Porter and Chester Institute tells board it followed policy, installed Proctorio after anonymous cheating complaints
Loading...
Summary
Porter and Chester Institute responded to two letters received by the board alleging exam misconduct. Institute leaders said six students admitted to cheating on one exam; zeros were recorded for that test, Proctorio was implemented in January and a corrective action plan and DPH site visit were noted by the board.
Porter and Chester Institute administrators told the Connecticut Board of Examiners for Nursing on Aug. 20 that they have responded in writing to two complaints the board received and that they followed their policies in handling an episode of student cheating.
The board chair, Gina Reiner, read the institute’s responses and asked Porter and Chester representatives to summarize their written materials. Sherry (Porter and Chester administrator) told the board the institute had reviewed both complaints and provided “very thorough written answers,” and that the school stood by those responses.
Julie (Porter and Chester administrator) told the board the situation involved a group of six students and that the students admitted to cheating on a single exam — exam number 4 in the term. “This particular group of 6 students admitted to cheating on test number 4, which is why we followed the policy, and they were given zeros on that test,” Julie said. She said there were questionable activities in other exams but no concrete proof comparable to the admission on exam 4.
School leaders described steps taken to reduce future academic dishonesty. Julie said Porter and Chester implemented Proctorio in the January term so that “all students are monitored via screen recording and lockdown browsers during their testing.” Sherry added that the institute has upgraded campus Internet and reinforced policies that instructors review moderation logs and monitor testing activity.
Board members asked how many students passed the course after receiving zeros. Julie said two of the six students ultimately passed the course and went on to graduate and take licensure exams; four failed and must repeat the course. Julie also said the clients who passed had passed subsequent seminar and HESI exams, which the institute cited as evidence of knowledge retention.
Board member Lisa asked whether there are ways to re-assess students’ knowledge after academic misconduct is suspected so regulators and the public can be confident students have required competency; institute leaders said they have considered additional assessments and currently assess students through existing course requirements and remediation where appropriate.
Gina Reiner emphasized the board takes complaints seriously but does not plan to convert the letters into an evidentiary hearing at that time. She said the board had received the institute’s corrective action plan and DPH’s site-visit report and that those documents are on file.
No formal vote on sanctions or a hearing was taken during the meeting. The chair concluded the board’s takeaway was that Porter and Chester had responded to the letters, put additional proctoring measures in place, and documented the outcome in their corrective action plan.
Ending: The board said it will retain the institute’s written responses and monitor further developments; board counsel noted that if the matter later requires a formal hearing or additional action, the board would follow statutory procedures for notice and evidentiary hearings.
