Editing Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing (section)

=== 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).

<span id="HU-176"></span>