310Murse

Hello Victoria. The El Camino College Nursing Student Handbook identifies four committees with student representation. The curriculum committee, the evaluation committee, and the learning resources committee would have two (2) students appointed, and one student appointed to the acceptance, transfer, and progression committee. Can you tell me if these committees exist and/or if they meet? According to the handbook, the committee meets at least once every eight weeks, and the dates are publicly posted outside the nursing office.

Update: I found two additional things in the Nursing Student Handbook and in the records returned to me through FERPA that seem important, and I would appreciate feedback from anyone familiar with nursing program appeals, committee procedures, or grievance processes. First, I reviewed the handbook section on student representation and nursing department committees. The handbook identifies several standing committees, including the Curriculum Committee, Evaluation Committee, Learning Resources Committee, and the Acceptance, Transfer, and Progression Committee. The handbook states that one student representative shall serve on the Acceptance, Transfer, and Progression Committee. It also says that the Student Affairs Committee determines student representatives to the standing committees, including Curriculum, Evaluation, Acceptance/Transfer/Progression, and Learning Resources. What stood out to me is that the handbook then provides separate sections explaining the functions of the Curriculum Committee, Evaluation Committee, and Learning Resources Committee, but it appears to skip a dedicated section explaining the Acceptance, Transfer, and Progression Committee. I do not see a section explaining that committee's functions, decision-making process, membership, voting authority, documentation requirements, or criteria for transfer-by-appeal review. That matters because the Acceptance, Transfer, and Progression Committee is the exact committee that reviewed and denied my transfer-by-appeal application. Second, I looked again at the actual appeal application form I submitted. The bottom half of the form is labeled "Official Use Only – Acceptance, Transfer & Progression Committee.” That section includes spaces for the committee/program to document whether the applicant was accepted, denied, or acceptance pending; the reason for the decision; any remediation required or recommended; whether documentation was submitted; Appeals Subcommittee member name/signature/date; course admitted into; and Director's signature/date. When I received my records through FERPA, the copies of this form that were returned to me had that entire official-use section blank. This seems significant because the form itself appears to contemplate formal documentation of the committee's decision, reason, remediation, committee signatures, and director approval. Yet that section was not completed in the documents provided to me. This connects to my other concerns: The original policy language used against me was not publicly posted when I applied. The college later acknowledged the newer handbook containing that policy had not been uploaded. The college re-reviewed my application under the publicly available handbook. The re-review still denied me using reasoning that appears inconsistent with the written stop-out policy. I requested the rubric, scoring tool, checklist, or written criteria used during the re-review, and I was told there is no grading rubric used. I was told likelihood of success and extenuating circumstances are discussed subjectively by committee. The handbook identifies the Acceptance, Transfer, and Progression Committee but does not appear to include a dedicated section explaining its functions, process, voting authority, documentation requirements, or transfer-by-appeal criteria. The appeal form contains an official-use section for the ATP Committee's decision and signatures, but that section was left blank in the records returned to me. To be clear, I am not saying this proves the committee did not review my application. I did receive committee minutes. But I am saying these records raise procedural and documentation concerns. If the committee is the body making the decision, where are the written rules explaining how that committee evaluates transfer appeals? If the form has a designated official-use section for the committee's decision, reason, remediation, signatures, and director approval, why was that section left blank? If that form was not used to document the decision, what document is supposed to serve as the official decision record? At this point, my concern is not simply that I disagree with the denial. My concern is that the process appears to lack clear written standards and clear documentation: no rubric; no scoring tool; no official checklist for extenuating circumstances; no clear handbook section explaining the ATP Committee's process; subjective committee discussion; a re-review rationale that appears inconsistent with written policy; and a blank official-use section on the appeal form returned to me through FERPA. Would it be reasonable for me to request the written charge, bylaws, operating procedure, membership rules, voting rules, documentation requirements, and evaluation criteria for the Acceptance, Transfer, and Progression Committee? Would it also be reasonable to request the completed ATP decision form, if one exists, or ask what official document records the committee's decision, findings, vote, required remediation, and director approval if that section was not used? I am trying to keep the focus on procedure, not emotion. I am not asking the program to guarantee admission. I am asking whether the appeal process followed written policy, used clear standards, and properly documented the decision that affected my admission status.

Here is the response I received to my request for the committee's rubric used during the re-review process. I could really use some input right now. Thank you in advance.

Thank you for this thoughtful response. This actually helps me clarify the issue a lot. To answer your question, no, I have not yet received a rubric or scoring tool showing how the committee evaluated my extenuating circumstances, clinical safety, academic history, or likelihood of success during the re-review. That is now something I plan to request, because I agree that if the committee is making a determination about likelihood of success, there should be some written rubric, checklist, scoring tool, or evaluation criteria showing how those factors are weighed. What concerns me is that the explanation I received so far seems more conclusion-based than rubric-based. The program acknowledged that the updated handbook containing the one-failure restriction had not been publicly posted, so they re-reviewed my application under the handbook available when I applied. However, the re-review still resulted in denial, and the new rationale relied partly on the idea that I could have taken a voluntary stop-out or withdrawn. The issue is that the written voluntary stop-out policy required a 75% theory grade or higher, and my grade record shows I was already below that threshold early in the semester. So my concern is not just disagreement with the denial. My concern is whether the re-review was actually based on written criteria and available policy options, or whether it was based on a discretionary conclusion that my circumstances were not enough. I appreciate your point about keeping the focus on procedural errors. That is exactly what I am trying to do. I am going to request the rubric or written criteria used by the committee, and if no rubric exists, I will ask them to confirm that in writing.

I'm looking for perspective from nursing students, nurses, and educators because I'm involved in a nursing transfer-by-appeal grievance that has raised serious concerns for me about policy transparency, written standards, and fairness in nursing admissions. I previously attended a nursing program where I failed the same theory course twice. I passed clinical and was considered clinically safe. During the second attempt, my mother was diagnosed with advanced chronic kidney disease. Her kidney biopsy occurred on the same day as my Unit 1 exam, and as the semester continued, I became her primary caregiver. I was responsible for transportation, appointments, monitoring, medication support, and post-procedure care. Her nephrologist documented this, and I submitted that documentation as part of my appeal. My final theory grade was very close to passing. This was not a situation where I completely stopped trying or failed by a huge margin. I was within a small number of points. As nursing students, we know that the time spent studying directly affects exam performance. I also created care plans for my mother the same way we are taught to do for patients, including identifying problems, planning interventions, and, for reference, included the time required to provide care. That time came directly out of my study time. I later applied to another community college nursing program through its transfer-by-appeal process. Before applying, I contacted the Nursing Program Director and explained my situation. The director told me to apply through the appeal process and sent me the required appeal documents, including the Transfer Policy. The policy I was given matched the student handbook that was publicly posted on the nursing website at that time. That version did not say that transfer applicants were disqualified if they had more than one prior nursing course failure. After a counselor reviewed my packet and confirmed it was complete, I submitted my transfer-by-appeal application, which included the required forms, transcripts, course descriptions, proof of nursing information session attendance, my written explanation of the extenuating circumstances, a letter from my mother's nephrologist confirming her medical condition and my caregiving role during the semester, and a recommendation letter from my previous program's Director of Nursing supporting my continuation in nursing education. My application was denied. Later, the director stated that the outcome would have been the same and that the committee did not feel my extenuating circumstances were enough to show I had a strong likelihood of success in their program. I have a hard time accepting that conclusion because it assumes that my documented caregiving responsibilities, the time lost from studying, and the very small margin between failing and passing would not have mattered. Given the objective evidence, the conclusion that "the outcome would have been the same" is illogical and unreasonable coming from the Director of the Nursing Program. As nursing students, we are trained to think critically, assess the objective and subjective findings, and avoid conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. After submitting a FERPA request, I received a different version of the Transfer Policy. This new version included language stating that transfer applicants could not have more than one prior nursing course failure. That language was not in the policy originally sent to me and was not in the handbook publicly posted when I applied. The metadata for the PDF showed that the document was created on the same day it was emailed to me in response to my FERPA request. After I raised this issue through the college grievance process, the college acknowledged that the newer handbook containing that language had not been uploaded to the nursing website. Because of that, the college agreed to re-review my application under the policy that was publicly available when I applied. The re-review still resulted in a denial. This time, the reasoning shifted. The committee stated that I could have taken other measures, such as withdrawing or taking a voluntary stop-out, instead of continuing and failing the same course again. But the written voluntary stop-out policy required a theory grade of 75% or higher, and my grade record shows I was below that threshold from early in the semester. In other words, the option they said I should have used does not appear to have actually been available to me under the written policy. When I later met with the director and the grievance administrator, the director stated that if I had been in her program and approached her, she might have been able to help or provide another option. My concern is that I was not in her program at the time. I was in another program, and as a student, I could only act based on the written policies and actual options available to me where I was enrolled. I do not think students can reasonably be expected to assume that informal exceptions outside written policy will be made available. The director also stated during the meeting that even if I continued with the grievance process, the result would likely still be a denial. That is one of my biggest concerns. If the person involved in the grievance and the admissions process is already stating that the outcome will remain the same, then I question whether the process is truly reviewing whether the written policies were followed, or whether it is simply repeating the same conclusion. At this point, my concern is not only that I was denied. My concern is that the program is not following its own written policies: First, there was policy language that was not publicly posted when I applied. Then the college acknowledged the issue and ordered a re-review. Then the re-review denied me again using reasoning that appears inconsistent with the written stop-out policy. Now, the explanation seems to depend partly on what the director personally believes I could have done, rather than what the written policies actually allowed. I am not asking anyone to "make me a nurse.” I am asking for my application and my documented extenuating circumstances to be reviewed under the written policies that were actually available and applicable at the time. My questions for this community are: Have any of you seen nursing programs handle transfer appeals this way? Is it reasonable for a program to deny an appeal based on options that were not actually available under the written policy? How should extenuating circumstances and documented caregiving responsibilities be weighed when a student was clinically safe and very close to passing theory? If a program admits that a handbook or policy was not publicly posted, what would you expect a fair corrective review to look like? Is it appropriate for a program director to rely on what she personally might have done for a student in her own program when evaluating what options were available to a student in another program? I would really appreciate honest feedback from nursing students, nurses, instructors, or anyone who has experience with appeals, readmission, transfer policies, or grievance processes. Your input is highly valuable as I prepare to defend my case before the grievance committee in the coming days.