IPESA Procedures

1. ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT AND THE ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT REVIEW COMMITTEE

These procedures outline the steps to be followed in the event a teacher detects that a student has breached academic integrity (defined and described in section 10.5 of IPESA). These procedures also outline specific actions to be taken by the Office of the Dean of Academic Systems and Registrar, Faculty Deans, the Director of Continuing Education¹, as well as the Academic Misconduct Review Committees (AMRC).

At any point in the process, students can contact the Student Advocacy Office for guidance and support. Teachers can contact their Faculty Dean office, the Director of Continuing Education, and/or the chair of their Department’s AMRC. Teachers may wish to consult with Access in Student Services in the case of academic misconduct by students registered with this support service.

A diagram highlighting the key elements of these procedures will follow the written description.

Academic Misconduct in DCS (DEC) Courses²

1. When a teacher has detected academic misconduct³, it is recommended they meet with the student(s). This meeting can serve several purposes, including but not limited to: seeking clarification for suspected misconduct; providing a warning and an intervention for Tier 1 offences; promoting students’ understanding of appropriate academic conduct and integrity in a specific academic discipline; and/or fostering a learning opportunity by providing feedback students can use to further develop academic integrity. If the teacher decides to apply a consequence impacting a student’s grade, they must inform the student in writing⁴ as well as compile and document details of the offence that is being reported as academic misconduct.
   1. For cases related to plagiarism, this could mean making copies of the assignment along with the copied source. In the case of suspected plagiarism (without proof of a source text), a selection of other assignments or course work could be provided that indicate that the assignment under suspicion presents content and/or writing style markedly different from, or superior to, the other work presented by the student.
   2. For cases related to cheating during an in-class examination or test, the teacher must document their steps and actions upon the discovery of academic misconduct, including the basis for determining that the student engaged in cheating. Where relevant materials are available, the teacher must include copies with the academic misconduct report. Where copies are not available, the teacher must document the evidence on which the determination was based.
2. The teacher will apply the relevant consequence to the student’s grade depending on the severity level as outlined in the policy (i.e., Tier 2 is a mark reduction on the assessment; Tier 3 is an assessment mark of zero; and Tier 4 is an assessment mark of zero along with an automatic course failure).
   1. A teacher’s decision regarding the specific tier category will be based on professional judgement and normative standards for specific disciplines or fields of study at Vanier College.
   2. In order to respect the guiding principles of IPESA (i.e., equity and fairness), and to ensure consistency in reporting from teachers in the same discipline, departments and programs are encouraged to establish normative standards including specific examples for the various tiers that are relevant and appropriate to the pedagogy of their discipline(s). These examples should be communicated to students where appropriate (e.g., with assessment instructions). A list of examples for each tier level is provided at the end of this section as a guide.
   3. In the absence of discipline or department-specific examples, teachers should use the examples in this document as their reference when applying consequences for academic misconduct.
3. Within 10 working days of the teacher notifying the student about the consequence to their grade, the teacher must report the offence to the College by completing the appropriate Form and include the relevant supporting documents.
   1. The College will receive the information from the teacher, noting the tier of severity and applied consequence, and will notify the student.
4. A student may request a review of the accusation of academic misconduct if they believe it is not justified. This request can be made by completing the appropriate Form within 10 working days of the notification of the offence.
   1. The College will receive the request for a review from the student and will notify the teacher, the department coordinator (who will then notify the chair of their AMRC), and the Faculty Dean/Director of Continuing Education. Procedures for this review committee are described separately.
5. For all upheld offenses of academic misconduct (i.e., the student did not request a review of the accusation or the decision was maintained by the AMRC), the student’s file will be evaluated by the College to determine if there were previous upheld offences of academic misconduct reported and if so, evaluate the level of severity and frequency of occurrence. The appropriate action will then be taken as outlined in IPESA (e.g., meeting with a staff member in the Learning Commons, meeting with the Program Faculty Dean).

Academic Misconduct in ACS (AEC) Courses

1. This step remains the same as step #1 for DCS (DEC) courses. Because ACS (AEC) programs are more condensed and intensive, teachers must intervene as promptly as possible, since any delay can negatively affect student progress in the program.
2. This step remains the same as step #2 for DCS (DEC) courses.
3. Within 5 working days of the teacher notifying the student about the consequence to their grade, the teacher must report the offence to the College by completing the appropriate Form and include the relevant supporting documents.
   1. The College will receive the information from the teacher, noting the tier of severity and applied consequence, and will notify the student and the Director of Continuing Education.
4. A student may request a review of the accusation of academic misconduct if they believe it is not justified. This request can be made by completing the appropriate Form within 5 working days of the notification of the offence by the College.
   1. The College will receive the request for a review from the student and will notify the teacher and Director of Continuing Education. The Director of Continuing Education will contact the relevant members of the ad hoc committee whose role it is to respond to requests related to ACS (AEC) courses.
5. This step remains the same as step #4 for DCS (DEC) courses.

Key elements of these procedures by role:

Academic Misconduct Review Committee (AMRC) Procedures

1. The composition of the committee⁵ includes a total of three teachers - the two standing teacher members named by the department (one of whom is the Chair) plus the teacher of the course for which the request was made. Alternate members can substitute for any of the 3 positions.
2. Upon receipt of the student request for review, the Chair of the AMRC will arrange for either a virtual or in-person meeting to review the accusation of the offence within 10 working days⁶ in cases pertaining to DCS (DEC) courses and within 5 working days in cases pertaining to ACS (AEC) courses.
3. The AMRC is responsible for reviewing contested accusations of academic misconduct and determining if the accusation of the offence is justified or not. The teacher will be allowed to present the reasons for the accusation of offence and the student will be allowed to present the reasons for contesting the accusation of offence. To promote objectivity, the AMRC may review, but not discuss, documentation from both sides prior to the meeting.
4. The student may be accompanied by another member of the Vanier community (e.g., the Student Advocate) if they so choose, to act as a support person. If the support person is the Student Advocate, they may also speak on students’ behalf at meetings⁷. The student and the person chosen as companion have the right to remain in the meeting at all times when information is being given to the committee. The deliberations of the committee, however, are otherwise held in camera (i.e., in private).
5. The meeting and deliberations by the AMRC must be held in confidence.
6. Minutes of the meeting shall be taken by a member of the AMRC and retained by that person for at least two semesters following the semester in which the meeting was held.
7. The final decision of the AMRC may be to: (a) uphold the original accusation; (b) overturn the accusation; or (c) amend the Tier level associated with the offence (i.e., raise OR lower the severity level). In cases where the AMRC amends the severity of academic misconduct to a Tier 1 or 2 level, the accusing teacher shall determine any resulting adjustment to the student’s grade in accordance with the applicable Tier consequence, the teacher’s established grading criteria, and relevant departmental or disciplinary standards⁸.
8. The chair of the AMRC will, in writing, inform the Office of the Dean of Academic Systems and Registrar, as well as the student, the Student Advocate (if present), and the Faculty Dean/Director of Continuing Education (as applicable), of the Committee's decision as soon as possible after the meeting, but no later than 5 working days.
9. Upon receipt of the report of the AMRC, the Office of the Dean of Academic Systems and Registrar maintains or changes the grade in accordance with the decision of the AMRC (and the accusing teacher where applicable for Tier 1 and 2 offences) and issues a new transcript if there is a change.
10. All upheld or amended offences (to Tier levels 2, 3, or 4) of academic misconduct will remain recorded in the student’s college file until graduation. If the accusation of the offence is overturned or amended to a Tier 1 offence, then the offence report and related evidence will be removed from the student’s file and destroyed.
11. Decisions from the AMRC, or ad hoc committee in Continuing Education, are final. As per IPESA, a student may appeal a decision if there was a perceived breach of policy or procedure. Students are encouraged to reach out the Student Advocacy Office for guidance with the appeal process. Appeals related to policy or procedural violations for DCS (DEC) courses should be addressed to the relevant Faculty Dean. Appeals related to policy or procedural violations for ACS (AEC) courses should be addressed to the Director of Continuing Education. Letters of appeals must be received within 15 working days of a student being notified of a final decision by the AMRC.
12. For appeals related to policy or procedural violations for DCS (DEC) courses, the Faculty Dean will review the letter of appeal to determine the admissibility of the complaint and to gather all relevant details and information from the involved parties. The Faculty Dean shall provide the relevant teacher and/or committee with the substance of the alleged policy or procedural breach and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Faculty Dean shall consider that response, together with the student’s appeal and any other relevant information, before submitting a recommendation for an appropriate resolution to the appeal to the Academic Dean for final approval. The decision of the Academic Dean will be communicated to the student and other parties (e.g., if a new review is being requested).

Examples of Academic Misconduct by Tier Level

2. GRADES REVIEW AND THE GRADES REVIEW COMMITTEE (GRC)

These procedures outline the steps to follow if a student believes that evaluation of their achievement of course competencies was not done in a fair, equitable manner. The role of the GRC is to provide an opportunity for a student to request a review of a specific aspect of their grade once final grades are posted.

This Grades Review request is permittable only in cases where direct communication (ideally both verbally and in writing) between the student and their teacher to discuss any grade-related concerns was not successful. In their request for a Grades Review, the student must identify the specific grading criterion, rubric component, course outline provision, or policy clause they believe was applied unfairly or incorrectly.

The GRC does not replace the professional judgment of teachers by simply re-grading student work. Its role is to determine whether the grade was assigned in accordance with IPESA, the course outline, the teacher’s communicated instructions and grading criteria, and any applicable departmental standards.

1. Questions and concerns related to course/stage grades during the semester must be directed to the course or stage teacher. Students can seek advice or assistance from the Student Advocate if required at any point in the grades review process.
2. Once a student has received their final grade for a course, they must first address any disputes with the grade directly with the teacher (if not addressed previously during the semester). If the teacher needs to update/correct a student’s final grade, they can do so directly in Omnivox up until the date specified in the Academic Calendar⁹.
3. If after these steps, a student still believes their evaluation was not done fairly, they may request a Grades Review by completing the appropriate Form. The Form needs to be submitted, ideally, as soon as possible after the posting of final grades, but no later than 10 working days after the start of the next regular day semester (i.e., the first day of classes as indicated in the Academic Calendar).
4. If submission of the Form is not possible within the 10-day period because the student is still in discussion or communication with the teacher regarding the final grade, then the Form should be submitted within 10 working days after final communication takes place between the student and the teacher. Proof of this communication (e.g., a MIO exchange) will need to be included with the Form in order for the Grades Review request to be processed.
5. Upon receipt of the student request for Grades Review, the Chair of the GRC¹⁰ will arrange for either a virtual or in-person meeting to review the request within 10 working days¹¹ in cases pertaining to DCS (DEC) courses and within 5 working days in cases pertaining to ACS (AEC) courses.
6. The composition of the GRC includes a total of three teachers - the two standing teacher members named by the department (one of whom is the Chair) plus the teacher of the course for which the Grades Review request was made. Alternate members can substitute for any of the 3 positions.
7. Students have the obligation to submit with their Grades Review request all corrected work in their possession which they wish to have reviewed. Students should keep the original marked works for this purpose. Students are strongly urged to keep photocopies of all documents submitted to the GRC.
8. Faculty members of the course in question have the obligation to provide the GRC with the course outline, relevant student work in their possession, and any other documentation relevant to the specific issue under review that is in their possession or reasonably accessible to them¹².
9. To promote objectivity, the Committee may review, but not discuss, documentation from both sides prior to the meeting.
10. The student may be accompanied by another member of the Vanier community (e.g., the Student Advocate) if they so choose, to act as a support person. If the support person is the Student Advocate, they may also speak on students’ behalf at meetings¹³. The student and the person chosen as companion have the right to remain in the meeting at all times when information is being given to the committee. The deliberations of the committee, however, are otherwise held in camera (i.e., in private).
11. The meeting and deliberations must be held in confidence.
12. Minutes of the meeting shall be taken by a member of the committee and retained by that person for at least two semesters following the semester in which the meeting was held.
13. The decision of the Committee, based on majority vote, may consist of the following: a) to have the assigned grade stand; b) to raise or lower the final grade; or c) if the information presented indicates there is a problem that is outside the mandate of the GRC, the GRC will refer the complainant to an appropriate College procedure.
14. If the GRC determines that the student’s grade should be raised (for example, they have identified a mathematical error, a failure to apply the stated evaluation criteria or rubric, or another procedural unfairness affecting the grade), then the GRC will re-grade the student's work in alignment with IPESA, the course outline, the teacher's written instructions and rubric (if aligned with IPESA), and departmental standards.
15. The Chair of the GRC will, in writing, inform the Office of the Dean of Academic Systems and Registrar, as well as the student, the Student Advocate (if present) and the Faculty Dean/Director of Continuing Education (as applicable), of the Committee's decision as soon as possible after the meeting, but no later than 5 working days.
16. Upon receipt of the report of the GRC, the Office of the Dean of Academic Systems and Registrar maintains or changes the grade in accordance with the decision of the GRC and issues a new transcript if there is a change.
17. The GRC is empowered to change final grades which are submitted to them for review. There is no appeal of their decisions. A student may appeal a decision, however, if there was a perceived breach of policy or procedure. Students are encouraged to reach out the Student Advocacy Office for guidance with the appeal process.
18. Appeals related to policy or procedural violations for DCS (DEC) courses should be addressed to the relevant Faculty Dean. Appeals related to policy or procedural violations for ACS (AEC) courses should be addressed to the Director of Continuing Education. Letters of appeals must be received from students within 15 working days of a student being notified of a final decision by the GRC.
19. For appeals related to policy or procedural violations for DCS (DEC) courses, the Faculty Dean will review the letter of appeal to determine the admissibility of the complaint and to gather all relevant details and information from the involved parties. The Faculty Dean shall provide the relevant teacher and/or committee with the substance of the alleged policy or procedural breach and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Faculty Dean shall consider that response, together with the student’s appeal and any other relevant information, before submitting a recommendation for an appropriate resolution to the appeal to the Academic Dean for final approval. The decision of the Academic Dean will be communicated to the student and other parties (e.g., if a new review is being requested).

3. MISCONDUCT IN THE CLASSROOM

Students are responsible for respecting the course outline, the teacher’s chosen teaching methods, and in particular the teacher’s classroom management rules and specific instructions. If disruptive behavior occurs, teachers will follow a series of incremental interventions in four stages, outlined in the table below.

At any point in the process, students can contact the Student Advocacy Office for guidance and support. Teachers can contact their Faculty Dean office (for DEC – DEC courses) or the Director of Continuing Education (for AEC – ACS courses).

Templates for an Agreement of Conduct in the Classroom (Stage 2) and a Teacher Report of Student Misconduct in the Classroom (Stage 3) can be found in the Appendix of this document.

4. STUDENT ACADEMIC COMPLAINTS

The table that follows outlines the steps to follow when students have academic concerns or complaints (i.e., grievances related to any matter that is covered in IPESA). More information is found in the policy in section 18.

Note that the first step must be for students to bring the issue to the attention of their teacher¹⁴ and informal processes must be attempted before formal steps are taken¹⁵.

To initiate a formal complaint related to a course, the student will need to submit a written statement of facts identifying the specific policy clause, course outline provision, or procedural requirement alleged to have been breached, together with documentation demonstrating that informal resolution with the teacher was attempted (e.g., the date of a meeting, a summary of the exchange, copies of relevant written communication in a MIO or email exchange). A formal complaint file shall not be opened by the Faculty Dean or Director of Continuing Education until this information has been provided.

5. STUDENT PROFESSIONAL UNSUITABILITY

Students in career and technical programs¹⁷ are being educated for a specific profession and therefore must demonstrate conduct appropriate to their profession as defined by the Program Committee. The Program Committee will notify new students in writing of the standards and criteria of appropriate conduct and ethical behavior required by the program.

If a student exhibits conduct or behaviour deemed by the program to be professionally unsuitable¹⁸, or a specific incident occurs (either in class or in stage), the following steps will be taken. All actions will be carried out in confidence.

1. The teacher will report the behavior in writing to the program or stage coordinator¹⁹. In the case of a specific incident, this report will be made within 2 working days (including stage days).
2. The program or stage coordinator is responsible for notifying the student in writing about the specific indicators of unsuitability for the profession within 5 working days of becoming aware of the reported behavior. If remediation is deemed appropriate, the program or stage coordinator, and the course teacher (or stage supervisor), will meet with the student within 5 working days of the student being notified to present the remediation plan. Students can seek advice or assistance from the Student Advocate if required at any point in the process. If remediation is not deemed to be appropriate, the next steps in the process are described starting with point number 8 in this section.
3. Depending on the severity of the situation and demonstrated behaviors, a student may need to be removed from their class, stage, clinical, or fieldwork course, either temporarily while a plan for remediation is being developed, or for a more extended period of time while the plan for remediation is being carried out by the student. In these cases, the program or stage coordinator should contact the Faculty Dean.

Remediation

4. The written remediation plan will be drawn up by the teacher (or stage supervisor) and verified by the program or stage coordinator. At a minimum, it must: a. identify the concerns/behavior to be addressed; b. identify measurable objectives to be demonstrated to remediate concerns outlined in (a); c. formulate a probationary timeline for addressing the issues; and d. establish the means for monitoring the progress. The relevant Faculty Dean will be notified in writing of this remediation plan.
5. If remediation is successful at the end of the probationary timeline, the program or stage coordinator informs the student and the Faculty Dean in writing that the student may remain in the program.
6. If the student is making progress but the probationary period needs to be extended, the program or stage coordinator is responsible for notifying the student and the Faculty Dean.
7. If remediation has been attempted but the student is unsuccessful (e.g., the student continues to exhibit behaviour unsuitable to the profession), the program can make a written recommendation to the Faculty Dean that the student should be removed from the program. The recommendation will be sent by the program or stage coordinator and will name all those involved in the steps carried out to date and/or the names of those making the recommendation.

Removal from the Program

8. If the circumstances demonstrate that remediation is not appropriate (e.g., safety issues, criminal offenses, ethical concerns, as defined by the program), the program can make a recommendation to the Faculty Dean (as per the process outlined in step 7) that the student should be removed from the program immediately.
9. Upon receiving a recommendation from a program regarding a student’s removal (i.e., either related to unsuccessful remediation or for more serious concerns), the Faculty Dean will review the relevant written documentation and may meet with stakeholders (e.g., teacher, stage supervisor, program/stage coordinator, collaborating agency, the student) prior to making a decision. If the Faculty Dean determines that the recommendation to remove the program is well-founded, the Faculty Dean will arrange for a meeting with the student to inform them of the decision, followed by a written letter.
10. In the meeting and in the written letter, the Faculty Dean will encourage the student to make use of the Academic Advising and Counselling services of the College to help make the appropriate transition to a more suitable program²⁰.
11. In the meeting and in the written letter, the Faculty Dean will inform the student of the procedures to follow should they wish to appeal the decision, including a recommendation to seek the support of the Student Advocate (if the student has not done so prior to this point).

Appeal Process

12. If a student decides to make an appeal after being removed from a program, the request must be made in writing to the Academic Dean within 15 working days of the meeting with the Faculty Dean.
13. The Academic Dean will establish an Appeal Board. The Appeal Board will consist of: a. the Academic Dean; b. one member from the department/program involved (but ideally without conflict or previous connection to the student); and c. one teacher from a related program.
14. The Appeal Board shall establish the procedures to be used in hearing the appeal, but the procedures must include the following: a. The Appeal Board must meet within a timely manner of the student making an appeal – ideally within 10 working days but no later than 20 working days; b. The Appeal Board must notify the student of the meeting at least two working days in advance; c. The student has the right to be accompanied by a member of the College community (e.g., the Student Advocate).
15. The Academic Dean will forward the decision of the Appeal Board, in writing, to the student, the program or stage coordinator, the Faculty Dean, the Dean of Academic Systems and Registrar, and the Student Advocate (if present) within 7 working days of its final meeting. The decision of the Appeal Board is final and binding on the parts of both the student and the College.

6. STUDENT-TEACHER MEDIATION COMMITTEE

The Student-Teacher Mediation Committee’s role is to provide timely support to resolve situations where individuals perceive that the IPESA is not being followed.

1. The composition of the Committee includes a total of three teachers - the two standing teacher members named by the department (one of whom is the Chair) plus the teacher of the course for which the request for mediation was made. Alternate members can substitute for any of the 3 positions. In addition, the Committee includes 2 students (typically named by the VCSA (Vanier College Student Association)).
2. Normally, the Committee of the department responsible for the discipline of the course handles a mediation request. However, in the case of a conflict of interest, if individuals involved are from small programs, or if the student makes the request, another department's mediation committee can be utilized. This request should be brought to the attention of the Faculty Dean (i.e., the Faculty Dean responsible for the discipline of the relevant course where mediation is required).
3. Upon receiving a request for mediation, the Chair will evaluate the nature of the request and determine whether a full committee meeting is required, or if more informal support is appropriate as a first step (e.g., the Chair or a member of the Committee acts as an intermediary for shuttle diplomacy).
4. Shuttle diplomacy refers to the Chair (or a member of the Committee) acting as an intermediary who meets separately with each party to exchange information and explore possible resolutions. If this approach is deemed appropriate, the Chair (or a member of the Committee) may communicate individually with the student and the teacher to clarify issues and identify potential solutions before convening a full Committee meeting.
5. Where appropriate, or if requested by the student or the teacher²¹, the Chair of the Committee can strike a full committee meeting to review the request for mediation. The student may be accompanied by another member of the Vanier community (e.g., the Student Advocate) if they so choose, to act as a support person. If the support person is the Student Advocate, they may also speak on students’ behalf at meetings²².
6. Minutes of the meeting shall be taken by a member of the Committee and they shall be kept by the Chair for two subsequent semesters, after which point the minutes should be destroyed.
7. The goal of a meeting of the Committee is to provide a resolution to the complaint. The activities of the Committee are to be carried out in confidence.
8. Upon concluding a mediation case that was at the request of the Faculty Dean (or the Director of Continuing Education), the Chair of the Committee informs them whether an agreement was reached or not.
9. Mediation will be determined to be unsuccessful if: a) one or both parties decline to participate; b) the Chair determines that no resolution is possible after reasonable attempts at informal intervention; or c) the matter remains unresolved after 15 working days of the Chair first receiving the request for mediation. At this point, the Chair shall inform the parties that the mediation process has concluded and may recommend the appropriate next step in the complaint process.

APPENDIX – TEMPLATES FOR STUDENT MISCONDUCT IN THE CLASSROOM

Agreement of Conduct in the Classroom (Stage 2)

Goal:

This document serves to establish an agreement between the student and teacher, and when signed, can allow access into the classroom.

Information:
Teacher:
Department:
Course Title:
Course Number:                        Section Number:

Student Name:                         Student ID:

Agreement:
I agree that in order to be allowed to return to class, I must follow proper classroom behaviour as outlined by my teacher and in the Vanier College Institutional Policy on the Evaluation of Student Achievement (IPESA), with particular attention to the following:

Student Signature:                                  Date:

Received by:
Teacher:                                        Date:

Teacher Report of Student Misconduct in the Classroom (Stage 3)

Goal:

This document is for teachers to report persistent misconduct to the Faculty Dean.

Information:

Submitted to the Faculty Dean on (date): _______________________

Teacher: ____________________________________

Department: ________________________________

Course Title: ____________________________________________

Course Number: __________________ Section Number: __________________

Student Name: ___________________

Student ID: ____________________

1. Describe the problem behaviour, noting how disruptive it was, and whether it occurred repeatedly. Note dates it occurred, whenever possible.

2. Describe the steps you (the teacher) took in the classroom (Stage 1), to get the student to change their behaviour. Note dates whenever possible.

3. Describe the student’s reaction to the teacher’s Stage 1 steps to resolve the problem. Note dates whenever possible.

4. Describe the steps the teacher took outside the classroom (Stage 2), to get the student to change their behaviour. Note dates.

5. Describe the student’s reaction to the teacher’s Stage 2 steps to resolve the problem. Note dates.

6. Describe the current situation, if different from above. Provide any further information you consider important to the situation.

Please attach any documentation (e-mails/MIO’s, agreement of conduct, etc.)

Teacher’s signature                                                                  Date