Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing
| 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: Proctoring and Testing collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern the ProctorU and ProProctor remote proctoring services, the HESI and Elsevier examination platform, and related test administration failures. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and the full index.
Overview
This article gathers 27 tracker entries dated from April 30, 2026 through August 11, 2026, all marked CONFIRMED (several with qualified status language preserved verbatim in each entry's table). The severity mix is weighted toward the high end: three entries are rated Critical (HU-002, HU-030, HU-195), nineteen are rated High, and five are rated Medium (HU-139, HU-156, HU-163c, HU-176, HU-188).
Three recurring owners appear across the set: the vendor side, ProctorU Inc. doing business as Meazure Learning together with Elsevier and its HESI examination platform; the institutional side, principally the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing (Dr. Stephanie Black), the IT Department, and academic operations staff including Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs) and Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations); and individual course faculty and program leadership who are drawn into troubleshooting and appeals. Several entries document the same failure pattern recurring across different students and cohorts: proctoring software falsely flagging permitted programs or hardware and producing exam zeros (HU-002, HU-030), proctors making demands beyond stated policy during HESI exams (HU-036), exams administered without required camera and microphone monitoring (HU-047), and IT tickets closed as resolved while a dependent grade appeal remains open (HU-052).
A second thread traces a single student's exam-day cascade across the summer of 2026. A cluster beginning with HU-034 documents a HESI exam-access failure, a records-integrity error recording an untaken exam as fulfilled, and a threat to drop the student's next-semester enrollment, split into sub-issues HU-034a, HU-034b, and HU-034c. A second cluster beginning with HU-163 documents a weather-related exam interruption misrecorded as a no-show, a support runaround, and vendor-institution ping-pong over responsibility, split into HU-163b, HU-163c, and HU-163d. A third thread, running from HU-155 through HU-195, follows the reporting student's exam retake denial and reversal, a proctor's unauthorized remote takeover of his computer that disabled accommodated magnification and read-aloud features, a chronic pattern of delayed exam starts, and a cumulative compression of an entire semester's examinations into roughly three weeks.
Grade-appeal and accommodation-delivery questions recur throughout: retake denials issued without a stated reason (HU-155), proctoring accommodation supports (an assigned proctor, a pre-test check) declined as unavailable (HU-156), and a vendor-side software fix that Herzing represented as resolving an accessibility failure but that recurred days later (HU-175, HU-195).
Issues
HU-002: ProctorU flagged Google Remote Desktop on student computer during NSG521 final exam, blocking completion
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Technical Issue | Date added | 2026-04-30 |
| Owner | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / IT | ||
Finding. ProctorU flagged Google Remote Desktop on student computer during NSG521 final exam, blocking completion.
Evidence. INC0552394 (2026-04-28); Grade Appeal Decision email from academicappeals@herzing.edu dated 2026-04-24.
Reported statement.
Based on IT ticket, there was a software that was located. [Decision:] Please remove software since this is a one-time approval with the knowledge that the software was removed.
Standards. Handbook p.22-23: policy denies retakes for "personal device incompatibility." However, Google Remote Desktop may have been left running from a prior IT support session. Policy does not distinguish institutional vs. student-caused software conflicts.
Impact. Student unable to complete NSG521 Final Exam on scheduled date. Required grade appeal process; significant added stress for student with documented anxiety and disability.
Notes. User confirmed flagged software was Google Remote Desktop. Student had active IT support throughout semester. See HU-017 for one-time exception language. See HU-018 for sound machine blocking pattern.
HU-017: Grade appeal approval characterized as "one-time exception"; future similar requests pre-emptively discouraged
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Policy Concern | Date added | 2026-04-30 |
| Owner | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Academic Affairs | ||
Finding. Grade appeal approval characterized as "one-time exception"; future similar requests pre-emptively discouraged.
Evidence. Grade Appeal Decision email (2026-04-24) from academicappeals@herzing.edu.
Reported statement.
Please note that this approval is a one-time exception. Future requests of a similar nature will likely not be considered. Any further software issue or incompatibility on student's side may not be approved.
Standards. ADA/Section 504; Handbook p.20-21 appeals procedures. Blanket pre-emptive denial language for future appeals may chill legitimate requests, particularly for a student with documented disabilities.
Impact. Student with disabilities may be deterred from reporting legitimate technical failures or seeking accommodations in future exams, knowing future appeals pre-characterized as unlikely to succeed.
Notes. Student has documented disabilities including test anxiety, GAD, panic disorder, and multiple other conditions (see HU-021). The combination of this language with those disabilities creates a documented chilling-effect concern.
HU-020: University-promised ProctorU coordination meeting (March 20) never held; student rescheduled exam to wait for it
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Process Gap | Date added | 2026-04-30 |
| Owner | Associate VP Student Affairs (Dr. Laban) | ||
Finding. University-promised ProctorU coordination meeting (March 20) never held; student rescheduled exam to wait for it.
Evidence. Student email to Dr. Danielle Laban (2026-04-13): "You had mentioned setting this meeting up on March 20th and we are coming up on nearly a month. Do you have any updates on this? I have rescheduled my exam which was supposed to be for tomorrow in favor of your response."
Reported statement.
I am really struggling with the lack of consistency with both Proctor U and Herzing... due to Proctor U ID, sound machine, etc issues, I have had to reschedule my exams on 5 different occasions thereby wasting my entire day that I planned for the exam.
Standards. Handbook p.18 (Chain of Communication): students directed to follow escalation chain. When university leadership makes commitments, failure to follow through undermines the process and may constitute a failure of duty of care.
Impact. Student delayed exam sitting unnecessarily; additional scheduling conflict with clinical week. Prolonged uncertainty contributing to documented student stress.
Notes. Student had already rescheduled exams 5 times due to ProctorU issues. This represents a pattern of disruption, not an isolated incident.
HU-030: ProctorU falsely flagged Zoom as running during HESI final exams on Mac computers; multiple students received exam zeros; ProctorU acknowledged known false positive
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | ADA Violation Risk / Technical Failure | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / ProctorU Vendor | ||
Finding. ProctorU falsely flagged Zoom as running during HESI final exams on Mac computers; multiple students received exam zeros; ProctorU acknowledged it is a known false positive issue.
Evidence. MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (April 21-24, 2026): Student AW, Student AX, and at least one additional student received zeros on final HESI exams. ProctorU acknowledged the false positive to Student AW (confirmed April 24, 2026). Student AW's appeal was ultimately approved.
Reported statement. According to the tracker, Student AW reported that when the student spoke with ProctorU, ProctorU stated that Zoom sometimes shows as running in the background even when it is not, and recommended uninstalling it before testing. The student stated that even though ProctorU admitted this, the student was still told to go through a formal investigation.
Standards. ADA/Section 504; 28 CFR Section 35.130(b)(1); Handbook p.22-23 Exam Retake Policy; ACEN Standard 4; Elsevier HESI licensing terms.
Impact. Multiple students received zeros on HESI final examinations, potentially failing courses, solely due to a known proctoring software false positive. Pattern suggests systemic institutional failure to vet ProctorU's Mac compatibility before deployment.
Notes. The reporting student created a ProctorU petition site and a Change.org petition. Student AW independently created a Google Form to collect reports from affected students.
HU-034: Lead: Student C's HESI final exam-day failure produced three independent problems (technical lockout, a false fulfilled record, and a threat to drop next-semester enrollment); see HU-034a, HU-034b, HU-034c
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Lead / index for a split cluster (three independent problems) | Date added | 2026-05-04 (split into sub-issues 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | IT Department / Program Chair | ||
Finding. Lead entry for three independent problems arising from Student C's HESI med-surg final exam day (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort GroupMe, March 26 and April 19-20, 2026). The problems are tracked separately: HU-034a (a ProctorU/HESI technical failure blocked exam access for the full day), HU-034b (the exam was recorded as fulfilled although it was never taken, a records-integrity problem), and HU-034c (the student was threatened with having all next-semester classes dropped over the institution's own technical failure). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.
Notes. Split from the original combined HU-034 on 2026-06-06 into a lead plus three atomic sub-issues; existing references to HU-034 resolve to this lead. This was the second exam-access failure for this student in one semester; Dr. Bowen asked the student to stop emailing about the first incident.
Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.
Parts: HU-034a, HU-034b, HU-034c.
Cross-References: HU-002, HU-018, HU-030, HU-047, HU-052 (ProctorU/HESI failures); HU-159 (records integrity).
HU-034a: ProctorU/HESI technical failure blocked Student C from accessing the med-surg HESI final for the entire exam day
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Technical Failure Blocking Exam Access | Date added | 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | IT Department / ProctorU (Meazure Learning) / Program Chair | ||
Finding. Student C spent an entire exam day unable to access the med-surg HESI final exam due to a ProctorU/HESI technical failure; even the proctors could not launch the exam. He began trying at 9:50 AM and lost the exam day (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort GroupMe, March 26 and April 19-20, 2026).
Evidence. GroupMe: Student C attempted to access the med-surg HESI final from 9:50 AM; even proctors could not launch it. Part of a documented pattern of ProctorU failures across multiple students and exam dates.
Reported statement. Student C reported that he had been trying since 9:50 that morning and it still would not let him into the exam.
Standards. ACEN Standard 4 (fair, consistent assessment) and Standard 5 (reliable assessment technology); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability; functional assessment infrastructure). Lead: HU-034. Related ProctorU/HESI failures: HU-002, HU-018, HU-030, HU-047, HU-052.
Impact. Loss of an entire scheduled exam day and exposure to repeated proctoring technical failures in the same semester.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-034 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.
HU-034b: The med-surg HESI final was recorded as fulfilled although Student C never took it (records integrity)
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Records Integrity: Exam Recorded as Fulfilled Without Being Taken | Date added | 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | IT Department / ProctorU (Meazure Learning) / Office of the Registrar | ||
Finding. After the failed access, the system recorded the med-surg HESI final as fulfilled at 3:18 PM although Student C never took it, creating an inaccurate academic record (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort GroupMe, 2026).
Evidence. Student C reported the exam showed as fulfilled at 3:18 PM that afternoon though he never sat for it.
Reported statement. Student C reported that the exam was showing as fulfilled at 3:18 that afternoon even though he stated he never took it.
Standards. HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity; accurate records); FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99), right to accurate education records. Lead: HU-034. Compare HU-159 (transcript/records integrity).
Impact. An exam recorded as completed without being taken misstates the academic record and can affect grading, progression, and any later dispute.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-034 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.
HU-034c: Student C was threatened with an incomplete and dropped next-semester enrollment over the institution's own technical failure
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Arbitrary Academic Action: Threat to Drop Next-Semester Enrollment Over Institution's Technical Failure | Date added | 2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Program Chair / Course Faculty | ||
Finding. A course professor notified Student C that if the issue was not resolved by Wednesday he would take an incomplete and all of his next-semester classes would be dropped, a consequence imposed for the institution's own IT failure (GroupMe, April 19, 2026).
Evidence. By April 19, a course professor told Student C that if the matter was unresolved by Wednesday he would take an incomplete and his next-semester classes would be dropped.
Reported statement. Student C reported that if the issue was not resolved by Wednesday they would have to take an incomplete and all of their next semester classes would be dropped.
Standards. Arbitrary and capricious academic action; due process in higher education (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961)). Lead: HU-034. Compare HU-052 (IT tickets closed without resolution), HU-061 (course lockout).
Impact. Threatened loss of subsequent-semester enrollment as a consequence of an institutional technical failure the student did not cause.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-034 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
Student: Student C (MSN-DE DEC 2026 cohort); documented by the reporting student.
HU-036: ProctorU proctors routinely made demands during HESI exams going beyond stated policies and substantially disrupting exam performance
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | ADA Compliance Risk / Unreasonable Testing Conditions | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / ProctorU Vendor Management | ||
Finding. ProctorU proctors routinely made demands during HESI exams going beyond stated policies and substantially disrupting exam performance, including requirements to show under bed, cover or unplug TVs, display socks and forearms, and sit upright throughout.
Evidence. MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (March 28, April 18-19, 2026): Multiple students reported. Student AI was kicked out twice for having mail on her bed. Student E was told to cover his TV and was flagged for being too close to camera. Student AU was asked to show socks. Student S was interrupted 10 times to change her sitting position.
Reported statement. According to the tracker, one student reported being interrupted ten times to change her sitting position and being asked to cover her TV with a sheet, which she refused; another student reported that an exam that started at 2 PM did not finish until 5 PM because proctors kept pausing it and troubleshooting was required to get back in.
Standards. ADA/Section 504: examination accommodations must be available and proctor actions must not create barriers. Repeated proctor interruptions constitute a material disruption of the examination environment. ACEN Standard 4: assessment conditions must be standardized and fair.
Impact. Students experienced extended exam durations, elevated anxiety, and disrupted concentration due to unreasonable and inconsistent proctor demands. For students with documented anxiety disorders, panic disorder, or ADHD, these disruptions have a disproportionate impact.
Notes. Pattern of proctor conduct complaints spans at least two semesters (Fall 2025 and Spring 2026) and involves multiple students in multiple states. This is a vendor management issue for which the institution bears institutional responsibility.
HU-047: First HESI exam in Spring 2025 MSN-DE cohort administered without university properly configuring ProctorU to include camera and microphone monitoring
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Exam Administration Failure | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | IT Department / Program Chair / ProctorU Vendor Management | ||
Finding. The first HESI exam in the Spring 2025 MSN-DE cohort was administered without the university having properly configured ProctorU to include camera and microphone monitoring; students completed the exam under incomplete proctoring conditions.
Evidence. Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (February 6, 2025): Student Student AR reported that the school had not set up Proctorio to access video and mic for the exam. Student X confirmed screen recording and audio were activated but camera was not.
Reported statement. According to the tracker, Student AR reported that the school did not set up Proctorio to access video and microphone for the exam, and Student X confirmed that audio and screen recording had been activated but the camera feature had not been used.
Standards. Handbook p.24 (Proctoring): "The automated proctoring solution monitors test takers via a webcam, microphone, browser, and device." The institution applied strict no-retake policies to students for device issues but administered a full-cohort exam without required proctoring components. ACEN Standard 4.
Impact. Students who completed the exam under incomplete proctoring conditions did so without the full monitoring environment described in program policies. The inconsistency between strict student-side requirements and lax institution-side exam configuration demonstrates a double standard.
Notes. The failure was identified by a student, not by institutional review. The institution's response was to fix it for the next exam rather than to formally acknowledge the configuration failure.
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | IT Ticket Mismanagement / Due Process Gap | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | IT Department / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs | ||
Finding. IT tickets related to ProctorU false-flag exam incidents were closed as "resolved" without the underlying student grievances being addressed; at least one student's IT ticket was closed while her grade appeal remained open.
Evidence. Herzing Proctor U Students GroupMe (May 1, 2026): Student BQ stated that she had not heard anything back about her appeal but her IT ticket had been closed as resolved, and that she might submit a withdrawal request rather than retake the pathophysiology course.
Reported statement. Student BQ reported that she had not yet heard back about her appeal even though her IT ticket had already been closed as resolved, and stated that she was considering submitting a withdrawal request rather than retake pathophysiology.
Standards. Handbook p.20: grade appeal procedures require documented evidence. Due process principles in higher education (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961)): students must have meaningful access to evidence and procedures that determine their academic standing. Closing an IT ticket as "resolved" while a dependent grade appeal is pending forecloses the process.
Impact. Students whose IT tickets are closed before their grade appeals are resolved lose the institutional documentation that supports their appeals. In the absence of this documentation, appeal committees have no technical record to review.
Notes. This issue intersects with HU-030 (ProctorU false-flag zeros) and HU-034 (HESI exam technical failures). The combination of an inaccessible appeals inbox (HU-016), IT tickets closed before appeals resolve, and no proactive institutional documentation of technical failures creates a due process environment with no effective recourse pathway.
HU-139: Student AS: HESI exam would not load and repeatedly locked her out during intensive week; placed on hold with support for two hours with no answer or resolution; family waiting; student warned others not to test in a hotel; two-hour unresolved support hold is the core institutional failure
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | HESI Exam Disruption / Repeated Lockouts / Two-Hour Support Hold with No Resolution | Date added | 2026-06-02 |
| Owner | HESI / Elsevier (exam platform) / Herzing Testing Support / IT | ||
Finding. Student AS, a student in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN program, posted in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group describing a HESI exam disruption while testing during her intensive week. She had signed up to take her HESI and was unable to complete it: the test would not load, she was repeatedly locked out, and she was placed on hold with support for approximately two hours without resolution or explanation. She wrote that no one could tell her why the test was not loading and that she kept being given the runaround. She attributed the issue to taking the exam on hotel WiFi (she was at intensive that week), and concluded with a warning to other students not to take the HESI in a hotel. While the student herself raised the hotel WiFi as a possible cause, the documented institutional concerns are: (1) the HESI testing platform repeatedly locked her out and failed to load, and (2) Herzing/HESI support kept her on hold for approximately two hours and could not provide any answer or resolution. The two-hour unresolved support hold during a high-stakes, time-bound exam is the core institutional failure, independent of the cause of the connectivity issue.
Evidence. Facebook post by Student AS (Rising contributor), Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, June 2026 (posted approximately 20 hours before capture). Source URL: [post link redacted].
Reported statement. According to the tracker, Student AS reported being on hold with support for approximately two hours while her family waited outside the room, with no one able to explain why her test would not load; she stated she was repeatedly locked out and given the runaround, and closed her post by telling other students not to take the HESI in a hotel.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5: technology and assessment systems supporting student learning and evaluation must be reliable and adequately supported. A HESI exam platform that repeatedly locks a student out and fails to load, combined with a two-hour support hold that produces no answer or resolution, documents a failure of both the testing technology and the support infrastructure behind it. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional academic and assessment infrastructure, including responsive support for students experiencing technical failures during high-stakes exams. While the student raised hotel WiFi as a possible contributing factor, a robust testing and support system should be able to diagnose and communicate the cause of a loading failure rather than leaving a student locked out and on hold for two hours with no explanation. This connects to the documented pattern of HESI-related and platform-reliability concerns across the program (HU-041, HU-059, HU-088, HU-120, HU-129).
Impact. Student AS was unable to complete her scheduled HESI exam, lost approximately two hours on hold with no resolution, and experienced significant distress (she described herself as very upset and noted her family was waiting for her). For a high-stakes, time-bound exam that students schedule around intensive weeks and family logistics, a platform failure with no support resolution can mean a missed exam attempt, rescheduling difficulties, and added stress. The student's public warning to others (don't take it in a hotel) reflects students developing their own informal risk-avoidance guidance in the absence of clear institutional support or testing-environment requirements. If the institution requires or permits HESI testing during intensives but does not ensure adequate connectivity guidance or responsive support, students are exposed to avoidable exam disruptions.
Notes. Attributed to student Student AS (Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, Rising contributor). The student identified hotel WiFi as a possible cause; this is documented as the student's own attribution, while the institutional concerns (repeated lockouts, platform not loading, two-hour unresolved support hold) are preserved as the substantive issue. This occurred during an intensive week, when students are often traveling and testing away from home. Cross-reference: HU-088 (HESI content concerns), HU-041 (recurring platform outages), HU-059 (Sherpath outage), HU-120 (Canvas breach / platform reliability), HU-129 (Sherpath outage during tutoring), HU-126 (NSG525 quiz technical/timing issues). POSSIBLE follow-up: whether Student AS was granted a retake or accommodation for the disrupted exam attempt.
Source Group: Facebook post, Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, Student AS (Rising contributor), June 2026, [post link redacted]; provided by the reporting student.
HU-155: Exam retake request for the NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C) reviewed by Dr. Stephanie Black and not approved; no reason stated; underlying basis for the retake not yet documented in this tracker
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED (denial documented); OPEN ITEM (underlying reason for the retake request not yet documented) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Final Exam Retake Request Denied / No Stated Reason | Date added | 2026-06-05 |
| Owner | Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) | ||
Finding. In her June 5, 2026 CARES case follow-up, Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) informed the reporting student that his exam retake request for the ONL NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C) was reviewed by Dr. Black (Stephanie Black, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) and was not approved. The email states the outcome but gives no reason for the denial. The retake had been escalated through the CARES process, and the reporting student had also requested a legal hold (see HU-157). The underlying basis for the retake request, that is, the problem the reporting student experienced with the Fundamentals final exam (which would explain why a retake was sought), is not separately documented in this tracker as of this entry. HU-019 references this same exam, but only as an example of where the 250 percent testing-time accommodation appeared, and notes a history of ProctorU disruption (including a sound machine being blocked); it does not document a discrete exam-day failure. This entry documents the denial; the reason for the original retake request remains an open item to be substantiated with the underlying evidence.
Evidence. Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026): the exam retake request for the ONL NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C) was reviewed by Dr. Black and was not approved. Cross-reference HU-019: ProctorU reminder (2026-04-28): NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam 2026 Spring C Accommodations 250%; HU-019 notes a transition from 200% to 250% testing time apparently driven by ongoing ProctorU disruption issues (sound machine blocking).
Reported statement.
Exam retake request: ONL: NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam (Spring 2026, C): This request was reviewed by Dr. Black and was not approved.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) and institutional academic-appeal/grade-grievance obligations: a decision on a final-exam retake or grade appeal should be accompanied by a stated rationale and a clear appeal pathway, particularly where the student has disability testing accommodations (250% time, noise-cancelling headset, sound machine per HU-142) and a documented history of proctoring disruption (HU-019). If the retake was sought because accommodations were not honored or the testing platform failed, denial without addressing those conditions could implicate ADA (42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq.) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. 794). No conclusion is drawn here; the documented facts are the denial and the absence of a stated reason. Cross-reference HU-019 (same exam, accommodation and ProctorU disruption), HU-156 (proctoring support), HU-157 (CARES closure and legal hold).
Impact. The reporting student's request to retake the NSG521 Fundamentals NGN final exam was denied without a stated reason, which affects his grade and progression in a foundational nursing course and forecloses a remedy he sought through the CARES process. If the retake was requested because of an accommodation or proctoring failure during the exam, the denial leaves that underlying problem unaddressed. The lack of a stated rationale limits the reporting student's ability to evaluate or appeal the decision.
Notes. New personnel: Dr. Nicole Franklin, Senior Director of Academic Operations (nifranklin@herzing.edu). Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, identified as the decision-maker (steblack@herzing.edu). IMPORTANT OPEN ITEM: the reason the reporting student requested the retake (the underlying exam-day problem) is not yet captured as a standalone issue; obtain that evidence to document the basis. Cross-reference: HU-019 (NSG521 Fundamentals final, 250% accommodation, ProctorU disruption), HU-156, HU-157, HU-158, HU-142 (accommodation letter). Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group (HU-155 through HU-158).
Source: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES case follow-up, June 5, 2026.
Source Group: Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban, Nicole), subject CARES Case: Follow-up, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM; provided by the reporting student.
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Proctoring Accommodation Support Limited to Workarounds / Assigned Proctor and Pre-Test Not Available | Date added | 2026-06-05 |
| Owner | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Testing / ProctorU / ProProctor | ||
Finding. In the same June 5, 2026 CARES follow-up, Dr. Nicole Franklin addressed the reporting student's proctoring-related requests. On an assigned proctor, she wrote that she reached out to ProctorU and unfortunately, this is not an available option, that ProProctors remain the most individualized support they offer, and that all upcoming scheduled exams have been flagged for ProProctor connection. On a ProctorU pre-test option, she wrote that this is currently not a viable option and that the reporting student should continue using Test-it-out and allowing additional time to initiate each exam. The reporting student has documented testing accommodations (250% time, noise-cancelling headset, and a sound machine per HU-142) and a history of ProctorU disruptions (HU-019 notes a sound machine being blocked). Telling the student to continue using Test-it-out and to allow additional time to initiate each exam places the burden of working around proctoring and exam-initiation problems on the student rather than resolving the cause, and the requested supports (an assigned proctor and a pre-test check) were declined as unavailable.
Evidence. Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026): assigned proctor request declined as unavailable through ProctorU; ProProctor offered as the most individualized support available, flagged for all upcoming scheduled exams; ProctorU pre-test option declined as not currently viable, with the student directed to continue using Test-it-out and allow additional time to initiate each exam. Cross-reference HU-019 (ProctorU disruption, sound machine blocking; 250% accommodation), HU-142 (testing accommodations including noise-cancelling headset and sound machine).
Reported statement.
Assigned proctor: I reached out to ProctorU; unfortunately, this is not an available option... ProctorU pre-test option: This is currently not a viable option. Continue using Test-it-out and allowing additional time to initiate each exam.
Standards. ADA (42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq.) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. 794): where a student has approved testing accommodations and a documented history of proctoring disruption, the institution should ensure the proctoring method reliably delivers those accommodations; directing the student to self-manage via Test-it-out and to allow additional time to initiate each exam, while declining an assigned proctor and a pre-test check, may leave the accommodation dependent on the student absorbing recurring technical friction. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): testing infrastructure must function for students. No violation is concluded; the documented concern is that the supports requested were declined and the remedy offered is a student-side workaround. Cross-reference HU-019, HU-142, HU-155.
Impact. The reporting student is left to rely on Test-it-out and to budget extra time to initiate each exam, rather than receiving an assigned proctor or a pre-test verification that his accommodations (sound machine, noise-cancelling headset, 250% time) will function. Given the prior ProctorU disruption (HU-019), this raises the risk of repeated exam-day friction and of accommodations not being smoothly delivered, which is especially consequential for high-stakes exams.
Notes. ProProctor (a ProctorU service tier) is now flagged for all upcoming scheduled exams. The distinction between ProctorU (declined as unavailable for an assigned proctor and pre-test) and ProProctor (offered) is documented as stated in the email. Cross-reference: HU-019 (ProctorU disruption and 250% accommodation), HU-142 (testing accommodations), HU-155 (retake denial), HU-157, HU-158. Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group (HU-155 through HU-158).
Source: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES case follow-up, June 5, 2026.
Source Group: Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban, Nicole), subject CARES Case: Follow-up, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM; provided by the reporting student.
HU-163: Lead: a documented weather emergency on June 6, 2026 blocked the accommodated NSG524 Mental Health exam, which the vendor then marked a no-show and would not reschedule within the open window, followed by a support runaround, vendor-institution ping-pong, and a burden-shifting appeals process; see HU-163a through HU-163e
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Lead / index for a split cluster (in-window reschedule blocked; no-show miscategorization; support runaround; vendor-institution ping-pong; burden-shift) | Date added | 2026-06-06 |
| Owner | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Stephanie Black (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / Dr. Danielle Laban / Dr. Nicole Franklin | ||
Finding. Lead entry for a June 6, 2026 testing failure on the NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 1 (a 375-minute, 250% accommodated exam with a testing window of June 1 to June 7, 2026). A documented severe-weather event in Kansas (NWS Wichita, scattered storms and flood warnings) interrupted the student's internet during his scheduled June 6 exam. Tracked separately: HU-163a (the student could not reschedule the accommodated exam to the remaining in-window date because no ProProctor was available and the vendor cited a reschedule restriction, so the 250% accommodation could not be exercised before the window closed), HU-163b (the exam was marked a no-show despite the student's documented contemporaneous contact about the outage before the window closed, which then triggered the reschedule lock), HU-163c (a support runaround, a non-answer, a re-request for information already provided, and review of the wrong exam), HU-163d (contradictory explanations and vendor-institution ping-pong, with neither resolving the issue), and HU-163e (the burden shifted to the student through an appeals and makeup process requiring a Herzing IT ticket). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.
Notes. Exam: ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 1 2026 Summer C (Accommodations 250%), 375 minutes, Herzing University - HESI; previously scheduled Sat June 6, 2026 2:20 PM CDT. The student states he could not test earlier in the window because of financial-aid delays for the university-requested computer (cross-ref HU-157) and last-minute clinical-schedule changes (cross-ref HU-135). The vendor stated its reschedule restriction inconsistently as 24 hours (live chat) and 72 hours (email). Added 2026-06-06 at the top of the date-added section (newest first).
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure Learning support thread (ticket 8041745), June 6, 2026; ProctorU live-chat screenshot (June 6, 2026, 1:46 to 1:49 PM CDT); ProctorU scheduling-page screenshot (NSG524, window 6/1 to 6/7/26, 375 minutes); NWS Wichita severe-weather screenshot (June 6, 2026, 1:40 PM CDT); email from the reporting student to Herzing faculty; provided by the reporting student.
Parts: HU-163a, HU-163b, HU-163c, HU-163d, HU-163e.
Cross-References: HU-002 (prior ProctorU exam block, NSG521), HU-119 (ProctorU/Meazure legal dispute), HU-135 (8-hour clinical accommodation; last-minute schedule changes), HU-145 (eight-hour accommodation characterized as conditional), HU-155 (NSG521 final retake denied), HU-156 (proctoring support declined), HU-157 (CARES closure; computer funds; ProctorU pre-test).
HU-163b: The exam was marked a no-show despite the student's documented contemporaneous contact about the weather and internet outage before the window closed, and the no-show then triggered the reschedule lock
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | No-Show Miscategorization Despite Prior Contact | Date added | 2026-06-06 |
| Owner | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning | ||
Finding. ProctorU stated the exam had been marked a no-show and that, as a result, it could not process scheduling within its restriction window. The reporting student documented that he had contacted ProctorU via chat from his phone before the exam, reporting that his internet was out due to the weather, so the appointment should have been set for reschedule rather than recorded as a no-show. The no-show designation then triggered the lock that prevented any in-window reschedule.
Evidence. ProctorU/Meazure email (Rahul Pradhan) stating the exam has now been marked as a no-show and scheduling cannot be processed within 72 hours; the reporting student reply asking why it was marked a no-show when he contacted ProctorU prior to the exam via chat about the internet outage; ProctorU live chat (June 6, 2026, 1:46 PM CDT).
Reported statement.
Why was it marked as a no show? I contacted you prior to the exam in chat to let you know via my phone that my internet was out due to bad weather so it should have been set for reschedule rather than marked as a no-show.
Standards. 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability and accurate records, including over a testing vendor). Recording a weather-and-connectivity interruption (reported in real time) as a no-show, and then using that designation to deny an in-window reschedule, is a records-accuracy and fair-process concern. Lead: HU-163.
Impact. The no-show entry, rather than a reschedule flag, is what locked the student out of his remaining in-window date and routed him into a makeup and appeals process.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-163 (lead). Documented 2026-06-06.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure support thread (ticket 8041745); ProctorU live chat, June 6, 2026.
HU-163c: ProctorU support runaround: a non-answer that documented the concern without resolving it, a re-request for information the student had already provided, and review of the wrong exam (NSG523 Med Surg instead of NSG524 Mental Health)
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Support Runaround / Wrong Exam Reviewed | Date added | 2026-06-06 |
| Owner | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning | ||
Finding. Across the support thread, ProctorU (1) replied that it had documented the student's concern and that no further action was required, without resolving the scheduling problem; (2) asked the student to provide his full name, account email, exam name, and exam date, all of which he had already submitted; and (3) pulled up the wrong exam, the NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I exam set for June 10, when the student's issue concerned the NSG524 Mental Health exam due by June 7.
Evidence. ProctorU/Meazure emails: a Facilitator Specialist reply stating the concern was documented and no further action was required; a reply requesting full name, account email, exam name, and date and time (already provided by the student); and a reply quoting Exam: ONL: HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, June 10, 2026 1:00 PM CDT, Scheduled, in response to a question about the NSG524 Mental Health exam.
Reported statement.
I can't tell if this is a joke. I already put all of this info in the form I submitted. [And, to the wrong-exam reply:] You are looking at the wrong exam. Look at the exam name I sent you and the exam name you sent back. They are not the same.
Standards. 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including oversight of a testing vendor); consumer-facing support-quality expectations. Repeated non-answers, re-requests for provided information, and review of the wrong exam delayed any resolution while the window closed. Lead: HU-163.
Impact. The runaround consumed the limited time remaining in the testing window and left the student without a clear path to take his exam.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-163 (lead). Documented 2026-06-06.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure support thread (ticket 8041745), June 6, 2026.
HU-163d: Contradictory explanations and vendor-institution ping-pong: the vendor said the testing window and any extension are institution-controlled while Herzing faculty said they cannot set up an exam and directed the student to the appeals process, leaving the issue unresolved
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Vendor-Institution Accountability Gap / Contradictory Explanations | Date added | 2026-06-06 |
| Owner | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Herzing Academic Affairs | ||
Finding. ProctorU repeatedly directed the student to Herzing to obtain a testing-window extension, stating the exam windows are set by the institution and that ProctorU has no control. Herzing faculty (Dr. Stacey Gombar, relaying the course lead and program lead) stated that Herzing faculty do not have access to set up an additional exam and directed the student to the appeals process. The two positions leave the student bounced between the vendor and the institution with neither resolving the in-window scheduling problem. The vendor also gave shifting rationales (window closed, then marked no-show) and an inconsistent restriction window (24 hours in chat, 72 hours in email).
Evidence. ProctorU/Meazure emails (Areeba Tariq, Ujjwal Ray, and others) directing the student to Herzing for a window extension and stating the windows are institution-controlled; ProctorU live chat stating the exam windows are set by the exam instructor and ProctorU has no controls; Dr. Stacey Gombar emails stating she does not know the resolution and later that Herzing faculty cannot set up an additional exam and the student must use the appeals process.
Reported statement.
[ProctorU:] the exam windows are set by the exam instructor we do not have any controls over it. [Dr. Gombar:] Unfortunately, Herzing faculty does not have access to set up an additional exam, so you must follow this process.
Standards. 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (the institution is responsible for its testing vendor and for a functional process); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear and fair processes). When a vendor and the institution each point to the other, an accommodated student is left with no responsible party to resolve a time-sensitive failure. Lead: HU-163.
Impact. The accountability gap left the student without a resolution path during the window, and the contradictory explanations made it impossible to know what actually prevented the reschedule.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-163 (lead). Documented 2026-06-06.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: ProctorU/Meazure support thread (ticket 8041745); Dr. Stacey Gombar emails, June 6, 2026.
HU-167b: The reporting student was unable to begin the NSG523 exam for over one hour and fifteen minutes after logging in, made three failed ProProctor connection attempts in one hour, and the session was ultimately transferred to another technician before the exam could start
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Exam Start Delayed Over 75 Minutes; Three Failed Connection Attempts | Date added | 2026-06-13 |
| Owner | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning | ||
Finding. The reporting student logged in to begin his NSG523 exam at approximately 2:25 PM CDT on Saturday June 13, 2026. Screenshots timestamped between 3:27 PM and 3:44 PM show he had been waiting for over one hour and had not yet started. He told the ProctorU agent at 3:33 PM that this was his third connection attempt in the past hour with nothing happening. The ProctorU screen displayed "Wait time is longer than expected" with an average wait of 8 minutes. The agent Gedela T. twice asked him to "allow a few minutes" (at 3:30 PM and 3:37 PM). At 3:43 PM the session was transferred to another technician. The reporting student confirmed in a follow-up email that he was ultimately able to take the exam but that it took over one hour and fifteen minutes for them to let him start.
Evidence. ProctorU chat screenshots (3:27 to 3:44 PM, Jun 13, 2026) showing three connection cycles, the "Wait time is longer than expected" screen, and the 3:43 PM session transfer; email from the reporting student and a follow-up email confirming the delay.
Reported statement.
I have been logged in since 2:25 trying to start my exam. I have now attempted to connect 3 times. As you can see, it has been "allow me a few minutes" for over an hour with multiple people and no proproctor. ... it took over 1 hour and 15 minutes for them to let me start.
Standards. 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability and vendor oversight); 42 U.S.C. 12189 and 28 C.F.R. 36.309 (examinations must be offered in an accessible manner with necessary accommodations); Section 504 (29 U.S.C. 794). An over 75-minute pre-exam delay caused by vendor unavailability, after three failed connection attempts, is an accommodation-delivery and vendor-oversight failure. The delay consumes time and mental energy before the exam begins, which is particularly significant for a 375-minute accommodated exam. Lead: HU-167.
Impact. The delay of over one hour and fifteen minutes before the exam started affected the student's testing conditions and consumed time that could have been used for the exam itself or for preparation.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-167 (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party screenshots and email. The exam is NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 (375 minutes at 250% accommodation). Documented 2026-06-13.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: Seven ProctorU chat/screen screenshots (Sat Jun 13, 2026, 3:27 PM to 3:44 PM CDT); email from the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Nicole Franklin, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, David Steele, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Tanetshia Brown (sent approx. 3:39 PM, Jun 13, 2026); follow-up email from the reporting student confirming exam completed after over 1 hour 15 minute delay; provided by the reporting student.
HU-174: Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor, NSG524) forwarded the reporting student the ProctorU link for the NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 (250% accommodation; exam window July 13 to July 19, 2026) while stating she was still waiting on the link for Exam 1; the reporting student asked to complete Exam I and remediation before Exam II so he could identify and address his deficiencies first, then followed up repeatedly; faculty had no updates and were told to wait for further advisement, so the Exam 1 link remained unprovided and the requested sequencing could not be scheduled
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Approved or Requested Accommodation Exam Retake Not Operationalized; Exam 1 (250%) ProctorU Link Not Provided While Exam 2 Link Issued; Multi-Week Delay With No Updates | Date added | 2026-06-15 |
| Owner | Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor, NSG524) / NSG524 course lead and program leadership / Elizabeth Dwyer (Learning Solutions Integrations Specialist) / Herzing Testing and Accommodations / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) | ||
Finding. Elizabeth Dwyer issued the ProctorU accommodation link for ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 2026 Summer C Accommodations 250%, designated for the reporting student, with an exam window of Monday July 13, 2026 12:00 AM CDT to Sunday July 19, 2026 7:00 PM CDT. Dr. Stacey Gombar forwarded that Exam 2 link to the reporting student and stated she was still waiting on the link for Exam 1. The reporting student replied asking to complete Exam I and remediation before Exam II so that he could see what deficiencies he had and address them, and asked how Exam I could be scheduled first. He followed up at least twice asking for updates on the Exam 1 link and stating he would really like to take Exam I before Exam II. Dr. Gombar responded that she would wait for further advisement as to when the link would be received, and later that she did not have any updates, that she was told to wait and the link would be sent out, and that she had been in contact with her course lead and leadership and was watching closely for it. Dr. Stephanie Black's automatic reply indicated she was out of the office for onsite meetings. The result is that the accommodated Exam 1 retake plus remediation that the reporting student requested to take before Exam II could not be scheduled because the Exam 1 testing link had not been provided, while the Exam 2 link issued normally. The student reports that Dr. Prashad previously approved the retake of Exam I in NSG524 Mental Health; the June 15 thread documents the request and the missing link but does not itself contain the approval language, so that approval is recorded here per the student's reference and the prior NSG524 appeal and exam cluster (HU-163 and HU-166) and is flagged for verification against the approval record.
Evidence. Email from Elizabeth Dwyer (Learning Solutions Integrations Specialist) providing the accommodation exam link for NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2, June 15, 2026, 12:35 PM. Forward from Dr. Stacey Gombar to the reporting student. Reply from the reporting student to Dr. Gombar, Dr. Laban, Dr. Prashad, and Dr. Black requesting Exam I and remediation before Exam II. Follow-up emails from the reporting student. Replies from Dr. Gombar stating she was waiting for further advisement and had no updates. Automatic reply from Dr. Stephanie Black indicating she was out of the office for onsite meetings.
Reported statement.
[Dr. Gombar:] I am forwarding the link to sign up for Exam 2. I am still waiting on the link for Exam 1. [the reporting student:] I am going to request the ability to do exam I and remediation prior to exam ii so that I can see what deficiencies I have and address them. [Dr. Gombar:] I do not have any, I was told to wait and the link would be sent out. Please be assured that I have been in contact with my course lead and leadership, and am watching closely for it.
Standards. ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, with 34 C.F.R. 104.44 (postsecondary academic adjustments and auxiliary aids, which are to be provided in a timely and effective manner); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable and timely operational processes); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including fair and reliable processes for accommodated students) and Criterion 4.B (reliable assessment processes); ACEN Standard 4 (fair academic standards and policies). Issuing the Exam 2 accommodation link while the Exam 1 accommodation link remained outstanding, with the assigned faculty unable to obtain it and directed to wait, is a timeliness and effective-access concern, particularly where the student requested to complete Exam I and remediation before Exam II. This entry does not assert a violation and records the matter for review and verification.
Impact. If the Exam 1 (250%) link is not provided in time to complete Exam I and remediation before the Exam 2 window opens on July 13, 2026, the student loses the requested and reportedly approved sequencing, loses the opportunity to identify and address deficiencies before Exam II, and is pushed toward sitting Exam II without the intended remediation. The delay also shifts the burden of repeated follow-up onto the student and onto an adjunct professor who does not have the access needed to resolve it.
Notes. Exam: ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 2026 Summer C Accommodations 250%. The Exam 2 window is Mon 07/13/26 12:00 AM CDT to Sun 07/19/26 7:00 PM CDT, designated for the reporting student. As of the June 15, 2026 thread, the Exam 1 link had not been issued. Dr. Gombar stated she was in contact with her course lead and program leadership and was watching for the Exam 1 link. Dr. Stephanie Black's automatic reply indicated she was out of the office for onsite meetings. Per the student, Dr. Prashad previously approved the Exam I retake in NSG524 Mental Health and the delay in providing the new link has extended over several weeks; the approval itself is referenced and flagged for verification, since the June 15 thread documents the request and the missing link but not the approval language. CONFIRMED for the documented facts of the email thread. Added 2026-06-15.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: Email thread, subject HESI Exam ProctorU Link, ONL: HU NSG524 Mental Health Nursing Exam 2 2026 Summer C Accommodations 250%, among Elizabeth (Lizz) Dwyer (Learning Solutions Integrations Specialist), Dr. Stacey Gombar (Adjunct Professor, NSG524), the reporting student, Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair), and Dr. Stephanie Black (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing); original message Monday, June 15, 2026 12:35 PM CDT; provided by the reporting student.
Cross-References: HU-163 (NSG524 Mental Health 250% exam blocked by weather, marked no-show, appeals and makeup process; lead cluster), HU-166 (NSG524 grade-appeal thread; Bishop and Prashad conflicting appeal instructions), HU-167 (NSG523 Exam 1; no ProProctor available on the weekend; accommodation testing-access disparity), HU-155 (NSG521 Fundamentals final retake denied), HU-156 (proctoring supports declined), HU-157 (CARES case closure).
HU-175: ProctorU proctor took unilateral remote control of the reporting student's computer during the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II session and disabled magnification and read aloud functions mid-exam without his consent, and the testing clock reportedly continued to run while the issue went unresolved
| Severity | High | 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 | 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.
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.
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-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-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-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-176 (Herzing and Elsevier root cause acknowledgment and appeal waiver for this same session), 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-185, HU-186, HU-187, and HU-188 (issues identified during the August 4, 2026 joint troubleshooting call); HU-195 (August 10, 2026 recurrence); HU-197 (September 2026 continuation and asthma related scheduling dispute).
HU-176: Herzing identifies Elsevier as the probable root cause of the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II software failure documented in HU-175 and waives the grade appeal requirement for the affected attempt
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Vendor Software Failure Acknowledged by Institution; Appeal Requirement Waived | Date added | 2026-07-17 |
| Owner | Dr. Danielle Laban / Herzing Academic Affairs / Elsevier | ||
Finding. Following the July 15, 2026 NSG524 Exam II session documented in HU-175, Dr. Danielle Laban wrote that Herzing believes the main issue occurred with Elsevier and that Herzing is collaborating with Elsevier to investigate and determine a resolution to prevent the issue from recurring. Dr. Laban further stated that the reporting student would not be required to go through the appeal process because he was impacted by a technical issue outside his control, and that Herzing would reach out for his desired testing window once a resolution is reached. This entry documents the institution's acknowledgment that a vendor side technical failure, not student error, caused the disruption, and that the standard grade appeal step was waived as a result. This pattern is consistent with the prior Elsevier score transmission issues already documented earlier in this tracker.
Evidence. Dr. Danielle Laban, email, Jul 16, 2026, 4:45 PM: statement that the main issue occurred with Elsevier, that Herzing is collaborating with Elsevier to investigate and resolve it, and that the appeal process would not be required because the impact was due to a technical issue outside the student's control.
Reported statement.
We believe that the main issue occurred with Elsevier. We will not require you to go through the appeal process since you were impacted by this technical issue by issues outside of your control.
Standards. 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable technology and vendor oversight). This entry is a positive institutional response and is logged primarily as evidence of a recurring pattern of Elsevier related exam and grading disruptions rather than as a new violation.
Impact. The waiver reduces immediate harm to the reporting student for this specific exam attempt. It does not by itself resolve the broader pattern of recurring Elsevier related technical failures during proctored and accommodated exams, or establish what corrective action, if any, will be implemented before the next scheduled attempt.
Notes. Request written confirmation once Herzing's investigation concludes, of the specific Elsevier root cause, the rescheduled testing window, and that no late grade or placeholder zero will apply in the interim.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: Email, Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs) to the reporting student and others, Thu Jul 16, 2026, 4:45 PM.
Cross-References: HU-175 (this entry's underlying exam session failure), HU-177 (conflicting appeal instructions arising from the same session), and the earlier Elsevier score transmission cluster documented earlier in this tracker.
HU-179: Following the June 5, 2026 CARES case denial documented in HU-155 and the reporting student's stated intent to file an OCR complaint, Dr. Nicole Franklin issued a written approval confirming Dr. Black approved a retake of the NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam based on ProctorU's admission of fault
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED as to the content of the approval letter and the ProctorU fault admission it quotes; the exact date of the letter and its chronological relationship to the June 5, 2026 denial documented in HU-155 has not been independently confirmed and is flagged as an open item rather than assumed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Retake Denial Apparently Reversed After Internal Escalation and OCR Complaint Threat; Vendor Fault Admission | Date added | 2026-07-17 |
| Owner | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / ProctorU / Meazure Learning | ||
Finding. Dr. Nicole Franklin wrote to the reporting student with what she described as a positive update on his Spring 2026 NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam appeal. She stated that Herzing had been contacted by ProctorU, which acknowledged that the technical issues during the exam were its responsibility, and quoted ProctorU as stating that Meazure Learning recognized the reporting student's testing experience was unsatisfactory due to a delayed start, required troubleshooting for a technical issue, and distracting noise that occurred at one point during the exam. Based on this, Dr. Franklin stated that Dr. Black, Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, approved a retake of the NSG521 final exam, to be completed by Sunday, July 12, with the reporting student given the opportunity to choose his own four day testing window, to be communicated to Dr. Franklin by 5 PM on Tuesday, June 30, after which a ProctorU scheduling link would follow. This approval directly concerns the same NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam retake request that HU-155 documents as having been reviewed by Dr. Black and not approved, per Dr. Franklin's June 5, 2026 CARES case follow-up email, and that the reporting student responded to the same day by stating he would file an OCR complaint and request separate Kansas and Wisconsin Board of Nursing investigations if no further internal appeal steps existed. Whether this approval letter was issued before the June 5 denial, as a renewed request after it, or as a reversal prompted by the reporting student's escalation has not been confirmed from the documents reviewed, and the exact date of this letter is not stated in the material provided; this should be verified against the original email header before treating the sequence as a confirmed reversal.
Evidence. Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban), subject Spring 2026 NSG521 Final Exam appeal: statement that ProctorU contacted Herzing acknowledging responsibility for the technical issues, quoting Meazure Learning's statement, and confirming Dr. Black's approval of a retake with a stated testing window and response deadlines. Compare against Dr. Nicole Franklin's CARES Case Follow-up email, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM (documented in HU-155), and the reporting student's June 5, 2026, 3:28 PM email stating his intent to file an OCR complaint and request Kansas and Wisconsin Board of Nursing investigations if no further internal appeal steps existed.
Reported statement.
Meazure Learning recognizes the reporting student's testing experience was unsatisfactory due to the delayed start and required troubleshooting for a technical issue, as well as the distracting noise that occurred at one point during his exam.
Standards. 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including consistent and adequately explained decision making) and HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including consistency in communications to students). This entry does not allege retaliation or a confirmed policy violation; it documents that a stated denial and a subsequent approval concern the same exam retake request, and flags the timing relative to the reporting student's internal escalation and stated intent to seek external review as a fact worth verifying rather than a proven causal link. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12131 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, remain relevant given the reporting student's documented testing accommodations and the vendor's admitted role in the exam disruption, consistent with the framing already used in HU-155.
Impact. If the retake was in fact denied on June 5 and then approved shortly after the reporting student raised the prospect of an OCR complaint and state board investigations, the sequence is worth documenting and monitoring for institutional consistency purposes, without this entry concluding that the approval was caused by the escalation. Positively, the eventual approval and completion of the retake did allow the reporting student's grade to be corrected, as reflected in HU-180 below. The unresolved question of whether HU-155's denial and this approval concern the identical request or two separate requests affects how the overall NSG521 exam dispute timeline should be read.
Notes. Recommend confirming the exact send date of the Spring 2026 NSG521 Final Exam appeal approval letter and reconciling it against the June 5, 2026 CARES case follow-up denial documented in HU-155, to establish whether this is a reversal of that same denial or a response to a separate, later request.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: Email, Dr. Nicole Franklin (cc Danielle Laban) to the reporting student, subject Spring 2026 NSG521 Final Exam appeal; compared against the June 5, 2026 CARES Case Follow-up email from Dr. Franklin (documented in HU-155) and the reporting student's June 5, 2026, 3:28 PM reply stating his intent to file an OCR complaint and to ask the Kansas and Wisconsin Boards of Nursing to open investigations; provided by the reporting student.
Cross-References: HU-155 (June 5, 2026 denial of the same NSG521 final exam retake request), HU-157 (CARES case closure and legal hold request), HU-159 (NSG521 grade change from A to B and the open question of who authorized it, same course), HU-180 (instructor of record not notified of the resulting grade change).
HU-182: The reporting student's July 1, 2026 exam started over an hour late due to a ProctorU/Meazure Learning staffing error, which he identified as the seventh or eighth instance of a delayed exam start in the prior six months, citing five specific prior dates
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED as to the July 1, 2026 delay and Meazure Learning's own acknowledgment of a scheduling error; the characterization as the seventh or eighth such instance rests on the reporting student's own count and the five listed dates, which are CONFIRMED as dates he reports delays occurred but have not been independently corroborated against a separate proctoring log in this entry |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Chronic ProctorU Staffing and Scheduling Failure Causing Repeated Delayed Exam Starts | Date added | 2026-07-17 |
| Owner | ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Testing and Accommodations | ||
Finding. Meazure Learning Compliance wrote to the reporting student acknowledging that he experienced a delay in being assigned a PRO Proctor and starting his July 1, 2026 exam administration, attributing it to an inadvertent scheduling error that caused an issue with PRO Proctor availability, apologizing for the inconvenience, and stating a commitment to ensuring PRO Proctor availability for future scheduled exams. Forwarding this response to Herzing ADA, Student Affairs, and Academic Operations staff, the reporting student stated that he started the exam over an hour late, that he would normally accept an isolated apology of this kind, but that this was the seventh or eighth time this had happened in the prior six months, and that simply not scheduling sufficient PRO Proctor staff when students schedule their exams is not acceptable. He listed five specific additional dates on which his exam had started late or been delayed: June 5, June 6, June 13, June 2, and May 4, 2026, and asked what Herzing and the vendor needed to do to ensure consistency. The June 6, 2026 date on this list corresponds to the weather-related no-show and reschedule-lock failure already documented in the HU-163 cluster, so at least one of the five listed dates is independently corroborated elsewhere in this tracker; the remaining four dates (May 4, June 2, June 5, June 13, 2026) are not yet separately documented as standalone entries and rest on the reporting student's own account as stated in this email.
Evidence. Email, Meazure Learning Compliance to the reporting student: acknowledgment of an inadvertent scheduling error causing PRO Proctor unavailability and delay for the July 1, 2026 exam, an apology, and a stated commitment to future availability. Email, the reporting student to Herzing ADA, Student Affairs, and Academic Operations staff: statement that the exam started over an hour late, that this was the seventh or eighth such instance in six months, and a list of five additional dates (2026-06-05, 2026-06-06, 2026-06-13, 2026-06-02, 2026-05-04) on which his exam started late or was delayed. Cross-reference HU-163 (the June 6, 2026 weather-related no-show and reschedule failure, one of the five listed dates).
Reported statement.
Typically, I wouldn't have a problem with the response like this and would be understanding, but this is the seventh or eighth time this has happened in the last six months. Simply not scheduling people to be on staff when students schedule their exams is not acceptable.
Standards. 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including effective oversight of a contracted testing vendor) and, given the reporting student's documented testing accommodations, the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. Section 794), since unreliable proctor staffing has a disproportionate effect on a student who requires a PRO Proctor as part of an approved accommodation. A single delayed exam start, standing alone, would be a minor operational issue; a repeated pattern of seven or eight such instances in six months, if corroborated, would support a finding of a systemic vendor staffing and scheduling reliability failure rather than isolated incidents.
Impact. Repeated delayed exam starts disrupt testing conditions, consume accommodated testing time, and add to documented cumulative stress and administrative burden already reflected elsewhere in this tracker, including the appeals volume referenced in HU-163e. If the pattern of seven or eight delayed starts in six months is corroborated, it would indicate the vendor's PRO Proctor staffing problem is ongoing and unresolved despite prior institutional awareness of at least the June 6, 2026 instance documented in HU-163.
Notes. Recommend requesting from ProctorU/Meazure Learning or from Herzing a complete log of the reporting student's scheduled exam start times and any delays for the six-month period referenced, to independently corroborate the seven-or-eight-instance count and the four dates (May 4, June 2, June 5, June 13, 2026) not yet separately documented in this tracker.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: Email, Meazure Learning Compliance to the reporting student, subject Fw: July 1, 2026 Exam Administration; forwarded by the reporting student to Herzing ADA, Student Affairs, and Academic Operations staff with a list of five additional delay dates; out-of-office auto-replies from Emilie Thompson and Shannon Bishop; provided by the reporting student.
Cross-References: HU-163 and its sub-issues HU-163a through HU-163e (the June 6, 2026 weather-related no-show and reschedule-lock failure, one of the five dates listed here), HU-163e (Notes updated 2026-07-17 to reference this entry); HU-187 (cumulative examination scheduling compression resulting from this pattern of delays and disruptions, added 2026-08-04).
HU-187: Cumulative vendor caused examination disruptions have compressed a semester of examinations into approximately three weeks, with a fourth examination cancelled on August 4, 2026
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED as to the reporting student's account of his examination schedule, stated on the call in the presence of Dr. Danielle Laban and not disputed by her on the call; the schedule has not been independently verified against Herzing's records in this entry |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Cumulative Rescheduling Burden Compressing Examination Schedule | Date added | 2026-08-04 |
| Owner | Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs); Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair); Herzing academic leadership | ||
Finding. On the August 4, 2026 call, the reporting student stated that as a result of the accumulated examination disruptions he faced an examination that day, which was then cancelled during the call, a rescheduled examination the following Monday, a further makeup examination the week after arising from an examination he was unable to attempt while the underlying defect remained unresolved, and two additional examinations the week after that. He stated that he was concerned this compression would affect his performance, and characterized it as unfair that examinations originally distributed across an entire semester were being concentrated into approximately three weeks. He also stated that clinical obligations occupied the remainder of the week of August 4, 2026, leaving no availability until the following week. Dr. Danielle Laban, who was present on the call at that point, indicated the examination would be cancelled and rescheduled on the back end so that the reporting student would not be subject to the vendor's seventy two hour rescheduling restriction, and asked the reporting student to send his available windows. This entry documents the cumulative academic consequence of the disruptions individually documented elsewhere in this tracker.
Evidence. Recorded call and transcript, August 4, 2026: the reporting student's enumeration of his upcoming examination schedule, his statement regarding clinical obligations for the remainder of that week, his statement of concern about the compression, and Dr. Laban's statements that she would arrange rescheduling on the back end and asked him to send available windows.
Reported statement.
These are starting to add up and pile up, and I'm really nervous that this is going to be like, I'm gonna struggle because this is not fair that I'm having to take exams that were supposed to be done over the entire semester, and like a matter of three weeks.
Standards. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, and 34 C.F.R. Section 104.44, insofar as the compression arises from repeated failures to deliver approved accommodations rather than from any act of the student. HLC Criterion 3.D (student support) and 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability) are also potentially relevant. This entry is framed as a documented cumulative burden and a risk to academic performance, not as an asserted finding that the reporting student has been academically harmed, which has not been established.
Impact. Concentrating a semester of high stakes examinations into approximately three weeks, for a student who also carries clinical and virtual clinical obligations, creates a substantial risk to examination performance that is attributable to institutional and vendor failures rather than to the student. This compounds the documented stress and anxiety already recorded in this tracker, including the panic attack the reporting student documented during a July 21, 2026 support call.
Notes. Recommend requesting written confirmation from Herzing of the final rescheduled examination dates, written confirmation that no late penalty or placeholder grade will apply, and written confirmation of the position Dr. Laban stated on the call that the vendor's seventy two hour rescheduling restriction will not be applied to these rescheduled attempts. The reporting student's stated schedule should be reconciled against Herzing's records before being relied upon in any filing.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: Recorded video call, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who joined near the end of the call; transcript provided by the reporting student. Speaker attribution in the automated transcript is inconsistent and the same speaker is labeled variously; the substance is clear but individual lines should be attributed by reference to the underlying recording rather than to transcript speaker labels.
Cross-References: HU-175 (accessibility failure cluster), HU-182 (chronic vendor proctor staffing delays), HU-163 and its sub-issues (weather related no-show and the resulting appeals burden), HU-186 (accommodation gesture and integrity flag exposure).
HU-188: The calculator within the HESI compatibility check returned an incorrect arithmetic result during joint testing
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED as to the observed behavior in the compatibility check environment; the Elsevier representative stated the calculator delivered within live examinations is a different and updated version, which has not been independently verified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Vendor Software Defect, Incorrect Calculator Output | Date added | 2026-08-04 |
| Owner | Elsevier / HESI product team | ||
Finding. While testing the HESI compatibility check environment on August 4, 2026, the reporting student entered two plus two into the built in calculator and received a result of one. The Elsevier representative responded that this was likely the legacy calculator, stated that the calculator available within live examinations had been updated after known accuracy problems, and said he would raise the observation with his product manager. This entry documents a vendor software quality defect observed in the testing environment. Because the representative stated the in-examination calculator is a different, updated build, this defect is not established to affect scored examinations, and should not be characterized as having affected any of the reporting student's examination results absent further verification.
Evidence. Recorded call and transcript, August 4, 2026: the reporting student's demonstration of the calculator returning one for two plus two, and the Elsevier representative's response attributing it to the legacy calculator, referencing prior known accuracy issues with it, and committing to raise it with the product manager.
Reported statement.
If I go into the calculator and I hit 2 plus 2, it comes out with one. [Elsevier representative:] That might be the old calculator. There was some issues with it not working accurately.
Standards. 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including oversight of vendors delivering core academic functions). This entry is logged primarily as vendor quality assurance evidence supporting the broader pattern of Elsevier and ProctorU technical defects documented in this tracker, rather than as an independent violation.
Impact. Minimal direct impact on the reporting student, since the defect was observed in a compatibility check rather than a scored examination and the vendor states the live calculator is a different build. The entry is retained as pattern evidence of vendor software quality issues affecting the examination platform, and as a prompt to verify that the calculator used in the reporting student's accommodated examinations is in fact the updated build.
Notes. Recommend requesting written confirmation from Elsevier or Herzing that the calculator delivered in the reporting student's scored examinations is the updated build, and that no prior examination he sat used the defective legacy calculator. This has not been verified.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: Recorded video call, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who joined near the end of the call; transcript provided by the reporting student. Speaker attribution in the automated transcript is inconsistent and the same speaker is labeled variously; the substance is clear but individual lines should be attributed by reference to the underlying recording rather than to transcript speaker labels.
Cross-References: HU-185 (secure browser security defects observed on the same call), HU-175 (accessibility failure cluster and August 4, 2026 root cause finding).
HU-195: On August 10, 2026, the reporting student was launched into an exam that Elsevier confirmed was not the exam he was scheduled to take, and screen magnification and the text reader failed again even though Herzing had represented on August 4, 2026 that the newer secure browser resolved that failure
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED. Elsevier's own representative confirmed in writing that the exam launched was not the original exam |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Wrong Examination Launched by Vendor; Recurrence of Accessibility Failure After Represented Fix; Cumulative Exam Scheduling Pressure | Date added | 2026-08-11 |
| Owner | Elsevier/HESI (Thomas Kistner, Meazure Learning coordination) / Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs) | ||
Finding. On August 10, 2026, the reporting student attempted a scheduled exam and reported that the system started him at question one rather than allowing him to resume, and that screen zoom and the audio text reader malfunctioned, with the reader stopping after a single word. He submitted a video recording demonstrating that the command-plus zoom shortcut did not work. Thomas Kistner, Elsevier's Customer Advocate, confirmed in writing that the exam the reporting student had been launched into was not his original scheduled exam, and separately confirmed that the reporting student's slow keys setting remained disabled, consistent with the settings verified during the August 4, 2026 troubleshooting call documented in HU-175. The reporting student noted the exams may have been scheduled in reverse and stated this recurrence directly contradicts Herzing's August 4, 2026 representation, following that same troubleshooting call, that the newer secure browser had resolved the zoom and accessibility failure, with no indication a different, unfixed browser build was in use. The reporting student further stated that as a result of the accumulating disruptions he now faced four exams in the following two weeks alongside a virtual clinical make up and normal coursework, that he would not overwhelm himself by attempting multiple exams in the same week, and that he would not complete exams during the scheduled student break. In a same day follow up email, the reporting student told Dr. Laban and Kistner that if the issue was not resolved his upcoming final exams, worth a significant portion of his grade, would need to be pushed back, potentially into the following semester. Dr. Laban responded that she was working internally with the team to investigate and would follow up the next day.
Evidence. Email, the reporting student to Dr. Laban, Emilie Thompson, ADA, cc Thomas Kistner and Dr. Prashad, August 10, 2026, subject Exam, with an attached video recording (20260810_104632.mp4) demonstrating the failed zoom attempt. Email, Thomas Kistner, August 10, 2026: confirmation that the reporting student's exam session was investigated with Meazure Learning and that the exam launched was not the original exam, and confirmation that slow keys remained disabled. Email, the reporting student, same date: statement that the exams may have been scheduled in reverse and continued inability to zoom or use the text reader. Email, the reporting student to Dr. Laban, Thomas Kistner, ADA, and Emilie Thompson, subject Follow Up, August 10, 2026: statement that without a resolution his final exams would need to be pushed back and might roll into the following semester, and that he would not test during the student break. Email, Dr. Laban, same date: acknowledgment that she was investigating internally and would follow up the next day.
Reported statement.
Correct, the exam you launched into was not the original exam. [Thomas Kistner, Elsevier, Aug 10, 2026] ... I am still unable to zoom in or out or have the text reader work. [the reporting student, Aug 10, 2026]
Standards. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12181 et seq., are implicated by the recurrence of the accessibility failure. This entry is significant chiefly because it directly contradicts the resolution Herzing represented on August 4, 2026 in the correspondence underlying HU-175, that the newer secure browser resolved the zoom and text reader failure. A representation that a fix has been implemented, followed by an unexplained recurrence of the identical failure under the same verified settings, undermines reliance on that representation and should be treated as an open, unresolved defect rather than a resolved one going forward. The wrong exam launch is a separate administrative/technical control failure implicating 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable vendor oversight).
Impact. The reporting student was unable to complete a scheduled exam due to a vendor error in exam assignment, and separately experienced a recurrence of the accessibility failure that Herzing had represented as fixed six days earlier. The cumulative effect, four exams in two weeks, an unresolved accessibility failure, and a stated need to push final exams into the following semester, places the reporting student's academic progression at risk for reasons entirely attributable to vendor and institutional failures rather than his own performance.
Notes. Recommend requesting a written, technical explanation from Elsevier of how a student can be launched into an exam other than the one scheduled, and whether this reflects a systemic scheduling defect beyond the reporting student's account. Recommend also requesting written confirmation of whether the new secure browser fix represented on August 4, 2026 was in fact in use during this August 10, 2026 attempt; if it was and still failed, that materially changes the reliability of Herzing's proposed remediation for HU-175.
Student: The reporting student.
Source Group: Email thread, subject Exam, between the reporting student, Thomas Kistner (Elsevier/HESI Customer Advocate), Dr. Danielle Laban, Emilie Thompson, and ADA, cc Dr. Raywattie Prashad, August 10, 2026; and email thread, subject Follow Up, between the reporting student, Thomas Kistner, and Dr. Danielle Laban, August 10, 2026.
Cross-References: HU-175 (the accessibility failure cluster; this entry directly contradicts the August 4, 2026 resolution documented there and should be read as a continuation), HU-187 (cumulative examination scheduling compression), HU-192 (related materials access dispute in the same period), HU-197 (the September 2026 asthma related exam scheduling dispute that follows this same compressed schedule).
See also
- Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations
- Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records
- Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process
- Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms
- Herzing Issues: Financial Aid
- Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations
- Herzing University Issue Tracker