communications are described but not directly in the evidence provided. Lead: {{HU|HU-170}}.

'''Impact.''' Faculty communications perceived as disrespectful and that misattribute responsibility may chill a student's willingness to raise legitimate concerns and add to the burden of navigating institutional processes.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-170}} (lead). CONFIRMED at the level of the reporting student's documented characterization. The specific Gregg emails being described are referenced as attached to the reporting student's emails but not directly in the materials provided. Documented 2026-06-15.

=== HU-178: An unidentified, unsaved-contact cohort member in the Nursing '27 group chat reported that her clinical instructor was fired and all of her remaining scheduled clinical sessions to complete required medical surgical nursing hours were cancelled ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE, secondhand and unverified as to the stated cause (termination) and the claim that all remaining clinical sessions were cancelled; the existence of cohort-wide concern and sympathetic responses is directly shown in the screenshot
|-
! Issue type
| Clinical Instructor Termination Cancels Scheduled Clinical Sessions Needed to Complete Required Hours; Unverified Secondhand Cohort Report
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Nursing '27 cohort clinical leadership; Program Chair; Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, in the Nursing '27 group chat, an unidentified cohort member, shown only as an unsaved contact ending 9923, wrote that her clinical instructor got fired and that all of her scheduled clinical sessions with that instructor to finish out her medical surgical nursing hours were cancelled. Several cohort members reacted with concern, including messages reading "WHAT" and "That's crazyyyy," along with distressed emoji reactions. A student identified in the chat as Student A responded with sympathy. A second cohort member, shown with the initials CB and identified in the chat as Student AB, separately reported the same post with a distressed emoji reaction, suggesting the concern was shared by more than one cohort member. A student identified as Student CT responded with encouragement, noting the cohort has three semesters remaining. No institutional communication, remediation plan, or makeup clinical scheduling was shown in the visible portion of the thread. This report has not been independently verified and the identity of the original poster is not established beyond an unsaved phone number; it is logged as a possible instance of a pattern already partly documented in this tracker, where an NSG 523 medical surgical nursing instructor and an NSG 525 Clinical II instructor both stepped away from the same cohort during the 2026 Summer C16 term. Unlike that earlier entry, this report specifically claims a termination rather than a voluntary step away, and specifically claims cancellation of clinical sessions needed to complete required hours rather than only a change in course coverage; whether this is a new development in the same underlying situation or a separate instance has not been confirmed and should be verified directly with the reporting student or with clinical leadership before this entry is treated as confirmed.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot of the Nursing '27 iMessage group chat, provided by the reporting student. Message from an unsaved contact, [phone redacted]: a report that her clinical instructor was fired and her remaining med surg clinical sessions with that instructor were cancelled. Cohort responses include messages from unsaved contacts reading "WHAT" and "That's crazyyyy," a distressed emoji reaction, a message from Student A expressing sympathy, a separate distressed emoji reaction from a cohort member identified as Student AB (shown with initials CB), and an encouraging message from a cohort member identified as Student CT noting three semesters remain. Student: The reporting student is the documenting and observing student; the underlying report concerns an unidentified cohort member in the Nursing '27 group chat, identified in the chat only by an unsaved phone contact ending 9923. Source Group: Screenshot of the Nursing '27 iMessage group chat, message from an unsaved contact ([phone redacted]), posted the day before the screenshot was captured at 7:37 PM, with cohort responses through the following afternoon; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' The unidentified cohort member, an anonymous handle, paraphrased that her clinical instructor had been fired and that all of her remaining scheduled clinical sessions to finish her med-surg hours were cancelled.

'''Standards.''' The Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026, Clinical Placement and Clinical Onboarding sections, describes clinical rotations as scheduled by the institution and subject to facility and program requirements, without a stated contingency for abrupt loss of an assigned instructor mid-term. Faculty sufficiency and continuity are addressed by accreditation standards requiring sufficient qualified faculty to achieve program outcomes and to maintain continuity of instruction (Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, 2023; confirm exact standard number against the current ACEN Standards and Criteria). HLC Criterion 3.C (the institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs) and HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in communications) are also potentially relevant if clinical hours are lost without a timely institutional remediation plan. This comparison is preliminary and should be revisited once the underlying facts are confirmed.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the loss of scheduled clinical sessions needed to complete required medical surgical nursing hours could delay a student's progression or graduation, consistent with the hours shortfall pattern already documented elsewhere in this tracker for other clinical placement disruptions. Because the report is secondhand and the reporter is unidentified beyond a phone number, this risk is not yet established as fact and should be verified before being relied upon for any formal filing.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student's identity is not established beyond an unsaved phone number ending 9923; the claim that the instructor was fired, as opposed to resigning or stepping away, is unverified; and whether this report describes a new development in the previously documented NSG 523 or NSG 525 staffing situation, or a separate instance involving a different student or course, has not been confirmed. Recommend following up directly with the reporting student, if identity can be established, and with clinical leadership, before elevating this entry to CONFIRMED. Cross-references: the earlier tracker entry documenting the NSG 523 medical surgical nursing instructor and NSG 525 Clinical II instructor both stepping away from the same Nursing '27 cohort during 2026 Summer C16, and the earlier tracker entry documenting a different clinical course adjunct professor's resignation without institutional notice, are both potentially related patterns and should be compared directly against this report once the reporting student's identity and the specific facts are confirmed.

=== HU-181: A newly assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator sent a welcome email to students outside her assigned population and retracted it the same day, apologizing for the distribution error ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Low
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Misdirected Mass Email Regarding Clinical Placement Coordinator Assignment; Self-Corrected Distribution List Error
! Date added
| 2026-07-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Heather Klanderman (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, IL Online MSNDE)
|}
'''Finding.''' Heather Klanderman introduced herself as the new Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator for the MSN-DE program, stating she was reviewing Fall clinical site approvals and rostering and reminding students to keep Complio compliance requirements current. A second email from the same sender followed the same day, stating the prior message had been sent in error, that she is responsible for supporting Illinois students specifically, and that the message had been inadvertently distributed to students outside her assigned population. She apologized for any confusion or added stress and directed recipients to continue working with their own assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator. The retraction indicates the reporting student received a welcome message from a coordinator who was not in fact assigned to his population, and does not identify who his correct assigned coordinator is. This is a minor, self-corrected distribution error, but it adds to an already documented pattern in this tracker of unclear or shifting points of contact within the clinical placement structure, including multiple named regional coordinators and inconsistent contact routing for disability and placement matters.

'''Evidence.''' Email, Heather Klanderman to nursing students, subject "Welcome from Your New Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator," July 2, 2026, 9:00 AM: self-introduction as the new IL Online MSNDE Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, review of Fall clinical site approvals and rostering, and a reminder to keep Complio compliance current. Email, Heather Klanderman to the same recipients, same day: a statement that the prior message was sent in error, that she supports Illinois students specifically, and that it was inadvertently distributed to students outside her assigned population, with an apology and a direction to continue working with each student's own assigned coordinator. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Email, Heather Klanderman (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, IL Online MSNDE) to nursing students, subject Welcome from Your New Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, Thu Jul 2, 2026, 9:00 AM; followed by a retraction email from the same sender the same day; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>I recently joined the Clinical Placement team and am responsible for supporting Illinois (IL) students. Unfortunately, the message was inadvertently distributed to students outside of my assigned population.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including clear and accurate communications to students) is implicated. This is a minor operational item rather than a violation; it is logged primarily as pattern evidence of unclear points of contact within the clinical placement structure, consistent with the regional coordinator confusion already documented elsewhere in this tracker and the earlier documented routing of disability-related contact through a general admissions address.

'''Impact.''' Limited direct impact, since the error was corrected the same day with an apology. The episode does not by itself establish who the reporting student's correct assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator is, which remains useful to confirm given the broader pattern of shifting or unclear regional coordinator assignments already documented in this tracker.

'''Notes.''' Recommend confirming, in writing, the name and contact information of the reporting student's actual assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, since the retraction email establishes that Heather Klanderman is not that person for his population. Cross-references: the earlier tracker entries documenting multiple named regional clinical placement coordinators and a regional model replacing a prior centralized model, and the earlier tracker entry documenting disability services contact routed through a general admissions address, both reflect the same underlying pattern of unclear points of contact within clinical placement and disability support functions.

=== HU-190: For the Fall 2026 family nursing clinical rotation, a Herzing clinical coordinator directed a student to secure her own placement through her employer rather than through the program, and the student reported that placement communication had been thin and asked the program to secure a compliant placement ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE. This is a third party report concerning another student, drawn from screenshots rather than from the underlying email records. The content of the two quoted messages is legible and is treated as reliably captured, but the dates, the full recipient list, whether the program subsequently secured a placement, and Student A's authorization for this matter to be documented in this tracker have not been confirmed
|-
! Issue type
| Placement Responsibility Shifted to Student; Employer Based Placement Proposed in Lieu of Program Secured Placement; Placement Communication Gap
! Date added
| 2026-08-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, this is a third party report concerning Student A, drawn from screenshots rather than from the underlying email records. In an email thread titled "Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning," Starr Williams-Headen wrote to Student A that at this point in her program she is able to work directly with a preceptor to complete her clinical hours, asked whether she would be interested in doing that with her current employer if possible, and offered that if so, Student A should provide her employer information so that Herzing could assist in pursuing a clinical rotation with them. Student A replied declining the employer based route for two stated reasons. First, she stated that her role is in acute geriatric home based urgent response care, so the setting is limited to older adults and would not provide the lifespan and population breadth that the family nursing clinical requires. Second, she stated that an employer based placement only works if coordination between the program and the site is timely and reliable, that communication on placement had been thin on her end, and that she was not comfortable putting her working relationship with her employer on the line for an arrangement she could not count on to run smoothly. She closed by stating she was counting on the program to secure a placement meeting the course requirements, and asked for the expected timeline and what the program needed from her to keep it moving. The exchange documents an instance in which the institution proposed that the student source her own clinical placement through her employer, and in which the student identified both a curricular mismatch and a program communication reliability concern as reasons that route was not viable. It also documents that, as of her reply, the student did not have a confirmed program secured placement for the Fall 2026 family nursing rotation. The content of the two quoted messages is legible and is treated as reliably captured, but the dates, the full recipient list, whether the program subsequently secured a placement, and Student A's authorization for this matter to be documented in this tracker have not been confirmed.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot one: Starr Williams-Headen to Student A, subject "Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning," timestamped 1:59 PM, stating that at this point in her program the student is able to work directly with a preceptor to complete her clinical hours, asking whether she would be interested in doing so with her current employer, and requesting employer information so Herzing could assist in pursuing a rotation. Screenshot two: Student A's reply in the same thread, stating that her acute geriatric home based urgent response role would not provide the lifespan and population breadth the family nursing clinical requires, that placement communication had been thin on her end, that she was unwilling to risk her employment relationship on an arrangement she could not rely on, that she was counting on the program to secure a compliant placement, and asking for the expected timeline and what the program needed from her. Student: Student A is the reporting student and the subject of this entry. The reporting student is the documenting student who provided the screenshots to this tracker; he is not a party to the exchange. Source Group: Two screenshots of an Outlook email thread titled Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning, provided by the reporting student. First screenshot: message from Starr Williams-Headen to Student A, copied to recipients shown only as Ferra, Jessica, Hill, and Jeff, timestamped 1:59 PM, date not visible in the capture. Second screenshot: Student A's reply to Starr Williams-Headen, date and time not visible in the capture beyond a device clock reading 6:01. Neither screenshot shows the full recipient list, message dates, or any subsequent reply.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Starr Williams-Headen:] At this point in your program, you are able to work directly with a preceptor to complete your clinical hours. Would this be something you would be interested in doing with your current employer if possible?</blockquote>
Student A, a student pseudonym, replied that her acute geriatric home based urgent response role would not provide the lifespan and population breadth the family nursing clinical requires, that communication on placement had been thin on her end, that she was not comfortable putting her employer relationship at risk for an arrangement she could not count on, and that she was counting on the program to secure a compliant placement.

'''Standards.''' Compare against the Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, and the Prelicensure Student Handbook provisions describing how clinical placements are arranged, and against any representations made to students at enrollment regarding whether the institution secures clinical placements. HLC Criterion 3.D (student support) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) are potentially relevant if required clinical experiences are in practice sourced by students rather than by the institution. Programmatic nursing accreditation standards regarding adequacy of clinical learning resources and clinical site sufficiency are also potentially engaged; the applicable standard number should be confirmed against the current standards of the accreditor for this specific program before being cited in any filing. This entry is logged as a discrepancy and a pattern data point, not as an asserted finding that Herzing failed to meet any standard, and it does not establish that a placement was ultimately unavailable.

'''Impact.''' If required clinical placements are in practice sourced through students' own employers, students without a clinically suitable employer, or whose employer setting does not match the course population requirements, face a barrier to progression that is unrelated to academic performance. Student A additionally identified a reliability concern about program to site coordination that made her unwilling to expose her employment relationship to the arrangement. The entry also documents a student who, at the time of writing, lacked a confirmed placement for a Fall 2026 required rotation.

'''Notes.''' The screenshots do not show message dates, the full recipient list, or any subsequent reply, so the timeline and outcome are unestablished. Recommend obtaining the underlying email records with headers if this entry is to be relied upon in any filing. Because this concerns another student's individual circumstances, confirm that Student A is aware her correspondence is being documented in this tracker and consents to its use in any external filing, and consider whether her name should be redacted in filings where her individual situation is offered only as pattern evidence. This entry is most useful as corroboration that the student sourced placement pattern previously documented for graduate NP students also appears in the Fall 2026 family nursing rotation, which strengthens it as systemic rather than program specific evidence for an accreditor complaint. Cross-reference: the existing {{HU|HU-081}} cluster documenting the Clinical Placement Pledge and reports that students across multiple states are responsible for sourcing their own preceptors; the existing {{HU|HU-133}} cluster documenting Student A's incorrect Group K rotation assignment and the related communication failures involving Starr Williams-Headen; the existing {{HU|HU-144}} entry documenting the Group K rotation hours reduction reported by Student A and Student Q; the earlier entry recording Student H's account that family nursing OB and pediatrics hours were student sourced and observation only.

=== HU-190a: Student A's Fall 2026 planning email to Starr Williams-Headen requesting schedule stability, level appropriate clinical placement, and advance notice to clinical sites, reporting that Summer 2026 involved repeated last minute changes and that instructors were unaware of her arrival until the day she appeared ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE. Third party account relayed through a second channel. The text is treated as accurately relayed, but the message date, recipients, and any response from Starr Williams-Headen are unestablished, and the underlying email record has not been reviewed. Student A's authorization for this correspondence to be documented in this tracker has not been confirmed
|-
! Issue type
| Reported Clinical Schedule Instability; Level Inappropriate Clinical Placement; Clinical Site Not Notified of Student Assignment in Advance
! Date added
| 2026-08-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that, following the Fall 2026 Intensive registration announcement, Student A wrote to Starr Williams-Headen raising four matters. First, she asked when Fall 2026 clinical schedules and placements would be finalized, referencing the challenges experienced during Summer 2026 with multiple schedule changes, and asked that the repeated last minute changes that occurred that summer be avoided, stating that those unexpected adjustments created significant challenges for planning and that she needed to coordinate her intensive, clinical schedule, work obligations, and childcare well in advance. Second, she requested placement in a clinical environment aligned with her current level of education, reporting that during a recent clinical experience she was paired with Fundamentals students whose clinical objectives were different from hers, and that the experience focused largely on therapeutic communication, which limited opportunities to practice the more advanced nursing skills expected at her stage of the program. Third, she asked that the clinical site and assigned clinical instructors be notified of her placement before her arrival, reporting that on previous rotations the instructors were unaware she was coming until the day she arrived, which she described as creating an awkward situation for everyone involved. Fourth, she asked again when students could expect Fall clinical schedules and placements to be available. This entry corroborates and extends the placement communication concern Student A raised in {{HU|HU-190}}, and supplies three specific operational failures she attributes to prior rotations: schedule instability, mismatch between placement level and student progression, and clinical sites not being informed of an assigned student in advance. This is a third party account relayed through a second channel; the message date, recipients, and any response from Starr Williams-Headen are unestablished, and the underlying email record has not been reviewed, nor has Student A's authorization for this correspondence to be documented in this tracker.

'''Evidence.''' Text of Student A's email to Starr Williams-Headen as relayed by Student A to the reporting student by text message and provided by him to this tracker: a request for a finalized Fall 2026 clinical schedule and placement timeline; a reference to multiple Summer 2026 schedule changes and a request to avoid repeated last minute changes; a statement of the need to coordinate her intensive, clinical schedule, work obligations, and childcare in advance; a report of being paired with Fundamentals students during a recent clinical experience with an emphasis on therapeutic communication that limited advanced skill practice; a request for a placement aligned with her level of education; a report that on previous rotations clinical instructors were unaware of her arrival until the day she arrived; and a request that sites and instructors be notified in advance. Student: Student A is the author and subject of this entry. The reporting student is the documenting student; he received the text of this email from Student A by text message and provided it to this tracker. He is not a party to the email. Source Group: Text of an email from Student A to Starr Williams-Headen, relayed to the reporting student by text message and provided by him to this tracker. The email date, time, exact subject line, and full recipient list are not established, and the message was received as relayed text rather than as an email record with headers.

'''Reported statement.''' Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased her requests: avoid the repeated last minute schedule changes of Summer 2026 given the need to coordinate her intensive, clinical schedule, work, and childcare in advance; provide a placement matching her level of education rather than pairing her with Fundamentals students focused on therapeutic communication; and ensure clinical sites and instructors are notified of her arrival in advance, since on previous rotations instructors did not know she was coming until the day she arrived.

'''Standards.''' Compare against the Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, and the Prelicensure Student Handbook provisions governing clinical scheduling, placement assignment, and clinical site coordination. HLC Criterion 3.D (student support) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) are potentially relevant. Programmatic nursing accreditation standards regarding clinical learning experiences appropriate to the level of the curriculum and adequacy of clinical site coordination are also potentially engaged; the applicable standard number should be confirmed against the current standards of the accreditor for this specific program before being cited in any filing. The report that a clinical site and its instructors were not informed of an assigned student until the student arrived is the most concrete operational failure described here and is the item most readily verifiable against Herzing's own placement records. This entry is logged as a reported concern and a pattern data point, not as an asserted finding.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, three distinct risks are described. Schedule instability impairs students' ability to coordinate required intensives, employment, and dependent care, which affects progression for reasons unrelated to academic performance. Placement of an advanced student alongside Fundamentals students, with instruction focused on therapeutic communication, may not deliver the clinical competencies the student's stage of the curriculum requires, which bears on the adequacy of clinical learning experiences. A clinical site and instructors who are unaware a student is arriving cannot have prepared a supervised learning assignment, which raises both an educational quality and a patient care supervision concern.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-190}}. The relayed text does not establish the email's date, recipients, or whether Starr Williams-Headen responded. Recommend obtaining the underlying email with headers, and Starr Williams-Headen's reply if one exists, before relying on this entry in any filing. Because this documents another student's individual circumstances and was relayed through a second channel, confirm that Student A consents to its documentation and to any external use, and consider redacting her name where her situation is offered only as pattern evidence. The report that clinical instructors were unaware of an assigned student until arrival is independently verifiable against Herzing's placement notification records and is the item most worth pursuing. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-190}} (lead issue, the Fall 2026 employer based preceptor proposal and Student A's reply); the existing {{HU|HU-133}} cluster documenting Student A's incorrect Group K rotation assignment, missing facility and supervisor details, and onboarding failures; the existing {{HU|HU-144}} entry documenting the Group K rotation hours reduction reported by Student A and Student Q; the existing {{HU|HU-081}} cluster on student sourced placements; and the existing entries documenting short notice clinical scheduling affecting the reporting student.

=== HU-191: The reporting student is recorded as one clinical hour short for NSG525 Clinical II, and his clinical instructor told him verbally on the last clinical day that he cleared the shortfall with Dr. Rachel Powell and that it would not be a problem, but no written confirmation from Dr. Powell or Herzing exists ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE as to whether the shortfall has in fact been cleared with Dr. Powell and will not affect the reporting student's standing; CONFIRMED only as to the fact that the instructor made this verbal statement to the reporting student and that the reporting student is recorded as one hour short, both of which rest on the reporting student's own account since no written record exists
|-
! Issue type
| Unwritten Verbal Assurance of Compliance from Faculty, No Institutional Confirmation of Record
! Date added
| 2026-08-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | The reporting student's NSG525 Clinical II clinical instructor (name to be confirmed); Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, the reporting student is recorded as being one clinical hour short of the total required for NSG525 Clinical II. On his last clinical day, his clinical instructor told him verbally that the instructor had cleared the shortfall with Dr. Rachel Powell, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, and that it would not be a problem. No email, Canvas message, or other written communication documents either the instructor's outreach to Dr. Powell or any confirmation from Dr. Powell that the shortfall is excused or otherwise resolved. This entry is added against the backdrop of an August 3, 2026 Canvas notice for the same course instructing students to confirm their logged hours include both live clinical and V-Sim simulation hours, and the broader pattern already documented in this tracker of clinical hour miscounts, disputed hour requirements, and unwritten assurances from clinical placement staff in other students' cases. The claim that the instructor's outreach and Dr. Powell's confirmation occurred rests entirely on the reporting student's own account, since no written record exists.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student's own account of the clinical instructor's verbal statement on his last clinical day. Canvas notification, "Important Notice: Clinical Hours, Clinical II (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16," sent August 3, 2026, instructing students to review their clinical hour log for both live and V-Sim hours to successfully complete the course. No corroborating written communication from the instructor or from Dr. Powell has been located or produced. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Verbal statement made to the reporting student by his NSG525 Clinical II clinical instructor on his last clinical day, reported by the reporting student; Canvas notification, Important Notice: Clinical Hours, Clinical II (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16, August 3, 2026, 16:54 UTC, instructing students to review their clinical hour log and ensure it includes both live clinical hours and simulation (V-Sim) hours; no email, message, or other written record of the instructor's statement or of any confirmation from Dr. Rachel Powell exists as of the date this entry was added.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>He cleared it with Rachel Powell and it would not be a problem.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Compare against the Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, and the Prelicensure Student Handbook provisions governing required clinical hours and any procedure for waiving or excusing a shortfall. HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in institutional decision making and record keeping) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable internal communication supporting accurate academic records) are potentially relevant, particularly given the pattern already documented in this tracker of undocumented grade and hour related decisions, including the unexplained NSG521 grade change addressed in {{HU|HU-159}}. An unwritten verbal assurance from a clinical instructor, even if made in good faith, does not by itself constitute an institutional record that the requirement has been satisfied or waived, and leaves the reporting student without documentation if the matter is later disputed or if his account is later graded, audited, or reviewed for licensure eligibility purposes.

'''Impact.''' If the shortfall is not in fact resolved in Herzing's own records, the reporting student risks a last minute discovery of a clinical hour deficiency with no documentation to support the instructor's assurance that it had been cleared. Clinical hour totals bear directly on course completion and, ultimately, on licensure eligibility, so an undocumented one hour gap is a small number with a disproportionately large potential consequence if it surfaces later without support.

'''Notes.''' Recommend that the reporting student request written confirmation from Dr. Rachel Powell, in his own name, that the one hour shortfall has been reviewed and will not affect his grade, progression, or licensure eligibility documentation, and that he retain that confirmation regardless of the instructor's verbal assurance. The clinical instructor's name should be added to this entry once confirmed. This entry should be reclassified from POSSIBLE to CONFIRMED once written confirmation is obtained, or escalated if no such confirmation is provided. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-159}} (undocumented NSG521 grade change and the same underlying concern about decisions made without a written record), the existing {{HU|HU-135}} cluster documenting 8 hour clinical shift accommodation and hour count disputes in NSG525 Clinical II, {{HU|HU-190}} and {{HU|HU-190a}} (Fall 2026 clinical placement and scheduling concerns, same course area), and the general pattern in this tracker of students receiving verbal or informal assurances from clinical placement staff that are not later confirmed in writing.

=== HU-196: The reporting student proactively flagged a nurse strike at his clinical site, Ascension Via Christi, and Dr. Rachel Powell confirmed the same morning that contingency staffing was already arranged and his rotation would not be affected ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Low
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED and resolved within the same day
|-
! Issue type
| Proactively Flagged External Risk to Clinical Placement, Resolved Same Day
! Date added
| 2026-08-11
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)
|}
'''Finding.''' On July 7, 2026, the reporting student proactively notified Herzing's national prelicensure clinical staff that nurses at his clinical site, Ascension Via Christi in Wichita, were engaged in a one day strike, and that contingency replacement staff, unfamiliar with the clinical setting, would likely be filling in. He shared several news links documenting the strike and suggested the university confirm there would be no disruption to that week's clinicals. Dr. Rachel Powell responded the same morning that Herzing's team had already been in contact with the site and that his rotation would not be affected.

'''Evidence.''' Email, the reporting student, July 7, 2026, subject "FLAG FOR YOU ALL," with linked news coverage of the Ascension Via Christi nurse strike. Email, Dr. Rachel Powell, same date: confirmation that the clinical site had already been contacted and that the reporting student's rotation would not be affected. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Email, the reporting student to Dr. Rachel Powell, the national prelicensure clinical mailbox, cc Troy Frazier and Dr. Raywattie Prashad, subject FLAG FOR YOU ALL, July 7, 2026, and Dr. Powell's same day reply.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Our team has already been in contact with the clinical site, and your clinical rotations will not be affected by this ongoing walkout.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Not independently implicated; logged for completeness of the clinical placement communication record rather than as a compliance concern.

'''Impact.''' None realized. This entry documents a risk proactively identified by the student and promptly addressed by Herzing staff, and is retained as an example of the clinical placement office responding effectively when given advance notice.

'''Notes.''' No further action needed. Logged for completeness only. Cross-reference: general clinical placement communication entries in this tracker, for contrast with instances where advance notice was not given or was not acted upon.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]