Editing Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records (section)

=== 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).

<span id="HU-124"></span>