Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design

This page reproduces entries from a student maintained issue tracker concerning Herzing University's MSN-DE prelicensure nursing program. Each entry carries the tracker's own status label, almost always CONFIRMED or POSSIBLE. Entries marked POSSIBLE are reported concerns pending verification, not findings. Student names have been replaced with consistent pseudonyms (Student A, Student B, and so on); the author is referred to as the reporting student. Faculty and staff are identified by name and role as they appear in the underlying records. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and sources.

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-062, HU-081, and HU-091, along with HU-103, were later split into lettered sub issues on June 6, 2026, and one sub issue, HU-091a, traces to an original incident dated July 14, 2025). All twenty six entries carry a CONFIRMED status in the tracker, though 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-044 and 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-031) and clinical hour totals (HU-033), a Clinical IV adjunct resigned with zero institutional notice (HU-117), a Faculty and Course Information page sat blank in week three of a term (HU-130), and a synchronous session schedule was posted after three of its own sessions had already passed (HU-131). The second thread is curriculum design and disclosure: exit exam benchmarks that can change without notice (HU-010), a catalog supersession memorandum that binds enrolled students to later policy versions (HU-064), a capstone mentor requirement not disclosed until course start (HU-097), a modules only curriculum with no standalone textbooks (HU-102), a capstone described as theoretical rather than implemented (HU-111), and identical assignments required across two concurrent courses (HU-113). The third thread is faculty retention and instruction quality, most visible in the New Orleans campus cluster (HU-062, HU-062a, HU-062b), the self teaching characterization of the program (HU-077), the clinical communication failures around care plans and preceptor briefing (HU-081, HU-081a, HU-081b), two unrelated administrative incidents involving a misdirected Needs Improvement contract and check off policy violations (HU-091, HU-091a, HU-091b), and the broader faculty turnover and instruction quality lead (HU-103, HU-103a, HU-103b), which connects to a second documented Clinical IV faculty departure the following term (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-113, HU-117, HU-130, and HU-161, and Dr. Gregg appearing in the evidence for 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

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Transparency Risk	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	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.

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.

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

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Contradictory Faculty Guidance	Date added	2026-05-04
Owner	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-023 (inter-departmental communication failures). Same pattern recurred with clinical hour totals (see HU-032 and 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

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Inconsistent Published Requirements	Date added	2026-05-04
Owner	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-032 (mid semester change to in person hour requirements) and 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

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Curriculum Deficiency / Patient Safety Risk	Date added	2026-05-04
Owner	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-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

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	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-062a (students were taught a milestone curriculum but tested on Elsevier and HESI content without being told or given the correct textbooks), HU-062b (the campus could not retain faculty and a lab instructor taught the students nothing), and 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-062 on 2026-06-06; existing references to 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-062a, HU-062b, HU-062c. Cross-References: HU-032, HU-033 (conflicting curriculum requirements), HU-044 (Sherpath teaching incorrect content), 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

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	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-062. Compare 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-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

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Faculty Retention Failure / Inadequate Instruction	Date added	2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	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-062. Compare 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-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

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Retroactive Policy Supersession Framework / Inadequate Change Notification	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	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.

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.

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-010, HU-032, HU-033) and enrollment misrepresentations (HU-022, HU-046, 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-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-037 and 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'

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Self-Teaching Expectation Contradicting Marketed Program Structure	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	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-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-014 (student documenting systemic inability to succeed), HU-045 (faculty non-responsiveness), 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-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

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	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-081a (18 page care plans assigned without guidance or even mention, discovered only by seeing another school's student carrying her packet) and 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-081 on 2026-06-06; existing references to 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-081a, HU-081b. Cross-References: HU-023, HU-031, HU-038, HU-045, HU-077.

HU-081a: 18-page care plans assigned with no guidance or even mention

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Assignment Not Communicated: Major Requirement Given Without Guidance	Date added	2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	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-081. Compare 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-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

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Preceptor Orientation Failure: Scope Inversion	Date added	2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	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-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-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

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	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-091a (a Needs Improvement contract issued to the wrong student, Student C, July 14, 2025) and 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-091 on 2026-06-06; existing references to HU-091 resolve to this lead. Student C and Handle 1 (cohort students); documented by the reporting student. Parts: HU-091a, HU-091b. Cross-References: HU-016, HU-031, HU-040, 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

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	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-091. Compare HU-045 (faculty non-response), 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-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)

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	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-091. Compare 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-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

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Material Requirement Non-Disclosure / Student Burden-Shift	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	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-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-081); Virginia Board of Nursing direct care hour requirements not known until a prospective student threatened to contact the board (HU-070); Alabama Board of Nursing virtual hour limits known only to certain clinical coordinators (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-081 (care plan non-disclosure), HU-070 (Virginia Board of Nursing non-disclosure), 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

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Curriculum Resource Inadequacy	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	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-041, HU-092) eliminate access to all study materials, and because the modules do not adequately prepare students for HESI exams (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-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-078 (systematic third party resource reliance documented in the Facebook group), HU-088 (HESI covering untaught content), and 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-047 (tuition increase), 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

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	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-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-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-103 resolve here. Source Group: Facebook Group Export (Volume 7). Parts: HU-103a, HU-103b. Cross-References: HU-043 (Clinical IV instructor absent day one), HU-045 (faculty non-responsiveness), 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

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Faculty Retention / Instructional Continuity	Date added	2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	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-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-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-103. Extends 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-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

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Inconsistent Instruction Quality / Faculty Evaluation	Date added	2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	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-103. See 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-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

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Capstone Implementation Gap	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	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-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-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-097 (mentor requirement not disclosed), 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

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Duplicate Cross-Course Assignment Content	Date added	2026-05-07
Owner	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.

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.

Dr. Prashad separately stated:

There will be many courses where materials will be repeated and that is to reinforce knowledge.

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-096) and extreme time pressure (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:

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.

This documents an internal forwarding practice without student notification. Cross-reference: HU-096 (extreme workload, duplicate assignments compound an already documented overload), HU-088 (HESI covers untaught content, curriculum quality concerns), 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

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Faculty Mid-Semester Resignation / Zero Student Notification	Date added	2026-05-07
Owner	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.

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!

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-043 (Clinical IV instructor absent day one, prior cohort) and 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-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-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-116) and clinical placement difficulties (HU-071, HU-093). Cross-reference: HU-043 (Clinical IV faculty absent day one, prior cohort), HU-103 (high faculty turnover), HU-116 (NSG621 week one mid week assignment additions), 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

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Faculty Information Page Not Completed / Student Contact Information Missing	Date added	2026-05-21
Owner	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.

Instructor Name: [blank]; eMail: [blank]; Phone: [blank]; Virtual Office Hours: [blank]; Campus Office Hours: [blank]; all fields contain only unfilled template placeholder labels.

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-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-043 (Clinical IV instructor absent day one), HU-045 (faculty non-responsiveness), HU-103 (high faculty turnover), HU-117 (Celia Pfaff resignation day one), 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

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	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.

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.

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-045 (faculty non-responsiveness), HU-096 (last minute assignment posting), HU-098 (graduation email communication failures), HU-126 (NSG525 quiz deadline discrepancy), 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

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	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-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.

Dr. Jennings had to step away from the course this session. I will be covering the course in the interim.

(Faculty Change Notification, NSG 523-7C, 2026.)

Dr. Tressler will be covering this section for course work.

and

This topic is closed for comments.

(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-160 (NSG 525 Clinical II documentation, the documenting student's section 7E), HU-158 (decision maker availability), HU-126 (communication of deadlines), 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-090, HU-126, HU-158, HU-160. Canvas announcements and group chat messages are treated as personal communications for citation purposes and are not included in a reference list.