Discipline & Review

Policies & Procedures for Review of Professional & Academic Performance

Three levels of review can occur in reviewing a student’s academic and or clinical performance or level of professionalism. Any time faculty need to address clinical, course, or professionalism concerns with a student, it will be considered a Level One meeting. The level of review depends upon the potential severity of the concerns. Information disclosed during student meetings with faculty, program coordinators, and/or school administrators will not be kept confidential if the information raises concerns about professional performance. Faculty and/or program coordinators will share pertinent information with each other for the professional purpose of identifying student issues and enhancing problem solving about the concerns.

Levels of review are not necessarily disciplinary in nature. These reviews can be a means to provide feedback regarding performance and identify action plans for learning, growth, and professional development.

The levels of review do not have to be sequential.

Performance That May Result in a Review and/or Possible Dismissal

• Failure to meet or maintain academic requirements as stated under Scholastic Performance

• Consistent absences and/or lateness to class meetings

• Poor clinical skills, consistently late or incomplete documentation

• Scholastic dishonesty, including cheating, lying, plagiarism, collusion, falsifying academic records, etc.

• Behavior judged to be a violation of AATA, ATCB, or AMTA Code of Ethics

• Any threat or attempt to harm oneself or other(s)

• Commission of a criminal act that is contrary to professional practice occurring during the course of study or prior to admission to the CAT program and becoming known after admission to the program

• Consistent pattern of unprofessional behavior

• Failure to meet any of the standards as written herein

Three Levels Of Review

1.      Level One

Level One involves a two faculty members and a student. When a faculty member has concerns about a student enrolled in the CAT program meeting any of the academic criteria, whether related to professional behavior or scholastic performance, the faculty members will:

• Discuss the concerns directly with the student and seek to work with the student to resolve the difficulties

• Apprise the appropriate program director of the concerns in order to identify potential patterns and issues related to the student

• Document data and content of meetings with student

If a problem arises in the field, the agency-based field supervisor will discuss concerns directly with the student and faculty liaison. It is the responsibility of the faculty liaison to appraise the program director of the concerns.

2.      Level Two

A Level Two review involves the faculty member, student, program director, and Chair of the CAT department. This meeting will occur when the student is not following program standards or policies which have been unresolved at Level One and action is required. If the problem in the field is unresolved, the agency-based supervisor, faculty liaison, and program director will conduct the review with the field.

In this information gathering process, the program director will determine the nature of the concern and gather sufficient information to develop a plan to address that concern if one is needed. No further action may be required, or the student may be asked, in writing, to modify his/her behavior and/or seek appropriate professional help. The process is designed to assist students in dealing with identified concerns that have an impact on their performance.

The program director will assess the nature of these concerns and consult with the Chair of the CAT Department and the Dean, maintain documentation, and decide if it is necessary to conduct a more comprehensive review, pursuant to Level Three.

3.      Level Three

A Level Three review involves the faculty member, student, program director, and faculty who have had direct experience with the student in the classroom or field. Generally this level of review is called when problematic patterns are identified with students or when the issues are serious enough to require formal consultation with other faculty and the student. This may occur if the student is being considered for withdrawal or discontinuance in the program. This is the last decision-making step in the review process in the CAT department.

When a Level Three review is called, the program director and student will convene a meeting with the appropriate faculty and the student to gather information, determine the nature of the problem (if one is confirmed to exist), and identify alternatives for its remediation.

The student will be notified in writing of the concerns and meeting date, with sufficient time to prepare for and attend the meeting.

After the meeting has occurred, the program director will consult with the Dean to discuss the problem situation and make recommendations regarding the student. Based on the review, conference with the Dean, and an objective assessment of the information provided, the program director will inform the student of the decisions, which may include one or more of the following actions:

• Continue the student in the program with no conditions
  (In this case the concern has been addressed and no further action by the student or program is required)

• Establish formal conditions for the student’s continuance in the program (These will be outlined by the Dean and the program director, depending on the nature of the concern)

• Consult with and/or refer to the Dean
  (If a referral is made to that office, the student will be notified in writing that the referral has taken place)

• Program Director, Chair, and/or Dean will counsel the student to change majors and/or discontinue the CAT program
  (The student will be provided with documentation regarding the specific reasons for dismissal (and/or suggested major change) and the conditions, if any, under which they may apply, based on the nature of the complaint and/or problem)

Students will be notified of the decision in writing within 14 calendar days of the review. It is the responsibility of the program director to communicate the decision to the student.

Academic Integrity Issues

According to Nazareth University's Policy on Academic Integrity (see link), “Academic Integrity is defined as “honest and responsible scholarship” (University of Oklahoma, 2018), and is further characterized by the five values designated by the International Center for Academic Integrity: “honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility” (International Center for Academic Integrity, 2014, p. 16). Nazareth University shares the Center’s preference for an academic, supportive, and promotive approach to academic integrity rather than one focused mainly on violation detection and disciplinary consequence. “ The following is taken from the full policy.

Level One – For academic integrity issues, the problems result from insufficient preparation, communication, or understanding. Examples of level one academic integrity problems can be:

• discipline-specific conventions have been inappropriately applied

• errors precede course coverage of relevant conventions

• language/cultural challenges have prevented clear understanding, or

• student does not understand the differences among quoting, summarizing, referring, and citing.

In these cases the instructor is the reporting party regarding academic integrity issues. Reporting the incident to the Associate VPAA is optional. The primary criterion for the course of action should be how we can best position the student to succeed.

Level Two – For academic integrity issues, level two concerns judgement, that is these problems result from poor decisions or ill-advised shortcuts. Examples of level two academic integrity problems can be:

• deliberate failure to acknowledge sources

• presenting quoted text as paraphrased or summarized

• single instance of looking at another’s exam, and

• confusing “working together” with submitting identical work

In all cases, the instructor is the sanctioning party. Reporting the incident to the Associate VPAA for data keeping purposes is suggested.

Level Three – For academic integrity issues, level three is concerned with serious violations. These serious problems result from intentional deception. Examples of level three academic integrity problems can be:

• Academic work completed in return for pay or favor

• Exploitation of other students

• Involvement of other students in collusion

• Stealing or accessing online tests or documents

• Presentation of false ID

• Preparation and use of “cheat” materials for exams

• Emergence of a pattern of academic dishonesty

• Presence of implications that extent beyond campus

• Egregiously representing someone else’s work as one’s own.

In all cases, the instructor is the sanctioning party. Reporting the incident to the Associate VPAA for data keeping purposes is suggested.

Academic Grievances

A student who has a dispute regarding a grade shall discuss it with the faculty member involved. If unresolved, the student can appeal to the program director (or Department Chair if applicable), who will then meet with all involved. (If the grievance involves field placement, then the student can appeal to the faculty liaison and program director.)

If this is still unresolved, then the student may submit an appeal to the Dean and follow the guidelines in Nazareth University’s “Academic Policies and Procedures” for details for specific resolution, i.e. grade appeals.