Academic Policies

Academic Honors

Student Grade Appeal Policy

Academic Integrity Policy and Procedures

I (Incomplete) Policy

Academic Standards Policy

Inclement Weather Policy

Advanced Placement and Credit/Exemption Exams

Internship/Cooperative Education

Advisory Program

L (Late Grade, Continuing Course) Policy

Audit Policy

Midterm Grade Report Policy

Cancelled Semester Policy

Active Military Service Policy for Enrolled Students

Change of Major

Normal Credit Loads

Class Absence

Pass-Fail Policy

Class Disruptions

Prior Learning/Portfolio Assessment

Classification of  Students

Quality Points and Determining GPA

Course Repeat Policy

Schedule Changes (Drop/Add)

Dual Baccalaureate Degrees

Sophomore Screening for Junior Status Approval

Final Examination Policies

Undergraduate Course Attendance Policy

Fresh Start Policy

University Policy on Semester Course Syllabi

Grade Change Policy

Withdrawal Policies

Grading Policies

Freshmen         

28 credits or less

Sophomores         

29-56 credits

Juniors

57-90 credits

Seniors

91 credits or more

1.

Credit awarded through portfolio evaluation must conform to specific course titles listed in this catalog. Credit awards for general broad areas (block credit) will not be permitted.

2.

In order to request a portfolio assessment, the student must be currently enrolled at IUP. Credit awarded must be intended for use as part of a degree or certification program.

3.

Each department will determine the maximum number of credits to be awarded for prior learning for its major. In no case will more than one-half of the major be earned through CLEP, challenge examinations, and other forms of prior learning assessment.

4.

Credits earned through portfolio assessment may not apply as residency credit for the purpose of awarding degrees.

5.

Credits earned through portfolio assessment may be awarded only as regular course credit.

6.

If a related examination is available through CLEP or if a challenge examination has previously been established for the course, a portfolio assessment of those credits will not be accepted.

7.

Acceptance of portfolio assessment credits by the department will be indicated by the signature of the chairperson of the department offering the course. The dean of the appropriate IUP college and the assistant dean of the School of Continuing Education must also indicate approval.

8.

Students may qualify solely for undergraduate credit–not graduate credit.

9.

The title of the course, the credits, and the indication that credit was earned through Portfolio Assessment will be recorded on the academic record.

1.

Student meets with the assistant dean of the School of Continuing Education to determine the feasibility of earning credits through portfolio evaluation. Standard outlines of related courses are provided to student.

2.

Preliminary Application Form–Student must provide a resume and answer the following questions:

a.   What have you learned that relates to this course?

b.   Where and when have you learned it?

c.   What documentation do you have that supports the claim?

3.

A handbook to assist students in compiling a portfolio will be printed. It will show how to relate to the written portfolio learning gained through work experience, independent study, and other experiences. Evidence of learning through documentation of experience, completion of a project, and written examination will be explained. If there is sufficient demand, a workshop will be conducted to assist students.

4.

Fees:
Application Fee per Assessment: $15.00
Assessment Fee: one-half the current rate of tuition per credit for each credit requested; to be paid when portfolio is submitted for evaluation.

5.

The application will be submitted to the assistant dean of the School of Continuing Education. Upon approval, the chairperson of the department offering the course will be requested to suggest the name of a faculty member to the dean of the college for approval.

6.

The faculty member will meet with the student to determine the technique of assessment or a combination of techniques to be used, including interviews, documentation, observation of performance, examination, etc.

7.

After the portfolio has been prepared by the student, it will be submitted to the assistant dean of the School of Continuing Education for review, then forwarded to the appointed faculty member for assessment.

8.

The faculty member will evaluate the portfolio, then make a recommendation for or against the award of credit and the amount of credit in the form of a letter, which must be approved and countersigned by the chairperson of the department offering the course. The portfolio will be forwarded to the dean of the college which oversees the student’s curriculum to approve and verify that the course will be accepted as part of the student’s program. Finally, the portfolio is sent to the assistant dean of the School of Continuing Education, who will notify the student and the Registrar.

9.

The Registrar will list the course title, credit, and an indication that credit was earned through Portfolio Assessment.

a.

The student may not be graduated until both the degrees are completed.

b.

All requirements for the curriculum of each degree must be satisfied.

c.

A course required in both degree programs does not have to be repeated for the second degree.

d.

All university requirements such as minimum GPA and number of
residency credits taken at IUP in the major must be met for each degree separately.

e.

Should a student elect to discontinue the pursuit of receiving two
baccalaureate degrees simultaneously and decide to apply for graduation with one degree, the student will be bound to the second baccalaureate degree requirements if a later return to IUP is desired to pursue another undergraduate degree.

Grade

Description

Quality Points

A

Excellent

4 quality points/credit

B

Good

3 quality points/credit

C

Average

2 quality points/credit

D

Passing

1 quality point/credit

F

Failing

0 quality points/credit

P

Passing

0 quality points/credit (for credit courses only) (see policy explanation)

S

Satisfactory

0 quality points/credit (for zero-credit courses only)

U

Unsatisfactory

0 quality points/credit (for zero-credit courses only)

Other Designations (carrying no quality points):

AUD

Audited course

EXM

Examination

FOL

Portfolio Assessment

I

Incomplete

For more information, see policy explanation.

L

Late Grade/Continuing Course

For more information, see policy explanation.

OL

Other Location

Q

Total Semester Withdrawal

Used prior to 2002 when a student had totally and officially withdrawn from the university for a given semester.

R

Research in progress

(graduate thesis/dissertation only)

TR

Transfer

XMT

Exemption

W

Withdrawal

For more information, see policy explanation.

*

Grade not reported by instructor

No grade information was reported by the end of the normal grading period.

Grades followed by the designations below indicate the application of a policy which has amended the student’s
cumulative grade-point average.

.

Institutional Credit (credit counts toward enrollment status, but does not count toward graduation or in GPA calculation)

..

Cancelled Semester (see policy explanation)

*

Fresh Start (see policy explanation)

a.

Internships, practicums, field experience courses, workshops, and independent studies that, by design, extend beyond the normal end of the grading period.

b.

Others as approved by the department chairperson and the dean of the college in which the course is taught. If a specific course is always eligible for L designations, the dean may grant standing approval for L designations every time the course is offered.

1.

Repeatable courses: Certain courses are eligible for repeat for credit and grade. These courses are advanced art studio courses, music ensembles, special topics courses (281, 481) if the topic is different, and other specifically designated courses.

2.

D and F grades:

a.

Repeat with replacement: Undergraduate students are permitted to replace the grades and quality points for courses in which they receive a D or F grade by repeating that course at IUP and filing a repeat form with the Registrar’s Office. Only six repeat-with-replacement attempts are permitted during a student’s entire undergraduate career. In calculating GPA, the new grade and quality points earned will replace the old. However, the transcript continues to document all academic work, and repeated courses are not deleted from the visual record.

b.

Repeat with averaging: In addition to the six repeat-with-replacement options, undergraduate students may repeat other courses in which they receive a D or F grade. In these other repeat attempts, the new grade is averaged with, instead of replacing, the prior D or F grade; the credit for the D repeat counts only once. The transcript continues to indicate all repeated courses.

c.

Course transfers: Students seeking to replace or average D and F grades must repeat these courses at IUP. If an IUP course in which a student received an F is repeated at another institution, the credit will transfer to IUP, but the original F will continue to count toward the IUP GPA. If an IUP course in which a student received a D is repeated at another university, neither the grade nor the credit will transfer.

3.

Other grades: Courses in which students earned a grade of A, B, C, or P may be repeated only on an audit basis. New grades will not be assigned and additional credit will not be awarded.

A.

Purpose: The university establishes minimum standards for cumulative grade point average (CGPA) to encourage academic accomplishment and timely progress toward graduation.
 
This policy applies to all undergraduate students. Designated subpopulations are subject to modifications listed in Section F.

B.

Definitions:

1.

Academic Good Standing: Students maintaining a CGPA of at least 2.00 are in Academic Good Standing.

2.

Probation: Students whose CGPA falls below the 2.00 standard are on probation during the next fall, spring, or summer semester for which they are registered.

3.

Extended Probation: Students who have been authorized to continue, even though they have not achieved a 2.00 CGPA after one semester of probation, are on extended probation.

4.

Academic Recovery Plan: Students whose CGPA falls below the 2.00 standard must develop an Academic Recovery Plan for achieving academic good standing.

C.

Administrative Review and Enforcement of Standards

1.

Each college, regional campus, and the Department of Developmental Studies will designate an Academic Standards Officer who will be responsible for academic review and enforcement of standards.

2.

An academic review is conducted at the end of each fall, spring, and summer semester.

a.

Students earning a 0.00 CGPA at the end of their first semester of full-time enrollment will be dismissed from the university.

b.

Other students falling below the 2.00 CGPA standard will be continued on probation for one semester and be required to develop and implement an Academic Recovery Plan.

c.

Students still below the 2.00 cumulative GPA standard after a semester of probation are subject to dismissal. The Academic Standards Officer may grant one semester of extended probation to those who (1) made progress toward academic good standing while on probation or followed their approved Academic Recovery Plan, and (2) have a reasonable mathematical chance of reaching a 2.00 CGPA after one additional semester. Other probation students will be dismissed.

d.

Students still below the 2.00 CGPA standard after a semester of extended probation will be dismissed.

e.

Students who regain academic good standing but again fall below the 2.00 standard in a subsequent semester are awarded another semester of probation and, where appropriate, extended probation.

D.

Academic Recovery Plan: Students not meeting the 2.00 CGPA standard must design and implement a comprehensive plan leading to academic good standing. The plan must be developed with and approved by the appropriate Academic Standards Officer.

1.

Analysis: Students must identify the factors causing their unsatisfactory achievement.

2.

Planning: Plans must include a schedule of minimum grades needed to achieve academic good standing.

3.

Commitment: Students must commit to the changes in behavior necessary to achieve academic success. This might include changes in time management, career exploration, and the use of such support services as academic advisors, tutoring, the Writing Center, the Counseling Center, the Department of Developmental Studies workshops on study skills and related activities, and any other opportunities deemed important by the Academic Standards Officer.

4.

Documentation: Each plan must include a satisfactory method of documentation. Records of attendance at classes and support services, journaling of activities supporting academic success, and conferences are potential vehicles to be considered.

E.

Dismissal and Readmission

1.

Students dismissed under this policy may not be readmitted for at least one calendar year.

2.

Dismissed students are not eligible for enrollment in any session (including summer sessions) for at least one calendar year. After one calendar year dismissed students may enroll in summer courses, but they are cautioned against enrolling without consulting their Academic Standards Officer.

3.

Dismissed students may, after one calendar year, apply for readmission through the Office of the Registrar.

a.

Those students who, in the opinion of the appropriate Academic Standards Officer, are likely to achieve academic success may be readmitted.

b.

Decisions for readmission of students in university probationary or dismissed status, regardless of whether the student was dismissed by the university or the student voluntarily withdrew, are the responsibility of the Academic Standards Officer of the college the student wishes to enter. If the student is seeking admission to a new college, the officer of the new college will consult with the officer of the former college before making a decision. The Registrar’s Office will officially change the major based on the officer’s readmission letter to the student.

4.

Students may be readmitted only once under this policy. Subsequent readmission may be available under the Cancelled Semester Policy after two or more years of separation or the Fresh Start Policy after five or more years of separation.

F.

Special Populations

1.

Department of Developmental Studies/Act 101 Program: Students admitted through the Department of Developmental Studies remain under the direction of the Department of Developmental Studies until reaching the 2.00 CGPA standard. Students dismissed after earning a 0.00 CGPA in their initial Department of Developmental Studies/Act 101 program may apply for readmission only to the next Department of Developmental Studies/Act 101 program.

2.

Regional Campuses: tudents admitted through a regional campus must remain at that campus until reaching the 2.00 CGPA standard.

3.

Part-time Students: Continuing Education and Others

This policy will be applied on a pro-rata basis for part-time students. Students are considered to be part-time if, at the close of the drop-add period of the given semester, they are enrolled in fewer than 12 credits of classes.

1.

Discrimination: On the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, handicapped status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or political affiliation.

2.

Capricious Evaluation: Significant and unwarranted deviation from grading procedures and course outlines set at the beginning of the course (ordinarily in a written statement during the first week of the course) or grade assigned arbitrarily on the basis of whim or impulse. The student may not claim capriciousness if he or she disagrees with the subjective professional evaluation of the instructor.

3.

Error: Demonstrable, objective determination that a mathematical or clerical error resulted in the entry of an incorrect grade.

A.

Composition: Each year there shall be appointed a Grade Appeals Committee to determine the existence of the substantive basis for appeal. The committee will be composed of seven voting members: three faculty members appointed by APSCUF, three members elected by and from the Senate Academic Committee (one faculty, one administrator, one student), and one student appointed by the Student Government Association. A quorum consists of a majority of the committee. To take action, a majority of those present must be faculty members. If a quorum of the Level II committee is not available to meet within the designated time limits, the Provost’s Office will seek additional members from the appointing bodies. If these bodies are unable to respond in a timely manner, the Provost’s Office may select additional members from the appropriate groups.

B.

Procedure to Initiate Appeal: Procedure to Initiate Appeal: To initiate Level II of the appeal, the student must file an appeal form with the Provost’s Office. This form must be filed within sixty (60) calendar days of the beginning of the semester immediately following the semester in which the grade was received. The Provost’s Office may extend the sixty-day limit only in unusual circumstances when equity demands it and when the student’s own procrastination or misunderstanding did not substantially contribute to the delay. (Note: Grade appeals will not generally be processed during the summer. Therefore, the appeal of any grade received in the spring or summer sessions normally will be processed in the fall. A review will be scheduled in the summer only when the student’s academic eligibility is jeopardized by the grade in question or when the student is a graduating senior.) The Provost’s Office will notify the appropriate dean, department chairperson, faculty member, APSCUF president, and the Student Congress president of the student’s initiation of the Level II process.

C.

Procedure to Process Appeal: Procedure to Process Appeal: The student will be expected to submit written documentation of his/her complaint, and the faculty member will be expected to submit in writing the course grading procedure and any other pertinent information. Appeals based on discrimination will be reviewed according to current standards of nondiscriminatory action. Appeals based on capriciousness will be reviewed in light of the faculty member’s announced evaluation and grading system. The committee will review the materials to deny or confirm appeal continuance. Denial of appeal continuance must be by a negative vote of four members of the committee. This committee will inform the Provost’s Office of its findings. Within five (5) class days of the receipt of the committee’s report, the provost or designee will notify the student and the faculty member of the findings. If the basis for appeal is determined to be substantive, the provost or designee will schedule a Grade Review Panel within fifteen (15) class days to be convened prior to the conclusion of the semester.

A.

Composition: The Grade Review Panel will consist of five voting members: one academic dean or associate dean and four faculty members. The Student Congress Executive Committee designee may advise as requested by the student. The affirmative action officer will advise in appeals based on discrimination. The panel will be constituted from the Grade Review Pool by random selection. The panel chairperson will be elected by and from the panel before each review.

B.

Membership: The Grade Review Pool will be established in the spring term to serve for the following academic year. Using random selection methods, the pool and rotational order within the pool will be established by the Provost’s Office. A pool of three deans or associate deans and twelve full-time faculty members will be maintained. In establishing the membership for each review panel, prior to each review the names of those designated as primary members of the specific panel and available as alternates will be supplied to all parties involved. A panel member may request (to the provost or designee) disqualification due to a conflict of interest. The student and the faculty member may eliminate names in proportion to the composition of the panel. Each may eliminate only one dean/associate dean and four faculty. The instructor and the student will be supplied a list of all primary and secondary pool members. The opportunity to disqualify panel members will take place only once. Resulting vacancies will be filled from the appropriate pool of alternates so that the panel will be composed of one dean/associate dean and four faculty. If through self-disqualification and challenges a panel cannot be constituted from the pool, then the Provost’s Office will supplement the pool using appropriate random selection methods.

C.

Procedure:

1.

Both the student and the instructor will have the right to appear before the panel, present witnesses, and offer evidence. In addition to those specified in Level III, Section A, each may also bring one observer, with whom he or she may consult but who may not participate in the review.

2.

The panel shall determine its rules of order for internal operation. After hearing the evidence brought forth, the panel will privately deliberate and render a decision. If the grade appeal is upheld, the panel will constitute a committee of three appropriate faculty members (knowledgeable in the discipline but excluding the faculty member against whom the complaint was lodged), who will review the student’s work and recommend the appropriate grade or suitable remedy. The panel will incorporate this information in its determination, which it then forwards to the Provost’s Office for implementation, ordinarily within thirty days. The Provost’s Office will initiate the processing of grade changes resulting from Level III decisions. The Provost’s Office will notify the student of grade changes resulting from Level III decisions.

3.

he written report sent to the Provost’s Office will state whether the student’s appeal is upheld or denied; if upheld, the committee’s evaluation and remedy will be included. Both the student and the faculty member have the right to review all documents related to the appeal. All documents supporting the report will be sealed and kept for one year to ensure the appropriate action is taken before they are destroyed or returned to the individual presenting the evidence.

A.

Continuing Rights: This appeal does not supplant any legal rights afforded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or the Government of the United States. Nothing in this policy abrogates or modifies any provisions of or rights under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

B.

Discrimination in this policy generally means unlawful discrimination. To the extent that any form of discrimination identified in this definition is not unlawful discrimination, this definition shall not be taken to create a cause of appeal against the university. In such cases, the final appeal procedures stated in this policy will be final and binding on the student.

C.

Tenure and Promotion Committee Membership on Grade Appeals Committees: Members of the universitywide tenure and promotion committees may not serve concurrently on grade appeals committees.

D.

Support Mechanism: The Provost’s Office, after consultation with the Senate Academic Committee and APSCUF, will be responsible for identifying a pool of at least ten faculty members well versed in the preparation of grade appeals who will be available upon request to help students or faculty prepare documentation for the grade appeals process.

E.

Training/Support: The Provost’s Office will offer yearly information sessions/workshops to assist deans, chairs, grade appeals panel/committee members, and members of Student Government Association/university in identifying issues and to provide guidance for the resolution of grade appeals.

F.

Dissemination of Grade Appeal Information: The Provost’s Office will annually report to the university community a statistical summary of grade appeal data that does not compromise confidentiality including (1) the number of appeals filed, (2) the resolutions at levels II and III, and 3) the final implementation of Level III decisions.

G.

Appeals on Procedural Grounds: Decisions may not be challenged merely because the Provost’s Office fails to comply with Ancillary Provisions D, E, or F above.

H.

Intentional Misrepresentation: Intentional misrepresentation in the filing of grade appeals by students will be referred to the university judicial system for students. Intentional misrepresentation by faculty in the grade appeals process will be referred to the Provost’s Office.

I.

Confidentiality: Students, faculty, administrators, and staff involved in processing and hearing grade appeals must respect the confidentiality of all aspects of these proceedings. Those breaching confidentiality subject themselves to possible disciplinary action. This shall not abridge the First Amendment rights of the student appellant nor the instructor against whom the appeal has been filed.

J.

Intended Purpose: The grade appeal procedures are designed simply as a means to resolve differences between students and faculty related to grading. Unless there is intentional misrepresentation, the results of a grade appeal may not be used for disciplinary action of personnel.

K.

Faculty Compensation: If a Review Panel (hearing) is scheduled at a time in the summer when any faculty member involved is not under contract, the faculty member will be compensated under terms mutually agreed upon at Meet-and-Discuss.

L.

Review of Policy: Every five years the Senate Academic Committee will review, in consultation with the campus community, the operation of the Grade Appeals Policy and recommend changes deemed appropriate.

M.

* Amendment: Amendments may be implemented upon concurrence by University Senate, APSCUF Representative Council, and Meet-and-Discuss.

Academic Integrity Policy and Procedures

A.

Types of Violations. Violations of academic integrity include, but are not limited to, the following:

1.

Providing or receiving unauthorized assistance in coursework; with lab work, theses, and dissertations; or during examinations (including qualifying and comprehensive exams) or quizzes.

2.

Using unauthorized materials or devices, such as crib notes, during examinations or quizzes.

3.

Plagiarizing papers, theses, dissertations, essays, reports, speeches and oral presentations, take-home examinations, computer projects, or other academic exercises by misrepresenting or passing off the ideas, words, formulas, or data of another as one’s own. Plagiarism is dishonest and illegal. Writers are indebted to authors from whom they borrow exact words, ideas, theories, opinions, statistics, illustrative material, or facts (beyond common knowledge). Writers are also indebted if they summarize or paraphrase in their own words material from sources. All quoted material requires the acknowledgment of the source by the use of quotation marks or indentation (if exact wording is incorporated). In addition, both directly quoted and summarized material must be acknowledged by use of a note or parenthetical citation that indicates the author and/or date of publication and page number or numbers. If the writer indents a quotation, it must be clearly set off from the body of the text and must be documented in the aforesaid manner. To verify the various documentation procedures, writers should consult the style sheet in the particular discipline for which they are preparing the assignment (MLA, APA, Chicago, BC, etc.).

4.

Using the same paper or work more than once without authorization of the faculty member to whom the work is being submitted.

5.

Possessing course examination materials before the administration of the exam, without the prior knowledge or consent of the instructor.

6.

Intentionally evading IUP academic policies and procedures; for example, improperly processing course withdrawals, grade changes, or other academic procedures.

7.

Falsifying information, including falsification/fabrication of research data and/or statistical analyses, forging signatures on various forms and documents, or altering or adding answers on academic exercises or exams after work has been graded.

8.

Computer dishonesty as addressed by university computing policies including, but not limited to: using or attempting to use computing accounts or other information for which the student is not authorized; providing false or misleading information to obtain a computing account or access to other information resources; attempting to obtain information resource access codes (usernames, passwords, PINs, etc.) for another user’s computing accounts; sharing information resource access codes (usernames, passwords, PINs, etc.) with other individuals; attempting to disguise the identity of a computing account or other information resource; using or attempting to use university network resources to gain or attempt to gain unauthorized access to remote computers including, but not limited to, port scanning; violating the terms of intellectual property rights, in particular software license agreements and copyright laws; using information resources to monitor another user’s data communications or to read, copy, change, or delete another user’s files or software without permission of the owner; using or installing or attempting to use or install software not properly licensed.

9.

Noncompliance by failure to comply with previously imposed sanctions for academic violations under this policy.

The university reserves the right to discipline any student for the above policy violations and any other action that an ordinary, reasonable, intelligent college student knows, or should know, might lead to the issuance of discipline. This means the university maintains the right to issue discipline for reasonable cause.
 

Charges of academic integrity violations may be brought by a faculty member or administrator. Students who observe or become aware of a violation of academic integrity by another student are strongly encouraged to report it to a university official. A faculty member/administrator who believes that a student has violated an academic policy may elect to resolve the matter by Informal Resolution, by Documented Agreement, or by Formal Adjudication. Sanction(s) may not be imposed upon a student believed to have violated an academic policy without following one of these three procedures.
 

If charges are brought, the accused student shall have a fair and reasonable opportunity to answer, explain, and defend against the charges. The university shall have the burden of proof in all cases.
 

 Procedures 

A.

Options for Resolution. A faculty member or administrator must use one of the following options to resolve alleged violations of academic integrity:

1.

Option I: Informal Resolution. The faculty member/administrator shall notify the student of the charges and schedule a meeting within ten calendar days of the observation or discovery of the incident and agree at such meeting to resolve the issue without submitting any formal documentation. If the violation pertains to work being judged or that has been judged by a committee (examples might include dissertations, theses, and comprehensive examinations, both oral and written), the meeting must involve a majority of the committee and the resolution must be agreed to by a majority of the committee. It is in the interest of the faculty member/administrator and student to complete a statement that summarizes the incident, meeting, and agreed-upon resolution. The factual statement should be signed by both parties and copies provided to the student and the faculty member/administrator. By resolving the charges informally, the student waives his/her right to appeal sanctions which have been agreed upon in the resolution process. If agreement cannot be reached, or if, at the discretion of the faculty member/administrator, a more formal process as outlined in this policy is appropriate, the formal process will be initiated by the faculty member/administrator. No formal record is kept if the case is satisfactorily resolved at this level.

2.

Option II: Resolution by Documented Agreement

a.

If no resolution is reached under Option I, or if the faculty member/administrator deems this step to be more appropriate, the faculty member/administrator will schedule a conference with the student in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. This conference must be scheduled/requested within ten calendar days of the observation or discovery of the alleged violation or of the failure to resolve through Option I. If an agreement is reached, the faculty member/administrator must complete a Documented Agreement Referral Form outlining the agreement and have it signed by both parties: faculty member/administrator and student. If the violation pertains to work such as a thesis or comprehensive examination being judged or that has been judged by a committee, the conference must involve a majority of the committee and the Documented Agreement Referral Form must be agreed to and signed by a majority of the committee and the student. Copies are distributed to the student, the faculty member/administrator filing the agreement, the department chair, and the Office of the Provost. The Office of the Provost will file the official documents with the Office of Student Conduct. The form must be filed within ten calendar days of the conference.

b.

By signing the agreement, the student waives the right to appeal the sanctions agreed upon in the conference. If the student fails to fulfill the written agreement, the faculty member/administrator may file an academic integrity referral against the student for noncompliance.

c.

If a prior academic integrity violation for the student is on record, the matter will be referred to an Academic Integrity Board (see section D, Multiple Violations).

d.

If a documented agreement is not reached, the faculty member/administrator shall initiate the formal adjudication process by filing an Academic Integrity Referral Form with the department chair, within ten calendar days of the conference with the student.

3.

Option III: Resolution by Formal Adjudication. A faculty member/administrator should pursue formal adjudication if:

–   he/she cannot reach, or chooses not to attempt, a mutually agreeable resolution with the student regarding the facts of the case or sanctions to be imposed

–   he/she believes that the violation is so severe that it warrants the following sanctions:
* awarding a failing grade on a project or exam (such as a graduate qualifying for a comprehensive exam or dissertation) when resubmitting the project or retaking the exam is not possible
* involuntary withdrawal from part of IUP’s academic or other programs
* suspension
* expulsion
* rescission of a conferred degree

a.

The faculty member/administrator should file an Academic Integrity Referral Form with the department chair, within ten calendar days of the observation or discovery of the violation or within ten calendar days of the failure to reach a resolution through Option I or Option II. If the violation pertains to work being judged by a committee, the form must be signed by a majority of the committee. The form will contain a description of the alleged violation, including the time, date, and place of occurrence, and the recommended sanction if the student is found to have violated this policy.

b.

The department chair will forward a copy of the Academic Integrity Referral Form to the student, within ten calendar days of receiving notification of the allegation, and contact the student to schedule a hearing to review the facts surrounding the allegation and recommended sanctions if the student is determined to have committed a violation.

c.

The hearing should be scheduled so as to allow the student a reasonable time to prepare a defense (within ten calendar days of being notified of the allegation by the department chair).

d.

This hearing will involve the student, the department chair, and the faculty member/administrator, and in the case of a graduate student, the dean of the School of Graduate Studies and Research (or dean’s designee); all parties may invite others with pertinent information. The student and the faculty member/administrator must be given the opportunity to submit and review written, physical, and testimonial evidence, and to question witnesses.

e.

The accused student may identify an advisor, who may be an attorney, to be present at the hearing. The advisor may only consult privately with the student.

f.

The student may waive his/her right to a hearing in writing. If so, the sanction recommended by the person filing the referral will be imposed unless the sanction is suspension, expulsion, or rescission of a degree. Suspension, expulsion, or rescission of a degree must be implemented by the president’s designee.

g.

If the accused student receives proper notification of the hearing and fails to appear when the hearing has been scheduled, the hearing will be held in the student’s absence and the department chair will render a decision based upon information presented by the faculty member/administrator.

h.

Following the hearing, the department chair will render a determination based on the information presented at the hearing. Within ten calendar days of the hearing, the department chair will forward a written report summarizing the hearing that includes the outcome, the factual basis for the determination reached, the sanction to be issued, and the appeal procedures. The original report is sent to the student with copies to the faculty member/administrator and Office of the Provost. The Office of the Provost will file the official documents with the Office of Student Conduct.

i.

In the event that a department chair cannot or will not fulfill the above role, or in the event that the person filing the referral is an administrator or department chair, the provost/designee will determine the appropriate individual to fulfill the department chair’s role and inform the student and the faculty member/administrator filing charges within ten calendar days of receiving notification of the allegation.

B.

Academic Integrity Board (AIB). Academic Integrity Board (AIB). The AIB may be asked to hear cases filed at Option III: Resolution by Formal Adjudication. In addition, the AIB will hear all cases in which appeals to the chair’s decision are accepted by the provost/designee (see sections C.1. and C.2., Appeals). The AIB will also review sanctions in cases of multiple violations (see section D).

1.

For graduate-level hearings and reviews, the AIB will be made up of four (4) faculty members, one of whom will chair the board, and two (2) graduate students. For undergraduate hearings and reviews the AIB will be made up of four (4) faculty members, one of whom will chair the board, and two (2) undergraduate students. A quorum requires the presence of four persons, at least one of whom must be a graduate student (for cases at the graduate level) or an undergraduate student (for cases at the undergraduate level). All members, including the chair, are voting members.

2.

When an AIB hearing is called, the AIB will be convened by the provost/designee. The accused student shall be notified of the time, date, and place of the hearing and the names of those AIB members scheduled to review his/her case. If the hearing is an appeal, this notification will also include details of the charges, including the time, date, and place of the alleged offense(s) and the recommended sanction(s). If the hearing is a review of sanctions in a multiple-violation case (see Section D), the notification should also indicate that more severe sanctions might be imposed. The hearing should be scheduled no sooner than ten calendar days from the date of notification to the student.

3.

Prior to the hearing a student appearing before an AIB may, with good cause, challenge any member on the board sitting in judgment of his/her particular case. When such a challenge is made, an alternate member will be appointed to the AIB.

4.

The AIB will review all material and hear all evidence pertinent to the case from the accused and all witnesses. Members of the AIB shall be free to ask relevant questions to clarify information or resulting issues.

5.

The AIB will hear evidence appropriate to the nature of its review (see section C, Appeals).

6.

The student shall have a fair and reasonable opportunity to answer, explain, and defend against information and witnesses’ statements presented at the hearing. The student shall also have the opportunity to submit written, physical, and testimonial evidence and to call relevant witnesses on his/her behalf.

7.

The accused student may identify an advisor, who may be an attorney, to be present at the hearing. The advisor may only consult privately with the student.

8.

After hearing all evidence, the AIB will privately make its decision based upon the evidence presented and within the scope of its review. A majority vote of the AIB shall be required for any decision. If the AIB finds that the student more likely than not committed the misconduct or infraction, and the student has no prior academic violation on record, it may accept, reduce (but not increase), or modify the recommended sanction. If the student does have a prior academic violation on record, the AIB may increase the recommended sanction (see section D, Multiple Violations).

9.

If the student waives his/her right to a hearing in writing, or chooses not to appear at the AIB hearing, the case will be adjudicated based upon the evidence presented at the scheduled hearing.

10.

All hearings are closed unless the student requests an open hearing in writing. The AIB chair has the authority to make the final decision regarding access of spectators to the hearing.

C.

Appeals. These appeal procedures apply to cases resolved through formal adjudication. Cases of academic integrity that are resolved through Informal Resolution or Documented Agreement cannot be appealed.

1.

If, after receiving the department chair’s report on the outcome of the hearing, the faculty member/administrator or the student disagrees with the decision, the sanction, or both, he/she may appeal to the provost/designee within ten calendar days of receiving the report. This appeal must be in writing and describe in detail the grounds for the appeal. These reasons may include the following:

a.

Denial of a fair and reasonable hearing

b.

New evidence (applies when there is an acceptable reason why

c.

Excessively harsh sanctions

2.

The provost/designee may deny the appeal or direct the appeal to be heard by an AIB within ten calendar days. All appeals involving sanctions of involuntary withdrawal from part of IUP’s academic or other programs, suspension, expulsion, or rescission of a degree will be heard by an AIB.

3.

Unless the recommended sanction is suspension, expulsion, or rescission of a degree, the decision of the AIB is final and will be implemented by the provost/designee.

D.

Multiple Violations

1.

Information about prior violations is not relevant to determining whether a student violated the policy in the current case. However, such information is pertinent in determining the appropriate sanction.

2.

If a student is found in violation of academic integrity two or more times, all materials within the student’s past and present academic integrity files shall be used in determining appropriate sanctions. Students with multiple academic integrity violations of record may be subject to additional sanctions, including possible suspension or expulsion from the university.

3.

For cases previously resolved by documented agreement or through formal adjudication at the department chair’s level, an AIB hearing will be scheduled. This hearing will review all information pertinent to the determination of an appropriate sanction but will not reconsider the issue of whether the policy violation occurred. After considering the severity of the current and prior violations, the AIB may determine that a more severe sanction is appropriate.

4.

The AIB should request information on prior violations only after determining that a violation has occurred. Information on prior violations should be used in determining the appropriate sanction.

5.

The AIB must submit a written report of the decision within ten calendar days of its decision to the provost/designee, who will forward the decision to the involved parties.

6.

The student may appeal any new sanction to the provost/designee. The provost/designee may deny the appeal or, on the basis of denial of a fair and reasonable hearing, new evidence, or excessively harsh sanctions, direct the appeal to be heard by a second AIB.

E.

Sanctions

1.

The following sanctions may be agreed upon by the student and faculty member/administrator through Informal Resolution or Documented Agreement. All grade reductions require the approval of the instructor of record. If the work is graded by a committee, a grade reduction requires the approval of the majority of the committee.

a.

Single Grade Reduction: Reduction of grade or failure on project, examination, quiz, or other academic exercise on which the student is alleged to have cheated.

b.

Course Grade Reduction: Reduction of course grade or failure in the course. If the violation involves a project spanning multiple courses (such as a dissertation or multiple semester internship), the grade reduction may apply to all courses involved.

c.

Constructive or Educational Task: A task which requires the student to examine his/her dishonest behavior and which may benefit the student, campus, or community.

d.

Other: Sanctions deemed appropriate and tailored to a specific violation as determined by the faculty member/administrator. Any reasonable sanction or combination of sanctions for a given violation may be agreed upon by the student and faculty member/administrator.

2.

In addition to the above, the following sanctions may be imposed through formal adjudication.

a.

Letter of Warning: A warning letter may be issued indicating that the student has been found in violation of an academic policy and that failure to comply with policies in the future may result in further disciplinary action to be handled as a second offense. The letter of warning will remain in effect for a period of time as specified by the individual or board hearing the case.

b.

Disciplinary Probation: Disciplinary probation, which is for a period of time specified by the individual or board hearing the case, is an indication that a student’s status at the university is seriously jeopardized. If the student is found in violation of another IUP policy during the probationary period, a more serious sanction will be levied, including possible involuntary withdrawal from part of IUP’s academic or other programs, suspension, or expulsion from the university.

c.

 Involuntary withdrawal from part of IUP’s academic or other programs: A student may be denied the right to participate in some segment of IUP’s programs. Such involuntary withdrawal might be imposed on either a temporary or permanent basis.

d.

Rescission of a degree: A student may have his/her degree rescinded if found to have plagiarized or not to have conducted his/her own research on his/her undergraduate thesis, graduate thesis, or graduate dissertation.

e.

Suspension: A student may be suspended from the university for a specified period of time, not to be less than the remainder of the current semester. Suspension requires that a student remove himself/herself from university premises, not attend classes or social activities, and not be present on university or Student Cooperative Association property during the period of suspension.

g.

Other: Further sanctions, including rescission of a graduate degree, may be recommended through written agreement approved and signed by the faculty member and the dean of the School of Graduate Studies and Research.

F.

Records and Recordkeeping

1.

Records of Informal Resolution. Although no official forms are filed at this level of resolution, it is strongly recommended that a faculty member/administrator and student who reach an informal agreement put the agreement in writing with a copy to each participant. This protects each party in the event of any future attempt at renegotiation.

2.

Records of Resolution by Documented Agreement. Documented Agreement Resolutions are filed with the Office of Student Con-
duct. They are not considered formal disciplinary records until, and unless, the student is found in violation of this policy a second time. They are internal university records used for monitoring students for multiple violations only. If a second documented agreement form is filed or a student is found in violation of the policy through formal adjudication, the student will then have a formal disciplinary record which includes records of both violations. This formal record is maintained according to the IUP judicial system recordkeeping policies.

3.

Records of Formal Adjudication. Records of academic integrity cases resolved through formal adjudication are filed with the Office of Student Conduct. They are maintained as formal disciplinary records in accordance with IUP judicial system recordkeeping policies. Records of cases involving suspension, expulsion, or rescission of a degree must be maintained for a minimum of seven years.

G.

Operational Notes

1.

In cases where a violation is alleged at, or near, the end of the semester and resolution by informal resolution, documented agreement, or formal adjudication cannot be completed before grades are submitted, the faculty member should submit a designation of “Incomplete” (I) for the student. The “I” designation will remain on the student’s record until the case has been resolved. Once the case has been resolved, the “I” designation will be replaced with the appropriate grade.

2.

If the violation is alleged during the semester when classes are in session, the accused student should continue attending all classes and continue to complete course requirements during the resolution of the academic integrity case.

3.

Conversion of a Withdrawal: Individual course withdrawals initiated by a student prior to resolution of an academic integrity referral will not remain on the transcript if the student is found to have violated the policy and the resolution of the referral is the assignment of a grade. If the student has withdrawn and has been found to violate the policy, another grade, including an “F,” may be placed on the transcript. If the student has withdrawn and has not been found to violate the policy, the “W” will remain on the transcript.

4.

The ten-day requirement within this policy is a period of time intended to reasonably assure swift notification of an alleged violation and a swift response while allowing the student a reasonable opportunity to prepare a response. Either a faculty member/administrator or student may request an extension of time for good cause; this extension may be granted by the provost/designee.

5.

The university may withhold transcripts, grades, diplomas, or other official records pending the disposition of cases, if such action is reasonably necessary to preserve its ability to enforce its rules.

6.

The provost/designee may modify the procedural provisions of these rules by the issuance of written orders to deal with particular unusual procedural situations, so long as no order shall contradict the rules of the Board of Governors of the State System of Higher Education governing due process for students, and no such rule shall deny fundamental fairness to students by, for example, effectively constituting a denial of notice or opportunity to be heard.

7.

This policy will be reviewed by the Senate Academic Committee after five years.

The various forms described in this policy are available from the Office of the Provost, the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, deans’ offices, or department offices. Questions concerning the Academic Integrity Policy and Procedures can be directed to the Office of the Provost.

1.

The higher-numbered course takes precedence. Thus, a student enrolled in GEOG 102 and ECON 325 would take the ECON 325 exam at the assigned time and the make-up in GEOG 102.

2.

If courses in conflict are the same level and number, an alphabetical determination by full name of the department will be made. For example, a student enrolled in ACCT 421 and CNSV 421 would take the ACCT 421 exam at the assigned time and a make-up in CNSV 421.

1.

Night exams can only be scheduled on Monday through Thursday evenings within the 6:00-10:00 p.m. time period.

2.

Appropriate physical facilities must be arranged in advance without encroachment upon other authorized university functions.

3.

If night exams are to be given, the day of the week on which they will be given must be listed in the undergraduate course schedule.

4.

No night exam can take precedence over a regularly scheduled class.

5.

Arrangements for nonpunitive make-up exams at a mutually agreeable time must be available for students that cannot attend the night exam.

6.

For each hour of night exams, an hour of regularly scheduled class time will be cancelled. Such cancellations are prohibited during any period of two class days immediately preceding and any period of two class days immediately following holiday and/or vacation (recess) periods and semester terminations, appearing in the published academic calendar.