N580 Module 7 assignment: paper on legal issues in academic performance and dismissal, a full sample

Failing a Student Fairly: Due Process, Academic Judgment, and Documentation in Nursing Education

Student Name

Master of Science in Nursing Program, Aspen University

N580: Issues in Nursing Education

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Failing a Student Fairly: Due Process, Academic Judgment, and Documentation in Nursing Education

Six weeks before graduation, a composite student in the final clinical course of a baccalaureate program has made three medication errors in four weeks: giving a scheduled dose two hours late without notifying anyone, preparing insulin without checking the most recent glucose, and nearly administering an antibiotic to which the patient was allergic before a nurse intervened. Each time, the clinical instructor discussed the error with the student. The instructor now believes the student is not safe to practice and will fail the course, which under program policy means dismissal. The student has said she will appeal and consult a lawyer.

Aspen's description of this course ends with legal and ethical issues related to students' academic performance, and few decisions carry more legal and emotional weight than failing a student in clinical. This paper explains the legal framework courts apply to academic decisions, the distinction between academic and disciplinary dismissal, the protections students are owed, and the documentation and process that make a decision fair and defensible.

Academic Versus Disciplinary Decisions

The law distinguishes between decisions based on academic performance and decisions based on misconduct. In a case decided in 1978 (Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 1978), a medical student was dismissed near the end of her program after faculty concluded that her clinical performance, including patient care and personal hygiene, was unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court held that a formal hearing was not required for an academic dismissal. It was enough that the student had been informed of the faculty's dissatisfaction and the danger to her continued enrollment, and that the decision was careful and deliberate. The Court noted that academic evaluations call for expert judgment that courts are poorly equipped to review.

Disciplinary dismissals, for conduct such as cheating, falsifying records or violence, generally require more procedure at public institutions: notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence and an opportunity for the student to respond. Unsafe clinical practice is usually treated as an academic matter, because it concerns the student's competence to meet course objectives, but conduct that involves dishonesty, such as documenting a medication that was not given, may also raise disciplinary issues.

The Standard Courts Apply

Courts give substantial deference to faculty academic judgments. In a later case (Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 1985), the Supreme Court declined to overturn a medical student's dismissal after he failed a licensing examination, holding that courts should not override a genuinely academic decision unless it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms that it shows the faculty did not actually exercise professional judgment. Reviewing grade disputes involving nursing students, Boley and Whitney (2003) found that courts have overwhelmingly supported faculty decisions about grades so long as they were not arbitrary or capricious, and advised that nursing instructors should not fear failing a student solely for poor clinical performance, provided they can explain how the grade relates to program and course objectives.

In practice, a decision is vulnerable when it is inconsistent with the course syllabus or program policy, when the student was not told of problems before the final evaluation, when similar performance by other students was treated differently, or when there is evidence of bias. It is protected when it follows published criteria, rests on documented observations and reflects the judgment of qualified faculty.

What Fair Process Requires in Practice

Fair process in clinical courses begins long before a failure. The syllabus and clinical evaluation tool must state the objectives and the behaviors that constitute unsafe practice, and the program's policy must state the consequences. Students should receive formative feedback throughout the course, not only a final grade. When performance falls below expectations, the instructor should meet with the student, describe the specific behaviors observed and their relationship to course objectives, and put a written plan for improvement in place, stating what the student must do, what support is available and by when.

Documentation is the backbone of the process. Anecdotal notes should be written promptly after each clinical day and describe observable behavior, not personality: "prepared insulin without checking the 0730 glucose result of 62 mg/dL; stopped by instructor before administration" rather than "careless." Notes should record both strengths and weaknesses, the feedback given and the student's response. When a pattern of unsafe practice continues after feedback and a plan, the failure decision should be reviewed by the course leader or a second faculty member, and the student informed in writing of the decision, the reasons and the appeal process.

Applying the Framework to the Case

The instructor in the opening case appears to be on firm ground if three conditions are met. The clinical evaluation tool must identify safe medication administration as a critical behavior, the instructor's notes must document each error, the discussion that followed and the student's response, and the student must have received a written warning and improvement plan after the second error that stated the risk of failure. If those are in place, the decision reflects the careful, deliberate academic judgment the courts protect. If the student was told only informally, the program should consider whether a formal warning and a final opportunity to demonstrate safe practice are still possible before the course ends, both for fairness and to strengthen the record. Throughout, faculty should keep the discussion professional, involve the program administrator early and consult university counsel if the student retains a lawyer.

Conclusion

Failing a nursing student in clinical is one of the hardest decisions an educator makes, and fear of litigation leads some faculty to pass students who are not safe. The law, however, strongly supports faculty academic judgments that are careful, deliberate and based on published criteria. Academic dismissals do not require formal hearings, but they do require that students know where they stand and have a chance to improve. Clear objectives, timely feedback, behavioral documentation and a written improvement plan protect students' right to fair treatment, faculty's authority to judge competence and, most importantly, the patients those students will one day care for.

References

Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978).

Boley, P., & Whitney, K. (2003). Grade disputes: Considerations for nursing faculty. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(5), 198-203. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-20030501-05

Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985).