Editing Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication (section)

== Issues ==
<span id="HU-046"></span>
=== 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.

<span id="HU-096"></span>
=== 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).

<span id="HU-096a"></span>
=== 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.

<span id="HU-096b"></span>
=== 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.

<span id="HU-096c"></span>
=== 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.

<span id="HU-116"></span>
=== 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.

<span id="HU-151"></span>
=== 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}}).

<span id="HU-158"></span>
=== 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}}).

<span id="HU-168d"></span>
=== 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.