719
edits
Student Success and Academic Standing: Difference between revisions
Student Success and Academic Standing (view source)
Revision as of 09:12, February 28, 2023
, February 28, 2023→2. Appeals of Academic Evaluations
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
#If a satisfactory agreement with the instructor cannot be made, the student has five business days to appeal in writing to the program director and/or chair of the department granting credit for the course. The program director and/or chair of the department will forward the appeal in writing to the CAHP Conduct Officer for notification. | #If a satisfactory agreement with the instructor cannot be made, the student has five business days to appeal in writing to the program director and/or chair of the department granting credit for the course. The program director and/or chair of the department will forward the appeal in writing to the CAHP Conduct Officer for notification. | ||
#If a satisfactory agreement with the program director and/or chair of the department granting credit for the course cannot be made, the student may initiate a formal appeal. | #If a satisfactory agreement with the program director and/or chair of the department granting credit for the course cannot be made, the student may initiate a formal appeal. | ||
Stage II: Formal Appeal | |||
# The student must submit a formal written appeal to the CAHP Conduct Officer, who also serves as the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, no later than ten business days after the informal appeal process has been concluded. The written appeal should include a detailed account of the informal appeal procedures conducted as well as provide an account of the facts pertinent to the academic evaluation with the reasons why the student believes the academic evaluation is prejudiced or capricious. The formal written appeal should be as specific as possible and should include a request to appear personally before the Faculty-Student Appeals Committee if the student elects to do so. | |||
# The CAHP Conduct Officer will identify the chairperson and members of the Faculty-Student Appeals Committee within ten business days of receiving the formal written appeal. The CAHP Faculty-Student Appeals Committee will investigate and/or hear appeals involving academic evaluations in which a student can provide evidence that the evaluation was prejudiced or capricious. The Conduct Officer will assist the student in managing the procedural steps of the policy. | |||
# During the course of a formal appeal, the student is expected to successfully complete all program requirements and courses with final grades deemed satisfactory as defined by the program standards and course syllabus when relevant. Additionally, the student is expected to follow all college and program policies and procedures. | |||
# After receiving the student’s formal written appeal from the Conduct Officer, the chairperson will forward copies to all members of the committee and to any instructor involved. The committee will decide how to best handle the appeal. The committee may grant the student’s request for a hearing or may decide a closed investigation is appropriate. In appeals of evaluations potentially leading to an academic dismissal or suspension, the committee must grant a formal hearing if requested by the student. | |||
# The chairperson will request the instructor of the course submit the materials used in determining the challenged academic evaluation. Upon receiving the materials, the chairperson will forward copies to all members of the committee. The instructor will have an opportunity to present evidence and respond to any allegations of a prejudice or capricious assessment of an academic evaluation in writing or by interview as requested by the committee. The committee may also request the student supply additional clarification in writing or by interview. | |||
# If the committee schedules a formal hearing, any persons required to attend the hearing will be given reasonable notice (a minimum of ten business days) of the time and place. The committee chairperson will oversee the hearing proceedings. They will determine the order of presentation and the relevancy of any evidence submitted, and they will direct the questioning of any witnesses. It is their responsibility to ensure that the hearing is conducted in accordance with due process. | |||
# It is the student’s responsibility or burden of proof to show by the weight of the evidence that the academic evaluation was prejudiced or capricious. The student may use any evidence deemed proper including affidavits, exhibits, and witness testimonies. It is the student’s responsibility to gather and submit all evidence presented in the investigation. If the student wishes to have witnesses testify on their behalf, it is the student’s responsibility to pay for any fees associated with retaining the witness(es). At any time during the appeal process, the student will be entitled to examine the materials which were used in determining the challenged academic evaluation. | |||
# During the hearing, the student may be assisted by an advisor of their choice. The student must inform the committee chairperson of the advisor’s name at least 24 hours before the hearing. The advisor may assist the student in formulating their case, and they may be present at the hearing, but they may not actually participate in the proceedings unless the chairperson specifically permits. The college is not responsible for any fees that may be associated with retaining an advisor. | |||
# At the conclusion of its formal investigation and hearing (if one is conducted), the committee will determine from the evidence the propriety of the academic evaluation. The committee will submit its findings in writing to the student, the instructor who issued the academic evaluation, the student’s Program Director, and the CAHP Conduct Officer within five business days of concluding the investigation or hearing. | |||
## If the committee finds that the academic evaluation was not prejudice or capricious, the student may face academic implications set forth in the Academic Standing and Progression policy. | |||
## If the committee finds that the academic evaluation was prejudice or capricious, the committee in consultation with the student’s Program Director will develop a plan for resolution of the academic evaluation. In cases where the Program Director is the instructor who issued the prejudice or capricious academic evaluation, the CAHP Conduct Officer and an instructor from the student’s program who is not involved in the case will consult with the committee members to develop the plan for resolution. | |||
# Decision of the committee is considered final with no further appeal option. | |||
'''References''' | |||
[https://catalog.unmc.edu/general-information/student-policies-procedures/retention-materials-academic-evaluation/ UNMC Policy on the Retention of Materials] | |||
[https://nebraska.edu/-/media/unca/docs/offices-and-policies/policies/records-retention/student-records.pdf University of Nebraska Board of Regents: Student Records Schedule 170-17]; Item Numbers: 170-17-33 & 170-17-34, Registration and Academic Progress Records | |||
Effective Date: 2/21/23 | |||
Revised Date: 2/8/23 | |||
Policy Process Applied: Standard | |||
Policy Review Cycle: Three-Year | |||
Responsible Administrator: CAHP Dean for Academic Affairs | |||
Responsible Office: CAHP Office of Academic Affairs | |||
Policy Contact: Tammy Webster, [mailto:Tammy.webster@unmc.edu tammy.webster@unmc.edu] | |||
== 3. Academic Standing of CAHP Students == | == 3. Academic Standing of CAHP Students == | ||