Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records

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: Grading and Academic Records collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern grading practices, grade changes, exam weighting, and the accuracy of academic records. 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 covers seventeen tracker entries dated from April 30, 2026 through July 17, 2026, though the underlying evidence spans further back, including Facebook posts and gradebook screenshots from late 2024 and early 2025. Four entries are rated Critical (HU-045, HU-045a, HU-074, HU-083), eight are rated High (HU-045b, HU-057, HU-088, HU-118, HU-124, HU-126, HU-159, HU-168c), and five are rated Medium (HU-012, HU-099, HU-101, HU-164e, HU-180). Fifteen entries are CONFIRMED and two (HU-012 and HU-164e) remain POSSIBLE, meaning they are reported concerns pending further verification.

One recurring thread is the escalation of HESI exam weighting and structure across cohorts: HU-074 traces HESI weighting rising from roughly 20 percent to 82 percent of a course grade over about eighteen months, HU-083 documents the elimination of the Milestones retake system in September 2024 alongside that escalation, HU-088 documents HESI content that students and faculty say does not match what was taught, and HU-101 documents a further change adding two more graded HESI exams in the final semester for the Spring 2026 cohort. A second thread concerns individual grading and appeal failures owned by specific faculty and administrators: HU-045 and its sub-issues HU-045a and HU-045b cover an ungraded makeup clinical and a failed escalation to the Dean, HU-118 covers a zero issued for a screenshot formatting problem later shown to be an unclear instruction, HU-124 covers a faculty member deducting points for reference links that were actually present in the submission, and HU-126 covers a quiz deadline set 23 hours earlier than announced. A third thread concerns the integrity of academic records themselves: HU-012 flags seven or more simultaneous grade changes with no explanation, HU-168c documents a 69 percentage point course grade drop captured in two screenshots 15 seconds apart, and HU-159 and HU-180 together document an official transcript grade of A in NSG 521 that later became a B on an unofficial transcript, along with the multi step grade change process that may partly explain how that happened.

The owners named across these entries recur consistently: the Program Chair, the Dean of Nursing or Dean of Prelicensure Nursing, and Academic Affairs appear on more than half the entries, with named faculty (Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Stacey Gombar, Dr. Tanetshia Brown, Dr. Kellie Soles, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN) and the Office of the Registrar appearing on the remainder. Two entries (HU-012 and HU-164e) are reported concerns rather than confirmed findings and are worded accordingly below.

Issues

HU-012: Seven+ NSG520 assignment grades changed simultaneously within a 5-minute window on October 14, 2025 with no documented explanation

Severity	Medium	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Grading Transparency	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	NSG520 Faculty / Program Chair

Finding. According to the tracker, seven or more NSG520 assignment grades were changed simultaneously within a five minute window on October 14, 2025, with no documented explanation on record.

Evidence. Seven or more "Grade Changed" notification emails for NSG520 Pathophysiology and Pharmacology, all re-graded between 4:03 PM and 4:08 PM on October 14, 2025. Source group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

Reported statement. The tracker's evidence consists of seven successive grade-change notifications for NSG520 assignments, all re-graded within that same five minute window.

Standards. ACEN Standard 4: grading policies must be communicated clearly and applied consistently. Mass simultaneous retroactive grade changes without documented rationale or student notification are a transparency concern.

Impact. Without documented rationale, students and accreditors cannot verify whether the grade changes were appropriate, constituted a curve, corrected an error, or applied a policy change.

Notes. Could be a legitimate curve or error correction, but the simultaneous timing and absence of explanation requires verification.

HU-045: Lead: Student P failed Clinical I after a faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical that was submitted before the grade deadline, causing a failure by under three points and academic probation; escalation to the Dean produced no resolution; see HU-045a, HU-045b

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Lead / index for a split cluster (faculty grading failure, failed escalation)	Date added	2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Program Chair / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for a Clinical I failure reported by Student P (Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe, March 5, 2025). The tracked problems are HU-045a (a faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical submitted before final grades were due, producing a failure by under three points and academic probation) and HU-045b (escalation to the Dean and others produced no resolution, leaving the student without effective recourse). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

Evidence. Source group: multiple GroupMe archives, including Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (January to June 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (January to April 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

Notes. Split into lettered sub-issues on 2026-06-06. Existing references to HU-045 resolve here. Parts: HU-045a, HU-045b. Cross-references: HU-016 (unmonitored grade-appeal inbox).

HU-045a: A faculty member did not grade a makeup virtual clinical that was submitted before the grade deadline, causing a Clinical I failure by under three points and academic probation

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Faculty Non-Responsiveness / Course Failure	Date added	2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Program Chair / Dean of Nursing

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, Student P reported that she had to make up a virtual clinical, that the makeup fell the day before final grades were due, and that her professor did not respond to or grade the assignment, which caused her to fail Clinical I by less than three points and be placed on academic probation.

Evidence. Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (March 5, 2025), Student P. Source group: Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe.

Reported statement. Student P states that she failed the class because she had to make up a virtual clinical that fell the day before final grades were due, and that her professor did not respond to or grade her assignment, which caused her to fail by less than three points.

Standards. ACEN Standard 4 (timely faculty feedback and fair grading); Handbook page 20 (grade-appeal procedures); institutional duty of fair grading: when work is submitted before the deadline and a faculty member does not grade it before grades are due, a resulting failure is attributable to institutional failure. Lead: HU-045.

Impact. The student failed a clinical course, was placed on academic probation, and had to repeat an entire clinical course because a timely submission was not graded before the deadline.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-045 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

HU-045b: Escalation to the Dean and others produced no resolution, leaving the student without effective recourse after the grading failure

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Administrative Non-Response / Lack of Recourse	Date added	2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, after the failure the student reported reaching out to everyone, including the Dean, and that nothing was done. Combined with an unmonitored grade-appeal channel, the non-response left the student without effective recourse.

Evidence. Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (March 5, 2025), Student P. Source group: Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe.

Reported statement. Student P states that she reached out to everyone, including the Dean, and that nothing was done.

Standards. ACEN Standard 4 and Handbook page 20 (grade-appeal procedures must be accessible and responsive). A lack of response to a direct escalation, alongside an unmonitored appeals inbox, removes effective recourse. Lead: HU-045. See HU-016 (unmonitored grade-appeal inbox).

Impact. A student facing an erroneous failure had no functioning channel to obtain review, which compounded the underlying grading failure.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-045 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Cross-reference HU-016.

HU-057: Identical Sherpath lessons assigned in both Clinical II (NSG525) and Medical Surgical Nursing I (NSG523) with same due date but different grading schemes (Pass/Fail vs. Scored)

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Duplicate Assignment Across Courses / Grading Inconsistency	Date added	2026-05-04
Owner	Program Chair / Curriculum Director / Elsevier (Sherpath)

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, identical Sherpath lessons, including "Professional Nursing Practice and Its Influences," "Patient-Centered Care and Interprofessional Partnerships," and "Safety, Quality Improvement, Informatics, and Evidence-Based Practice" (all Chapter 1, Professional Nursing), appear as required graded assignments in both Clinical II (NSG525-7E) and Medical Surgical Nursing I (NSG523-7E) at the same time, with the same due date (May 10, 2026) but different grading schemes: Pass/Fail in NSG525 and Scored in NSG523.

Evidence. Screenshot of the Sherpath course plan for Clinical II (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16 (2026-05-04): three lessons from Chapter 1, all due May 10, 2026, graded Pass/Fail. Screenshot of the Sherpath course plan for Medical Surgical Nursing I (NSG523-7E), 2026 Summer C16: the same three lessons, all due May 10, 2026, graded Scored; NSG523 additionally contains a 50 question Adaptive EAQ not present in NSG525. Source group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).

Reported statement. The Sherpath screenshots confirm identical lesson titles listed as required assignments in both NSG525-7E and NSG523-7E, with identical due dates of May 10, 2026, but different grading designations.

Standards. ACEN Standard 4: course content must be accurately described and consistently applied. ACEN Standard 5: workload assigned must be appropriate to credit hours. 34 CFR 600.2 (credit hour definition): credit hours must reflect a reasonable approximation of work expected per unit of credit.

Impact. Students enrolled in both NSG525 and NSG523 in Summer C16 are required to complete the same three Sherpath lessons twice, once for a Pass/Fail grade and once for a Scored grade, without doubling learning. The duplicate assignment structure compounds the risk that a platform failure will cause double credit loss.

Notes. This issue compounds HU-041 (Sherpath chronic platform failures) and HU-044 (Sherpath teaching incorrect content). The duplicate structure may be a Sherpath course configuration error rather than an intentional curriculum decision.

HU-074: HESI exam grade weighting escalated mid-program: 45% in Fall 2024 to 75% in late 2024 to 82% in 2025 cohort Pharmacology (gradebook screenshot evidence: 1,700 of 2,059 total points)

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Mid-Program Grade Weighting Escalation	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Program Chair / Academic Affairs

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, the weight of HESI and final exams in MSN-DE course grades was progressively escalated mid-program without prospective student notification: from approximately 20 percent early in the program, to 45 percent by October 2024, to 75 percent as reported in September 2024, to 82 percent shown in a Spring 2025 Pharmacology gradebook screenshot with HESI exams worth 1,700 of 2,059 total points. Students who enrolled with one grading expectation are being graded under materially different and increasingly unforgiving rules.

Evidence. A Facebook post from an anonymous member (September 9, 2024) reported that exams and HESI would soon be worth 75 percent of grades. A student pseudonymously identified as Student H (October 25, 2024) reported disagreeing with a new grade weight policy raising final exams to 45 percent of grade in each course. Another student, Student BL (October 20, 2024), said the school could surely do a better job prepping students for the HESI final exam that is worth 45 percent of the grade. Student D (February 20, 2025) posted a screenshot of the Pharmacology Canvas gradebook showing 2,059 total points for the class, with exams (HESI) accounting for 1,700 of those points: HESI exam 1 worth 450 points, HESI exam 2 worth 450 points, and the HESI final worth 800 points, for a total of 82 percent of the course grade, from a student in the cohort that started January 6, 2025. Student N (February 15, 2025) noted variability, believing HESI was 20 percent for some courses and 45 percent for Med Surg. An anonymous Facebook post (April 7, 2026) reported HESI at 40 percent of the entire grade at the Clarksville and Nashville campus. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

Reported statement. Student D's gradebook screenshot documents that of the 2,059 total points for the Pharmacology course, exams (HESI) account for 1,700 of those points, with HESI exam 1 at 450 points, HESI exam 2 at 450 points, and the HESI final at 800 points, meaning HESI exams made up 82 percent of the course grade for the cohort that started January 6, 2025.

Standards. 34 CFR 668.43 (disclosure requirements): material program characteristics, including grading structure, must be disclosed before enrollment; mid-program escalation of HESI weighting is a material change. ACEN Standard 4: assessment policies must be consistently applied. The HU-064 retroactive supersession framework provides the institution with claimed authority for these mid-program changes, but does not address the fundamental disclosure issue. ACEN Standard 4.6 (academic integrity): when 82 percent of a course grade depends on a single externally administered exam and the same exam questions are documented to be circulating on third-party platforms (HU-026, HU-037, HU-051, HU-078), the integrity of the entire grading system depends on exam security that is demonstrably compromised.

Impact. Students who enrolled with the original, lower HESI weighting (e.g., 20-30%) and made tuition or loan commitments based on that structure are now subject to grading frameworks where 75 to 82 percent of their course grade depends on a single high-stakes exam, with course failure and no meaningful remediation possible if they underperform. This compounds the harm of HU-030 (ProctorU false-flag exam zeros), HU-034 (ProctorU technical failures), and HU-052 (IT ticket closure before appeal), all of which can now drive course failure and loan default for institutional reasons. The 82 percent weighting in Pharmacology means a single technical or proctoring failure on the 800-point HESI final is mathematically unrecoverable for that course. Combined with HU-060 ($500 retake fee), the cumulative financial exposure for an institutionally caused failure is significant.

Notes. The grade weighting escalation appears to have occurred without prospective student notification or documentation in original enrollment materials. The progression from roughly 20 to 30 percent up to 82 percent over approximately eighteen months represents a substantial change in academic policy. Verification: review MSN-DE syllabi from each cohort to document the actual grade weighting at time of enrollment compared to the weighting applied at course completion. The Student D gradebook screenshot is the strongest single piece of evidence and should be preserved for any external review. This issue compounds HU-010 (exit exam benchmarks changeable at any time) and HU-064 (retroactive supersession framework).

HU-083: Milestones assessment regime eliminated September 2024 with no retake option; finals escalated to 45%; enrolled students never consented to this fundamental restructuring

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Mid-Program Assessment Regime Elimination	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Program Chair / Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, in September 2024 Herzing eliminated the Milestone exam system that had been in place since the program's inception and replaced it with a system in which course finals, high-stakes HESI exams, count for 45 percent of the overall course grade with no retake option. Students who enrolled under the Milestone system, which allowed up to three retakes, were subjected to the new high-stakes, no-retake final system mid-program. Multiple students independently expressed a preference for the prior Milestone system. This change materially restructured the conditions under which students were enrolled.

Evidence. A student pseudonymously identified as Student U (December 13, 2024) reported that Milestones no longer existed as of September 2024, and that for certain courses finals had been raised to 45 percent. An anonymous member, identified only as member 946 (December 13, 2024), reported that Milestones and the retest option were both gone, describing a score of 750 on the pathophysiology HESI against 1,020 on fundamentals, and noting content on the pathophysiology HESI that had never been covered. Another anonymous member (March 24, 2025) said the Milestones process had been much better than the new one and called the 45 percent final weighting excessive. Student N (March 31, 2025) called the HESI exams poorly aligned with preparation. Student BL (February 4, 2025) referenced finals being 45 percent of grades, and Student N (February 12, 2025) noted that with a 45 percent HESI exam, a student needs those 30 points. Student CH (March 20, 2025) explained that a student could enter the final HESI with an A and still risk failing or barely passing the course if that single exam went poorly, since any grade under 80 is failing. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

Reported statement. Student U states that Milestones no longer existed as of September 2024, and that for certain courses the finals had been raised to 45 percent. The anonymous member identified as member 946 states that Milestones and the retest option were both gone, describing a score of 750 on the pathophysiology HESI against 1,020 on fundamentals, and noting content on the pathophysiology HESI that had never been covered.

Standards. 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation): students enrolled under a specific grading structure have a reasonable expectation that structure will remain in place; material changes to grading scheme without adequate notice or consent constitute a misrepresentation risk. Contract law principles in higher education (Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410, 7th Cir. 1992): student enrollment constitutes a contract with the institution, and material changes to assessment structure mid-enrollment may breach that contract. ACEN Standard 4: assessment instruments must be fair, consistent, and aligned with course content. The lack of a retake option is significant, since the prior Milestone system allowed up to three retakes, acknowledging that a single exam may not reflect student competency, while the new system provides zero remediation opportunity.

Impact. Students who were enrolled under the Milestone system with retakes faced an immediate and irreversible change to their academic standing requirements. Students who scored below the HESI threshold without the option to retake faced course failure with no remediation path. The member identified as 946 failed the pathophysiology HESI citing content never covered, direct evidence that curriculum-assessment misalignment, combined with the no-retake policy, caused a student failure that would not have occurred under the prior system. Student CH's account illustrates that a single bad exam day can erase an entire semester of strong performance.

Notes. This issue compounds HU-074 (HESI weighting escalation) significantly. HU-074 documented the percentage escalation; HU-083 documents the simultaneous elimination of the retake safety net. Together these constitute a two-part restructuring that dramatically increased the consequences of a single poor exam performance. The petition movement (F68/HU-093) is directly attributable to this change. Cross-reference: HU-074 (HESI weight escalation), HU-076 (curriculum-assessment misalignment), HU-090 (HESI covers untaught content).

HU-088: HESI final examinations cover content not taught in courses; documented across multiple cohorts with direct student testimony and faculty acknowledgment

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Curriculum-Assessment Misalignment	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Program Chair / Curriculum Committee / Faculty

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, multiple independent student accounts across multiple cohorts documented that HESI final examinations test content that was not taught in the corresponding courses. A student pseudonymously identified as Student D (February 14, 2025) reported that instructors themselves say they are not aware of how HESI test content is developed, so the material students are assigned does not match the material they are tested on. Sherpath was separately documented as teaching content unrelated to what HESI actually tests.

Evidence. Student D (February 14, 2025, 19 reactions) reported that instructors are not aware of how the HESI test content is developed, at least as instructors themselves describe it, and that the material students are assigned does not match the material tested on HESI. The anonymous member identified as member 946 (December 13, 2024) reported content on the pathophysiology HESI that had never been covered. Another anonymous member (March 13, 2025) reported finding incorrect content in Sherpath and being told simply to report it, and stated that the HESI exams have nothing to do with what is taught in Sherpath. Student AV (February 16, 2025) reported that HESI tests material not covered in class. An anonymous member (April 3, 2026), after scoring over 1,300 on an exit exam, expressed surprise that the exam covered material the cohort had not learned. Student B (March 24, 2025) reported that RealizeIt does not prepare students for HESI and barely prepares them for in-class exams. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

Reported statement. Student D states that instructors are not aware of how the HESI test content is developed, at least as instructors themselves describe it, and that the material students are assigned does not match the material they are tested on in HESI. The member identified as 946 states there was content on the pathophysiology HESI never covered in class. Another anonymous member states that the HESI exams have nothing to do with what is taught in Sherpath.

Standards. ACEN Standard 4: curriculum and assessment must be aligned, and examinations must assess content students were taught. Standard assessment practice in higher education requires that high-stakes examinations be constructed from course content objectives. Faculty reportedly acknowledging they are not aware of how HESI test content is developed, while that test constitutes 45 to 82 percent of the course grade, constitutes a fundamental curriculum design failure. 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation): marketing a course as teaching nursing content while administering exams on different content misrepresents what students receive for their tuition.

Impact. Students who master all course content may still fail HESI exams because the exams test content not covered in the course, making failure a product of curriculum-assessment misalignment rather than student incompetence. This is illustrated by the student who scored over 1,300 yet still expressed surprise at untaught content. The pattern creates a situation where only students who self-source external resources (YourBestGrade, NAXLEX, Simple Nursing, Bootcamp) are positioned to pass, effectively requiring additional paid resources to compensate for curriculum-assessment misalignment. This compounds HU-078 (systematic external resource reliance) and HU-074 (high HESI weighting).

Notes. Faculty reportedly acknowledging they do not know how HESI content is developed is a critical program design failure. An institution using a third-party examination as 45 to 82 percent of course grade has a responsibility to either teach to the examination content or disclose that the examination tests beyond course content and provide preparation accordingly. Neither is occurring, per the tracker's evidence. Cross-reference: HU-074 (HESI weight escalation), HU-076 (Realizeit format mismatch), HU-044 (Sherpath incorrect content), HU-083 (Milestones elimination and no retake).

HU-099: Discussion board "3 separate calendar days" posting rule results in zero credit for substantively correct posts submitted on same day; arbitrary procedural rule driving grade deductions independent of content quality

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Arbitrary Procedural Grading Rule	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Faculty / Program Chair / Academic Affairs

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, discussion board assignments in the MSN-DE program require an initial response and two peer replies on three separate calendar days within the assignment window, typically Sunday through Wednesday. Posts made on only two days, even if all content requirements are met and every post is substantively correct, receive zero credit for the timing violation. The rule is enforced even when students are unaware of it and even when the content of all posts fully complies with assignment requirements.

Evidence. A student pseudonymously identified as Student D (July 10, 2025) warned that posting the required content only at 11:30 PM and 11:59 PM the same night would not earn credit. Student D (March 8, 2026) clarified the rule: an initial post responding to the week's prompt must be posted by 11:59 PM Central time each Wednesday, followed by two peer replies, with all posts required to be on separate days, calling the rule complete busy work. Student D (July 10, 2025) separately noted that Herzing makes concessions elsewhere, allowing appeals, makeups, and countless extensions, while enforcing the three-day posting rule strictly. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

Reported statement. Student D states that posting required content only at 11:30 PM and 11:59 PM the same night will not earn credit, and separately describes the three-separate-days requirement as complete busy work.

Standards. 34 CFR 600.2 (credit hour): grading criteria must reflect academic achievement. A rule that awards zero credit for substantively correct posts submitted on two days rather than three conflates procedural compliance with academic achievement, penalizing students for timing rather than content quality. ACEN Standard 4: assessment instruments must measure learning outcomes, and a discussion board timing rule does not measure nursing knowledge, critical thinking, or clinical competency, but rather calendar management. Enforcing this rule strictly while allowing frequent makeups and extensions on other assignments creates an internally inconsistent enforcement posture that compounds the confusion documented in HU-031 (contradictory faculty guidance).

Impact. Students who complete all discussion content correctly but post on two days rather than three receive zero credit, the same grade as a student who submitted nothing. In a program where the overall passing threshold is 80 percent and a fraction of a point can mean a four-month delay (HU-095), a zero on a discussion board assignment for a timing violation rather than a content failure can be academically consequential. Students with unpredictable work schedules, the program's target demographic, are most harmed by a rule that requires precise calendar management across a narrow weekly window.

Notes. The three-day rule is characterized in the evidence as complete busy work, suggesting it does not advance learning objectives. The contrast between strict enforcement of the three-day posting rule and flexible enforcement of other deadlines reflects an inconsistent institutional approach to academic policy that undermines student trust in the grading system. Cross-reference: HU-012 (seven NSG520 grades changed simultaneously with no explanation), HU-016 (grade appeal unmonitored inbox), HU-095 (79.8 percent fails identically to 60 percent).

HU-101: HESI exam structure changed for Spring 2026 final semester: now three graded HESI exams (diagnostic, midpoint, exit) all counting toward course grade; prior cohorts had only exit HESI as grade-bearing; change not uniformly communicated across cohorts

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Mid-Program Assessment Structure Change / Cohort Inequity	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Program Chair / Curriculum Committee / NSG 635 Faculty

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, for the Spring 2026 cohort in NSG 635 (Integration of Concepts, the final semester), Herzing added two additional graded HESI exams, a diagnostic HESI and a midpoint HESI, alongside the existing exit HESI. Prior cohorts had the diagnostic and midpoint as ungraded gauges of readiness, with only the exit HESI determining pass or fail. The exit HESI still requires a score of 900 or higher to graduate; failure results in repeating the entire 16-week course.

Evidence. Handle 10 (February 12, 2026) reported that the final semester now has three HESI exams, diagnostic, midpoint, and exit, all being added to the overall grade. Student B (February 13, 2026) confirmed the change, stating that grades in the gradebook now reflect scores on all three, and described semester five as HESI exit exam prep requiring a baseline HESI, a midpoint HESI, and then the final exit exam. An anonymous member identified as member 835 (February 12, 2026) initially reported understanding that only the final exit HESI counted, contradicted by students actually in the course. Handle 11 (February 12, 2026) confirmed the exit HESI must be over 900 to graduate, or the student repeats the entire class. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes (Volume 7).

Reported statement. Handle 10 states that in the last semester there are now three HESI exams, diagnostic, midpoint, and exit, all being added to the overall grade. Student B separately observes that Herzing is known for changing things from semester to semester and cohort to cohort.

Standards. 34 CFR 668.71-75 (misrepresentation): students who enrolled with the understanding that only the exit HESI was grade-bearing in the final semester face a materially different grading structure than disclosed. Contract law principles (Ross v. Creighton University): material changes to grading structure mid-enrollment may breach the implicit enrollment agreement. ACEN Standard 4: assessment instruments must be consistently applied and clearly communicated. The cohort-to-cohort variation, acknowledged in the evidence as an institutional norm, documents a systemic policy inconsistency rather than a one-time adjustment. Students who sought advice from recently graduated alumni received inaccurate information because the grading structure had changed.

Impact. Students in the Spring 2026 cohort face a higher-stakes final semester than prior cohorts, with three graded HESI exams rather than one. Poor performance on the diagnostic or midpoint HESI, previously advisory, now directly affects the course grade. Students who relied on alumni advice about the final semester structure received incorrect information, potentially underpreparing. The confusion documented in the Facebook thread, with students currently in the course contradicting students who had already graduated from the same course, reflects the institutional inconsistency.

Notes. This issue extends HU-083 (Milestones elimination) and HU-074 (HESI weighting escalation), a continuing pattern of increasing HESI stakes across successive cohorts. Cross-reference: HU-010 (exit exam benchmark can change at any time), HU-088 (HESI covers untaught content), HU-083 (no retake option).

HU-118: Student AD received zero on Fundamentals I remediation packet for screenshot submission issue despite scoring 93 on exam; appeal denied; institution then issued revised screenshot with "student name" purple box indicator proving original instructions were unclear; multiple students affected; 10-point running grade impact

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Unclear Assignment Instructions / Post-Denial Instruction Revision	Date added	2026-05-07
Owner	NSG Faculty / Program Chair / Grade Appeal Committee

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, Student AD documented receiving a zero on the Fundamentals I remediation packet because of a screenshot submission issue, despite scoring 93 on the associated exam. The zero dropped her final grade 2.5 points and at the time caused a running 10-point grade drop. She appealed and was denied. For the second remediation, the institution then issued a revised screenshot that included a "student name" indicator in a purple box, a clarification absent from the original instructions. She noted she was not the only student affected and that she did not see her name on the completed screen, suggesting the requirement was not clearly displayed at the time of completion. The institution's post-denial revision of the very instructions at issue is treated in the tracker as implicit acknowledgment that the original instructions were unclear, even though the appeal had already been denied before that revision was made.

Evidence. GroupMe message from Student AD (April 28, 2026, 9:31 PM) describing a zero on the first remediation packet despite scoring 93 on the exam, a 2.5-point drop in final grade, an appeal that was denied, and a new screenshot for remediation 2 showing student name in a purple box that was not on the original instructions. The message received one sleepy or sad reaction from a cohort member. Source group: GroupMe, Herzing MSN-DE Cohort Chat (Student AD, April 28, 2026).

Reported statement. Student AD states that she got a zero on the first funds remediation packet over a screenshot despite scoring 93 on the exam, that she appealed and was denied, that remediation 2 then used a new screenshot showing student name in a purple box, and that the revised screenshot proved her point that the original instructions were unclear. She adds that she heard she was not the only one affected.

Standards. ACEN Standard 4: graded assignments must have clear, unambiguous instructions. An institution that issues a revised instruction screenshot with a new indicator after denying appeals based on the original screenshot has implicitly acknowledged the original instructions were deficient. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): grade appeal processes must be fair and consistent; denying an appeal for non-compliance with instructions and then revising those same instructions is procedurally inconsistent. Due process principles (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150, 5th Cir. 1961): students facing academic penalties have a right to fair notice of requirements, and penalizing students for not following instructions that were subsequently clarified denies them that fair notice. The pattern is consistent with HU-099 (discussion board three-day rule) and HU-095 (79.8 percent equals fail), where procedural or formatting compliance determines academic outcomes independent of content mastery.

Impact. Student AD experienced a 2.5 point final grade reduction and a 10-point running grade impact from a zero on a remediation packet she completed and scored 93 on the exam for, due to a screenshot formatting requirement subsequently clarified. Her denied appeal was never retroactively revisited despite the revised instructions. If other students were similarly affected, the zero-remediation-packet penalty for the same unclear screenshot requirement represents a systemic grade harm across multiple students that was never remediated. In a program where 0.2 percent can trigger a course retake (HU-095), a 2.5-point final grade deduction from a procedural technicality is academically significant.

Notes. The remediation packet requirement appears to be a graded assignment tied to the Fundamentals I course (NSG520 or equivalent). The screenshot requirement, likely requiring students to submit a screenshot showing completion with their name visible, was not clearly formatted in the original assignment. The institution's revision for remediation 2, adding a purple "student name" box, directly contradicts the denial of Student AD's appeal. Cross-reference HU-012 (seven NSG520 grades changed simultaneously with no explanation), HU-016 (grade appeal unmonitored inbox), HU-095 (fraction-of-a-point grade consequences), HU-099 (procedural compliance penalized over content quality).

HU-124: Faculty deducted points from the reporting student's NU725-7D discussion for not including working links; links were visibly present in the submission; Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN feedback says "please make certain all references have a working link" but all four reference URLs were submitted and visible in Canvas

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Faculty Grading Error / Points Deducted for Work Submitted	Date added	2026-05-11
Owner	Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN / NU725 Faculty

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student submitted three original discussion posts in NU725-7D Unit 1 (Legal and Ethical Issues in Technology) on May 5, 2026, between 5:05 and 5:09 AM, each containing properly formatted APA citations with hyperlinked URLs embedded directly in the Canvas submission. Four reference links were submitted and are visible in the Canvas screenshots, mapped by post as follows. Post 1 contained two references: HHS OCR (2023), a cybersecurity newsletter at [1], and Wasserman and Wasserman (2022), an article in Frontiers in Digital Health at [2]. Post 2 contained one reference: HHS OCR (2024), a cybersecurity newsletter at [3]. Post 3 contained one reference: Al Bahrani and Medhi (2023), an article in Cureus at [4]. On May 11, 2026 at 10:25 AM, Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN left feedback stating the student should make certain all references have a working link. Canvas displayed a "Re-submit Assignment" button, indicating points were deducted or grading withheld pending resubmission based on that feedback, even though all four reference URLs were submitted and are legitimate working links to government publications and peer-reviewed journals.

Evidence. Canvas screenshots of the reporting student's NU725-7D Unit 1 discussion posts (May 5, 2026, 5:05 to 5:09 AM) show the four reference links across three posts: Post 1, HHS OCR (2023) at [5] and Wasserman and Wasserman (2022) at [6]; Post 2, HHS OCR (2024) at [7]; Post 3, Al Bahrani and Medhi (2023) at [8]. Faculty feedback and a Canvas "Re-submit Assignment" button appear on the May 11, 2026 grading record. Source group: Canvas NU725-7D Discussion Posts and Faculty Feedback, the reporting student, May 5 to 11, 2026.

Reported statement.

Great information on unauthorized access. Please make certain all references have a working link please.

The submitted post, dated nine days earlier on May 5, 2026, contains four working links visible in the Canvas screenshots: the HHS OCR 2023 newsletter, the Wasserman 2022 DOI, the HHS OCR 2024 newsletter, and the Al Bahrani 2023 DOI, each shown as an active hyperlink in the submission.

Standards. ACEN Standard 4: assessment and grading must be accurate and based on submitted work. Deducting points or withholding grades on the basis that links were not submitted, when those links are visibly present in the Canvas submission, is a factual grading error. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): grading processes must accurately reflect what was submitted. Due process principles in academic grading hold that a student must not be penalized for failing to do something they demonstrably did. The May 11 feedback is factually incorrect as applied to this submission, since the links were present in the post as submitted on May 5, 2026.

Impact. Points were deducted from a discussion post that fully complied with the reference link requirement. The resubmission workflow required the reporting student to spend additional time correcting a problem that did not exist in his submission. If a resubmission was required and not made before any applicable deadline, he risked a zero or reduced grade for work correctly submitted. In a program where fractions of a point can trigger a four-month delay (HU-095), grade deductions for submitted work constitute a material academic harm. The feedback also raises a concern about whether faculty are reviewing student submissions before posting feedback.

Notes. Additional facts from the weekly report for the week ending May 17, 2026: the reporting student emailed Dr. Hart-Flynn on Monday and again on Wednesday with no response, and she did not respond until after that week's discussion post deadline had passed. When she finally responded, her explanation was that the security on her computer prevented her from opening the link, which confirms the links existed and were submitted, attributes the grading error to her own computer settings rather than any deficiency in the student's submission, and reflects faculty non-responsiveness that prevented the reporting student from correcting any perceived issue within the submission window. Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN is a newly identified faculty member for NU725-7D. All four submitted URLs are verifiable published sources. Cross-reference: HU-016 (grade appeal unmonitored inbox), HU-045 (faculty non-responsiveness), HU-095 (grade consequences), HU-118 (Student AD zero for unclear instructions).

HU-126: NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review Quiz deadline was 12:59 AM Sunday morning, not 11:59 PM Sunday evening as announced; students flagged as late; the reporting student unable to retake after grade correction because quiz closed before correction was applied

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Incorrect Assignment Deadline / Non-Standard Due Time Causing Late Flags	Date added	2026-05-12
Owner	Dr. Heather Gregg / Dr. Stacey Gombar / NSG525 Faculty

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, the NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review Quiz was set with a due time of 12:59 AM early Sunday morning, not 11:59 PM Sunday evening as announced and as is standard throughout the program. As a result, students were caught off guard and flagged as late for missing the non-standard 12:59 AM deadline, and when Dr. Gregg applied the manual grade correction for duplicate answer coding errors, the quiz had already closed under the 12:59 AM deadline, locking the reporting student out of his remaining attempts before the correction was posted. Dr. Gregg confirmed the coding errors affected all sections and were unintentional, and noted the reporting student's score of 57.5 includes the manual corrections.

Evidence. Email from the reporting student to Dr. Gregg (May 2026) documenting the mismatched deadline and the resulting late flags. Email from Dr. Gregg confirming that two coding errors were identified in the NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review quiz, that the errors were unintentional and affected all sections, and that the student's current score of 57.5 already includes the manual credit adjustments for those questions. Source group: email chain, the reporting student to Dr. Gregg and Dr. Gombar, May 2026; NSG525 Week 1 quiz Canvas deadline documentation.

Reported statement.

For some reason this assignment was due at 12:59 AM early Sunday morning not 11:59 Sunday evening. This was not the announcement. The announcement notes Wed and Sunday at 11:59. Throughout the program, everything was due Sunday evening at 11:59 PM. So many students were caught off guard that they have now been flagged as late.

Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must ensure that assignment deadlines are accurately set and consistent with announced due dates. ACEN Standard 4: assessments must be administered under fair and consistent conditions. A quiz deadline set for 12:59 AM Sunday, 23 hours earlier than the announced 11:59 PM Sunday deadline and inconsistent with every other assignment in the program, is an administrative error that caused students to be flagged as late through no fault of their own and caused the quiz to close before the grade correction was applied, eliminating remaining retake attempts. The combination of a coding error in quiz answers (HU-112) and a deadline coding error in the same quiz constitutes compounding administrative failures in a single assessment.

Impact. Students flagged as late for the NSG525 Week 1 quiz due to the 12:59 AM deadline error face late submission penalties. The reporting student specifically was prevented from using his remaining attempts (out of 10 allowed) after the grade correction was applied, because the quiz had already closed under the non-standard deadline. His final score of 57.5, after manual corrections, reflects the remaining questions he missed, but he was denied the opportunity to improve that score with the benefit of knowing which duplicate-answer questions would be corrected. The interaction between the deadline error and the coding error created a situation where the grade correction came too late to be useful.

Notes. This issue is distinct from HU-112 (duplicate answer coding errors) but directly compounds it. The quiz had two simultaneous errors: wrong answer choices (HU-112) and wrong deadline (HU-126). Combined with HU-125 (accommodation blocked), these three issues in the same assessment create a comprehensive access and fairness failure for the reporting student in Week 1. Dr. Gregg's explanation that faculty from different courses were responding to the same email thread (Dr. Gombar for NSG621, Dr. Gregg for NSG525) also adds to the confusion, with students receiving multiple emails about different courses from different faculty without clear course identification. Cross-reference: HU-112 (NSG525 quiz coding errors), HU-125 (accommodation blocked), HU-099 (three-day posting rule timing), HU-031 (contradictory faculty guidance).

HU-159: Official Herzing transcript dated 04/23/2026 documented a grade of A in NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment and a 4.00 cumulative GPA; a later Unofficial Transcript dated 06/05/2026 shows that grade changed to a B with the cumulative GPA dropped to 3.75; the A-to-B grade change is now CONFIRMED by the before-and-after transcripts; FERPA and grade-change-process concern; same course as the denied Fundamentals final retake (HU-155)

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED (grade change from A to B documented by before-and-after transcripts: Official 04/23/2026 showed A and 4.00 GPA; Unofficial 06/05/2026 shows B and 3.75 GPA)
Issue type	Grade Change After Official Transcript Documented an A (NSG 521) / Records Integrity	Date added	2026-06-05
Owner	Office of the Registrar / Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / NSG 521 Course Faculty

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student's Official Academic Transcript, dated 04/23/2026 and bearing the Office of the Registrar seal, documents that for the 2026 Spring term (01/05/26 to 04/22/26) he earned a grade of A in NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment (5.00 credits, 4.00 quality points), along with an A in NSG 522 Clinical I, a Term GPA of 4.00, a Program GPA of 4.00, a Cumulative GPA of 4.00, and 37.00 total credits earned. An Unofficial Transcript dated 06/05/2026 shows NSG 521 with a grade of B and 15.00 quality points, a 2026 Spring Term GPA of 3.29, and a Cumulative GPA of 3.75. The two transcripts, issued roughly six weeks apart for the same closed 2026 Spring term, together document a grade change from A to B that lowered the cumulative GPA from 4.00 to 3.75. If the grade was changed after the term closed and after an official transcript documented an A, the change would need to be supported by a documented, properly noticed grade-change process. This course is the same NSG 521 whose RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam retake request was denied (HU-155), so the grade dispute and the final-exam dispute concern the same course.

Evidence. Official Academic Transcript, Herzing University (5218 East Terrace Drive, Madison, WI 53718; www.herzing.edu/online), Office of the Registrar, dated 04/23/2026: Student, the reporting student; Student ID [student ID redacted]; Original Start Date 9/3/2025; Program, Master of Science in Nursing; Cumulative GPA 4.00; 2026 Spring term shows NSG 521 (5.00 credits, grade A, 4.00 quality points) and NSG 522 Clinical I (2.00 credits, grade A, 4.00 quality points); Term GPA 4.00; Program GPA 4.00; Total Credits Earned 37.00; marked Official with registrar seal and signature. Per the Herzing grade scale on the transcript key, an A carries 4.00 quality points and a B carries 3.00 quality points, and graduate degrees require a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher. Unofficial Transcript, Herzing University, dated 06/05/2026: Student GPA 3.75; Term 2261 (2026 Spring) shows NSG 521 (5.00 credits, grade B, 15.00 quality points) and NSG 522 Clinical I (2.00 credits, grade A, 8.00 quality points); Term GPA 3.29; Cum GPA 3.75. The 06/05/2026 transcript also lists 2026 Summer courses in progress, named in full as NSG 523 Medical Surgical Nursing I, NSG 524 Mental Health Nursing, NSG 525 Clinical II, and NU 725 Technology and Nursing Informatics, along with a Fall 2025 CR 021 Clinical Readiness Pre-licensure Nursing course marked Pass. Source group: Official Academic Transcript, Herzing University, Office of the Registrar, dated 04/23/2026 (student-provided), compared against the student's report of a subsequent grade change in NSG 521.

Reported statement.

[Official Academic Transcript, 04/23/2026]: NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment, 5.00 credits, grade A, 4.00 quality points. Cumulative GPA: 4.00. Total Credits Earned: 37.00. [Unofficial Transcript, 06/05/2026]: NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment, 5.00 credits, grade B, 15.00 quality points. Cum GPA: 3.75.

The A on the 04/23/2026 Official transcript became a B on the 06/05/2026 transcript, and the cumulative GPA fell from 4.00 to 3.75.

Standards. FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99): students have the right to inspect their education records and to request amendment of records they believe are inaccurate, and to a hearing if an amendment request is denied; a grade reflected on an official transcript is an education record, and any change should be documented and explainable to the student. Institutional grade-change and grade-appeal policy (Prelicensure Student Handbook): grade changes after a grade is posted should follow a defined process with notice to the student and a stated basis. HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity): academic records must be accurate and fairly maintained. The transcript itself states that the record is official when it bears the Office of the Registrar seal and that alteration of the transcript may be a criminal offense; this entry does not allege improper alteration, but documents that an official record showed an A and that the student reports a later change to a B, which should be reconciled through the documented grade-change and FERPA amendment processes. Cross-reference HU-155 (NSG 521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam retake denied), HU-019 (NSG 521 testing-time accommodation), HU-156 (proctoring), HU-157 (CARES closure), HU-158 (decision-maker availability).

Impact. If the NSG 521 grade was changed from A to B after the official transcript documented an A, the change would lower the reporting student's quality points for a five-credit course from 20.0 (A) to 15.0 (B) and reduce his 4.00 cumulative GPA, affecting his academic standing in a graduate program that requires a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher and any honors or progression implications. A grade change made after an official transcript has issued, without a documented and properly noticed basis, raises records-integrity and FERPA concerns and undermines the reliability of the official record. Because the same course's final exam retake was denied (HU-155), the student is left with both a denied remedy and a disputed grade in the same foundational course.

Notes. The confirmed element is that the 04/23/2026 official transcript shows NSG 521 as an A with a cumulative GPA of 4.00. The A-to-B change is now confirmed by the Unofficial Transcript dated 06/05/2026 (NSG 521 as a B, cumulative GPA 3.75) compared against the Official Academic Transcript dated 04/23/2026. The changed grade (B) appears on an Unofficial Transcript while the A appears on the Official Academic Transcript. A remaining open question is who authorized the grade change, on what date, on what stated basis, and whether the student received notice and an opportunity to appeal. This transcript also serves as authoritative documentation of the reporting student's full record to date, including all A grades in Fall 2025 (NSG 520, NSG 633, NU 730, NU 780) and transfer credits in SC 186, SC 154, SC 166, SC 254, and MA 320. Course-name note: the transcript lists the course as NSG 521 Fundamental Concepts and Health Assessment, while HU-155 refers to the NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam, which is the final exam within this same course. Cross-reference: HU-155 (retake denied, same course), HU-019 (NSG 521 accommodation), HU-156, HU-157, HU-158. A possible follow-up noted in the tracker is to file a FERPA amendment request and a grade appeal if the change is confirmed and undocumented. Update (2026-07-17): HU-179 documents Dr. Franklin's letter confirming Dr. Black approved a retake of this same exam based on ProctorU's admission of fault, and HU-180 documents that Dr. Soles, the instructor of record, was not notified of an additional retake attempt and the resulting grade change, discovering it only by checking Elsevier herself. HU-180 also documents the multi-step grade-change process (an interim Incomplete grade, then a Canvas roll and registrar sync) that may partly explain how a transitional grade could have appeared on the 06/05/2026 unofficial transcript, which remains an open item to confirm rather than a settled explanation. Cross-reference HU-179, HU-180.

HU-164e: Reported failure to update the GPA after the grade appeal was approved, placing the reporter on Satisfactory Academic Progress status, with the correction again deferred to the advisor

Severity	Medium	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	GPA Not Updated After Appeal / Erroneous SAP Status (reported)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Registrar / Financial Aid / Academic Advising

Finding. According to the tracker, the reporter states that even after her grade appeal was approved, her GPA was never updated, which placed her on Satisfactory Academic Progress status. She states she was told to address the SAP and GPA issue with her advisor, who again directed her to file a grade appeal that was already approved. She states this was about three weeks after the approval and nearly two months after she filed the initial appeal.

Evidence. Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describes a GPA not updated after appeal approval, a resulting SAP status, and being redirected to the advisor and to an already-approved appeal to resolve it.

Reported statement. Reporter Student I states that her GPA was never updated, so she was placed on SAP, and that she was told to address it with her advisor.

Standards. Raises concerns under Satisfactory Academic Progress requirements (34 CFR 668.34) and administrative-capability and records-accuracy expectations (34 CFR 668.14), as well as HLC Criterion 2.A. A grade-appeal outcome that is not reflected in the student's GPA, leading to an erroneous SAP determination, is a records-integrity and financial-aid concern. Recorded for review. Lead: HU-164.

Impact. If accurate, an erroneous SAP status can carry financial-aid and standing consequences, and the reporter states the correction was delayed by repeated misdirection.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-164 (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

HU-168c: The NSG523 course grade dropped from 95.01% to 25.91%, approximately 69 percentage points, as documented in two Canvas dashboard screenshots taken 15 seconds apart at 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM on June 15, 2026, apparently during a grading event for the 100-point HESI Exam 1 assignment

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	69-Percentage-Point Course Grade Drop in 15 Seconds Observed in Sequential Screenshots	Date added	2026-06-15
Owner	Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Herzing LMS

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, two Canvas dashboard screenshots taken at 3:36:06 PM (Screenshot 3) and 3:36:21 PM (Screenshot 4) on June 15, 2026, show the NSG523-7E, 2262C16 (Medical Surgical Nursing I) course tile grade changing from 95.01 percent to 25.91 percent, a decrease of approximately 69.1 percentage points. The 15-second interval between the screenshots indicates this change occurred during a page refresh or live grading event while the reporting student was viewing his dashboard. The To-Do List in Screenshot 3 shows Unit 6, HESI Exam 1, listed as due 06/14 at 11:59 PM (100 points, overdue), and it no longer appears in Screenshot 4, which instead shows Recent Feedback for Unit 6, HESI Exam 1, confirming the grading event was for this specific assignment.

Evidence. Canvas submission screenshot for NSG523-7E Unit 6, HESI Exam 1 (June 15, 2026, 3:22 PM). Email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (June 15, 2026, 1:13 PM, marked High Importance). Canvas dashboard screenshots taken at 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM on June 15, 2026. HESI Assessment Results report (NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM). Provided by the reporting student.

Reported statement.

[Screenshot 3, 3:36:06 PM]: NSG523-7E 95.01%. [Screenshot 4, 3:36:21 PM]: NSG523-7E 25.91%.

Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and accurate academic records); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair and clearly stated academic standards). A 69-percentage-point course grade drop resulting from a 0 on the 100-point exam, an exam that was actually completed at the maximum conversion score of 99.99, is a high-impact grading event. The speed of the change, 15 seconds, observed directly by the student, documents the real-time impact on academic standing. Lead: HU-168.

Impact. A course grade of 25.91 percent in NSG523 places the student at risk of failing the course and may trigger academic-standing, SAP, and progression consequences if not resolved. The prior grade was 95.01 percent.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-168 (lead). Confirmed from two timestamped sequential screenshots. The dashboard also shows NSG524-7B at 73.12 percent and NSG525-7E at 94.19 percent in both screenshots, confirming only NSG523 changed. Documented 2026-06-15.

HU-180: Herzing's multi-step grade-change process, requiring an interim Incomplete grade before a Canvas roll and registrar sync, combined with a failure to notify the instructor of record of an additional NSG521 HESI retake attempt, caused confusion and delay in finalizing the reporting student's grade change

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Instructor of Record Not Notified of Additional Exam Retake; Multi-Step Grade Change Process Causes Delay and Confusion	Date added	2026-07-17
Owner	Dr. Kellie Soles (Faculty MSN-DE, instructor of record) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Nicole Franklin / Registrar Services

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, Dr. Prashad explained to the reporting student and Dr. Soles that to change a grade, Herzing must first issue an Incomplete, after which the grade is adjusted once that Incomplete shows in the system. A separate Student Services notice confirmed that an Incomplete had been processed for NSG521 and that the reporting student would regain Canvas access within five to six hours. The reporting student confirmed the Incomplete appeared on his transcript. Dr. Prashad further explained the change must then wait for a Canvas roll and registrar sync, approved by her in the HUB, taking approximately 48 to 72 hours; Dr. Soles later confirmed the grade had been updated in Canvas and the HUB. Separately, Dr. Soles explained that the reporting student took the Final HESI at the end of April, scored 748, and that she updated his grade from 58 percent to 85 percent based on that score. When the reporting student later followed up about a further change reflecting an A rather than a B for scholarship application purposes, Dr. Soles stated she had not been aware any additional change was needed. After his message, she checked Elsevier and discovered he appeared to have taken the Final HESI again at a later date, of which she had not been notified, and stated she would need to request renewed IT access to the gradebook to address it. The reporting student stated he was surprised that Dr. Soles, as instructor of record, had not been made aware of the retake, since he expected her to submit the resulting grade change. Dr. Prashad then stated the academic MSN-DE team, rather than the individual instructor, would handle the matter going forward.

Evidence. Email from Dr. Raywattie Prashad to the reporting student and Dr. Kellie Soles, subject "Re: Grade Change for NSG521," explaining the Incomplete-first process and the 48 to 72 hour Canvas roll and registrar sync timeline. Student Services email confirming an Incomplete was processed for NSG521 and that course access would return within five to six hours. Email from Dr. Kellie Soles to the reporting student and Dr. Prashad, subject "Grade Change," stating the reporting student scored 748 on a HESI retake at the end of April, that she updated his grade from 58 percent to 85 percent based on that score, and that after his follow-up message she checked Elsevier and found he appeared to have taken the Final HESI again at a later date without her having been notified. Email from the reporting student to Dr. Soles, Dr. Prashad, Dr. Franklin, Dr. Black, and Dr. Laban, stating he was notified on June 25 by Dr. Franklin that Dr. Black had approved his retake, that ProctorU admitted fault, that the retake changed his grade from a B to an A, and that he was surprised Dr. Soles as instructor of record was not made aware of this.

Reported statement.

I noticed it appears he may have taken the Final HESI again at a later date. I was not notified of an additional attempt, so I was unaware that another grade update might be needed.

Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable and consistent internal communication supporting accurate academic records) and HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including accurate and fairly maintained records). FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) supports a student's interest in accurate and promptly corrected education records. A grade-change process that permits an additional exam retake and resulting grade change to proceed without notice to the instructor of record who must certify or process that change risks inconsistent, delayed, or duplicated grade records, and directly parallels the unresolved question already flagged in HU-159 concerning who authorized a grade change and on what basis.

Impact. The reporting student stated he needed up to date grade information for scholarship applications and needed a timeframe for when the change would reach the registrar; the notification gap and multi-step process contributed to delay in that respect. The instructor's need to independently discover an additional retake and request renewed gradebook access also risks duplicated or inconsistent edits to the academic record, echoing the broader record-reliability concern already raised in HU-159 regarding the same course.

Notes. This entry may help partly explain the mechanism behind HU-159's open question, since a grade change requires an interim Incomplete before the new grade posts, which could account for a transitional grade appearing on an unofficial transcript pulled mid-process. Whether the B shown on the 06/05/2026 unofficial transcript documented in HU-159 was such a transitional artifact, or a separate and independent grade change, has not been confirmed and remains open. Recommend requesting a complete, dated grade-change audit trail for NSG521 from Registrar Services covering all exam attempts, scores, and grade postings. Cross-references: HU-159 (NSG521 grade change from A to B and the open question of who authorized it and on what basis, same course), HU-155 (original retake request denial), HU-179 (retake approval based on ProctorU's fault admission, same underlying exam).

See also

• Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process
• Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design
• Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing
• Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity
• Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing
• Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms
• Herzing University Issue Tracker