• Section 1 - Purpose
• Section 2 - Authority
• Section 3 - Scope
• Section 4 - Procedure
• Academic Progress
• Criteria for Unsatisfactory Academic Performance
• Early Identification (Before Formal Process)
• Formal Identification
• First Stage: Academic Progress
• Return to Good Standing
• Final Stage: Academic Progress
• Reviews and Appeals
• Review and Appeal of Final Course Results
• Grounds
• Stage One – Review by Responsible Teaching Area
• Review and Appeal of Special Consideration
• Review and Appeal of Equitable Assessment Arrangements
• University Appeals Committee Hearings
• External Review and Appeal
• Section 5 - Compliance
• Section 6 - Definitions

Section 1 - Purpose

(1) This procedure sets out how RMIT monitors and manages students' academic progress, supports students at risk of unsatisfactory performance, manages exclusion for continued unsatisfactory progress, and provides a fair process for students to review or appeal assessment and progress decisions.

Section 2 - Authority

(2) This procedure is established by the Assessment Policy.

Section 3 - Scope

(3) This procedure applies to all coursework programs offered by the RMIT Group and partner institutions, including Foundation Studies and Fast Track delivered by RMIT UP.

(4) This procedure does not apply to ELICOS programs delivered by RMIT UP, English for University delivered by SEUP, or Higher Degree Research (HDR) programs, as separate procedures apply to these programs.

Section 4 - Procedure

Academic Progress

(5) RMIT monitors and manages academic progress by:

1. identifying students at risk of unsatisfactory academic progress early to provide support
2. formally reviewing performance at course conclusion
3. supporting students to improve through Academic Performance Improvement Plans
4. restoring students to good standing when performance improves
5. excluding students from their program for continued unsatisfactory progress.

Criteria for Unsatisfactory Academic Performance

(6) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education approves the criteria for unsatisfactory academic performance.

(7) Students who meet the criteria are identified automatically at results release or by the Program Assessment Board (PAB) during the formal academic progress review periods.

(8) A student has unsatisfactory academic performance when one or more of the following conditions exist:

Early Identification (Before Formal Process)

(9) Schools and colleges (or equivalent) monitor student engagement and capacity to succeed early in teaching periods to offer support (such as study skills assistance, adjustment or review of any Equitable Learning Plans or new wellbeing referrals) to students. Support is ideally provided before the census date.

Formal Identification

(10) All students start their program with Good Standing.

(11) Students who are identified as meeting unsatisfactory performance criteria are notified within 10 working days of the conclusion of the review period or following a change to their grade for the relevant review period.

(12) For students in related sequences, concurrent partner programs, or transitioned programs, the programs are treated as a single program for monitoring purposes.

(13) If the PAB has concerns that a student may not meet the inherent requirements of the program, the program manager or equivalent must refer to the Inherent Requirements Procedure (in development) and hold an advice interview, along with a representative from Student Wellbeing, to discuss:

1. the current adjustments and supports offered to the student, and whether they require review or further consideration
2. the student’s course load, and whether enrolment variation (i.e. a switch to part-time study) may be of help to the student
3. the student's ability to meet program requirements and successfully progress with their program when all reasonable adjustments have been made and implemented, and whether an alternate program or course progression may be suitable.

(14) Concerns that a student may not meet inherent requirements alone are not grounds for exclusion for unsatisfactory academic progress.

First Stage: Academic Progress

(15) When a student is first identified as at risk of unsatisfactory academic progress, they are supported under the First Stage: Academic Progress process. The student is notified by email within 10 working days of the review period or following a change to grade by email with:

1. information about the First Stage: Academic Progress classification
2. conditions for continuing their enrolment and information about academic and other support services
3. an invitation to an academic advice interview to develop an Academic Performance Improvement Plan (APIP).

(16) An academic advice interview is an opportunity for the student to identify personal and academic challenges affecting their performance and to actively participate in developing an APIP. Attendance is voluntary.

(17) If the student does not respond to an invitation within five working days, the conditions that were provided are considered accepted. If the student does not agree to an APIP developed during an interview, the original conditions are considered as accepted.

(18) The APIP sets out clear expectations and identifies support services available to the student. It is tailored to individual needs and includes:

1. the grounds on which the student has been identified as First Stage: Academic Progress
2. identification of and referral to support services relevant to their needs
3. a record of the reasons provided by the student for their unsatisfactory academic performance (where provided, following an academic advice interview) and any evidence provided
4. any conditions set by the University Appeals Committee, if applicable.

(19) Special notification requirements apply for:

1. students under 18 with a Confirmation of Appropriate Confirmation and Welfare (CAAW) - where International Compliance and the caregiver will be notified
2. sponsored students – where the Sponsored Student Coordinator will be notified, who may in turn advise any relevant international sponsors
3. students who have previously disclosed gender-based violence - where Safer Community will be advised.

Return to Good Standing

(20) Students return to Good Standing if they pass all enrolled courses in the review period following their First Stage: Academic Progress notification, or in a subsequent review period.

(21) Withdrawn courses (WDR/RSC) do not count as pass or fail for this purpose.

(22) Students who return to Good Standing but later meet unsatisfactory criteria move back to First Stage: Academic Progress.

Final Stage: Academic Progress

(23) A student is classified as Final Stage: Academic Progress if they again meet unsatisfactory criteria while classified as First Stage: Academic Progress in the same program.

(24) The student is notified by email within 10 working days of the review period or following a change to grade. They are given 10 working days to submit an Improvement Commitment Statement to the relevant Program Assessment Board (PAB).

(25) Apprentices and trainees are not classified as Final Stage: Academic Progress; their academic progress is managed under their training contract.

(26) The Improvement Commitment Statement allows students to outline any academic and personal challenges they have faced and their plans to improve their academic performance.

(27) Students should provide independent supporting documentation or evidence related to circumstances cited, where possible. Supporting documentation must be in English or, if it is not in English, the student must provide a NAATI-accredited translation. For students at RMIT Vietnam, documentation may be submitted in Vietnamese.

(28) The PAB reviews the Improvement Commitment Statement and determines either to:

1. permit the student to continue their program with a classification of First Stage: Academic Progress, or
2. recommend exclusion to the Dean, Head of School or Cluster Director or nominee.

(29) The PAB must consider:

1. the likelihood of the student achieving success if allowed to continue
2. overall academic performance and relevant factors
3. compassionate and compelling circumstances
4. whether the student is close to completion of their program
5. signs of improvement or commitment since the First Stage: Academic Progress
6. whether it is in the student's best interest to continue expending time and money in the program where their academic progress continues to be unsatisfactory.

(30) If the student does not submit an Improvement Commitment Statement, the PAB decides on the basis of all available information.

(31) Exclusion is not mandatory. Students who are not excluded receive ongoing support and guidance.

Exclusion

(32) The PAB submits exclusion recommendations along with full documentation to the Associate Director, Student Integrity (or delegate) for compliance review.

(33) The compliance review ensures:

1. the student received timely communication
2. Academic Performance Improvement Plans were provided
3. the student was given a fair opportunity to explain to the PAB why they should not be excluded.

(34) The student is formally notified of the exclusion decision with the reasons and right to appeal. The exclusion becomes effective from the date of notification.

(35) The exclusion period is one full academic year (two semesters or equivalent), or until the next program commencement date for vocational education students.

(36) The exclusion of international students for unsatisfactory progress results in the cancellation of their Confirmation of Enrolment unless the exclusion is overturned on appeal.

(37) Students intending to appeal must remain enrolled while an appeal is under consideration. See below.

Re-admission

(38) Students may apply for re-admission to the program to commence after the exclusion period ends. The application is assessed via the standard competitive admission process, and previous academic performance is considered in the application. The PAB may impose conditions for readmission.

(39) Students may apply to other RMIT programs during the exclusion period, unless they have been expelled or suspended under the Student Conduct Procedure.

Reviews and Appeals

(40) Students may seek a review or appeal of:

1. final course results
2. exclusion for unsatisfactory progress
3. denied special consideration applications
4. the outcome of an application for an Equitable Assessment Arrangement.

(41) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students can contact Ngarara Willim for support with these processes. All students can contact RMIT University Students' Union (RUSU), or the Student Council for students in Vietnam, for assistance.

(42) All appeals are evidence-based and follow a sequential process.

Review and Appeal of Final Course Results

Grounds

(43) A review or appeal of a final course result may be made on the following grounds:

1. there was an error in calculating the final result.
2. the assessment was not consistent with the published course or class guide description or assessment criteria.
3. for vocational education programs: the assessment was not consistent with the requirements of the Unit of Competency.
4. there was an error in the process, the process was non-compliant with policy, or a breach of RMIT policy occurred that significantly impacted the final result.

(44) The following are not grounds for review or appeal:

1. final course results issued as an outcome of a student conduct matter
2. disagreement with academic judgement.

(45) The following research components are assessed by more than one assessor and are considered to already have been reviewed, and are therefore not eligible for further review or appeal:

1. assessments for research component courses in bachelor honours or masters by coursework programs of at least 24 credit points;
2. single research or professional practice projects, or dissertation or thesis carried out in two 12 credit point courses.

Stage One – Review by Responsible Teaching Area

(46) The student submits the review request to the course coordinator or program manager within 5 working days of the result publication date, with evidence supporting the grounds for review.

(47) The student may request a copy of the marked assessment if it has not already been returned.

(48) The teaching area considers the review request within 3 working days.

(49) Possible outcomes from the teaching area review are:

1. the result stands as originally assessed (the specified grounds are not met)
2. the result may change based on the review
3. an independent re-assessment (internal or external) of work is conducted
4. a supplementary assessment is recommended by the Course Assessment Committee (CAC).

(50) For vocational education students, a pass cannot be awarded through review alone. Competency must be demonstrated through reassessment.

(51) If the student is dissatisfied with the teaching area review outcome or receives no response within 3 working days, the student may submit an appeal to the College Appeals Committee.

Stage Two – Appeal to College Appeals Committee

(52) Appeals to the College Appeals Committee must be submitted within 20 working days of the original result publication date.

(53) The College Deputy Vice-Chancellor (CDVC) or their nominee determines eligibility for the appeal. If eligible, a hearing is arranged within 30 working days of receiving a complete application.

(54) If an application is deemed ineligible, the student is notified with the reasons and their rights to seek further internal or external review.

(55) The student receives 5 working days’ notice of the hearing date, time and location, along with their right to:

1. be heard
2. make a written submission
3. be accompanied by a support person
4. have another person speak on their behalf
5. be present throughout the hearing
6. call witnesses
7. use an interpreter.

(56) The College Appeals Committee must be notified no later than two days before the hearing date if the student intends to be represented or call witnesses.

(57) The relevant Dean, Head of School, Cluster Director or their nominee receives 5 working days’ notice of the hearing date, time and location, the substance and grounds of the appeal, along with their right to:

1. make a written submission
2. be present throughout the hearing
3. call witnesses.

(58) If the student does not attend within 10 minutes of the scheduled start time without providing reasonable cause, or the original decision maker is not represented at the hearing, the hearing may proceed and the College Appeals Committee determination will be binding.

(59) Neither party is present when the Committee is considering its decision.

(60) The College Appeals Committee makes a decision that will either uphold the result, deny the appeal, or reach another appropriate decision. The student receives written notification within 5 working days with reasons for the decision and information about further appeal rights.

(61) College Appeals Committee decisions on final course results are final. If a student believes that a breach of RMIT regulation, policy or procedure by the Committee significantly impacted the outcome, they may appeal to the University Appeals Committee, providing evidence of the breach and demonstrating its significant impact. See below.

(62) Vocational education students who believe course assessment does not meet the requirements of the Unit of Competency may seek review by the  Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA).

Appeal Against Exclusion for Unsatisfactory Academic Progress

(63) An appeal against exclusion for unsatisfactory progress must be submitted to the University Appeals Committee within 20 working days of the exclusion notification.

(64) To be eligible for an appeal, the student must have a current enrolment at RMIT or an approved leave of absence.

(65) The grounds for appeal against exclusion are:

1. personal bias in the decision-making process
2. a breach of policy in the handling of the exclusion process that significantly impacted the exclusion decision
3. significant new, relevant evidence applicable to the period of unsatisfactory academic performance that was not available for PAB consideration when reaching their determination
4. the penalty is unreasonable, excessive, or inappropriate (includes consideration of compassionate or compelling circumstances).

(66) If the above grounds are met, the responsible teaching area may review the exclusion decision first. If the decision is withdrawn following review, the student returns to First Stage: Academic Progress (as above).

(67) If the grounds are met and the exclusion is not withdrawn, the appeal proceeds to the University Appeals Committee to be considered for a hearing (see below).

(68) If the University Appeals Committee determines the appeal submission does not meet the grounds for appeal, the Secretariat notifies the student with reasons. The student may request to have the appeal outcome notified in person and may choose to have a support person present.

(69) The student is advised they have 10 working days to seek an external review.

1. The student must provide evidence that they have applied for external review within 10 working days and must remain enrolled in their program or be on an approved leave of absence until the external review is finalised.
2. If no evidence is provided, the final notice of exclusion is sent, and the student’s enrolment is cancelled by RMIT.

Review and Appeal of Special Consideration

(70) Where applications for special consideration have been cancelled due to lateness or incompleteness, the student may request a review within 5 working days of notification. These applications are not eligible for appeal.

(71) Where applications are denied, the student may appeal to the University Appeals Committee within 10 working days, with written evidence of one or both of the following:

1. new supporting documentation that was not available at the time of the original application and would have significantly impacted the decision, or
2. evidence of a breach of a RMIT regulation, policy or process that significantly affected the application outcome.

(72) The University Appeals Committee will request the original decision maker review the submission in regard to the original application. If the original decision is upheld, the appeal may be considered by the University Appeals Committee.

(73) The following are not eligible for review or appeal:

1. withdrawn applications for special consideration
2. granted applications (the student cannot request a different adjustment).

Review and Appeal of Equitable Assessment Arrangements

(74) A student may request a review of an equitable assessment arrangement outcome via the Associate Director, Student Equity or Vietnam equivalent, providing new evidence that the current arrangement does not provide sufficient adjustment in accordance with RMIT policy or RMIT’s legislative obligations.  

(75) A student may appeal to the University Appeals Committee against a decision not to grant them an ELP, or a decision not to provide them with an alternative assessment arrangement, within 10 working days of the decision notification. The student must provide evidence that:

1. the decision involved a breach of the relevant standard, RMIT regulation, policy or procedure that significantly impacted the decision, or
2. there is new evidence that was not available at the time of the application.

University Appeals Committee Hearings

(76) The Executive Director, Students (or nominee) determines whether the student’s application meets the grounds and is eligible to be considered by the University Appeals Committee.

(77) If the application is deemed ineligible, the student is notified within 20 working days with reasons and information about external review rights. The student may request to receive this notification in person, with or without a support person present.

(78) If deemed eligible, a hearing is arranged. The hearing will proceed the same as for College Appeals Committee hearings:

1. the student and the original decision maker receive 5 working days’ notice of the hearing date, time and location
2. the student and original decision maker have all the hearing rights listed in cl. (53) and cl. (49) above.

(79) The student and original decision maker will not be present when the University Appeals Committee is considering its decision.

(80) If the student does not appear at the hearing and has not submitted any reasonable cause for their absence, or the original decision maker is not represented at the hearing, the hearing may proceed and the University Appeals Committee determination will be binding.

(81) The University Appeals Committee makes a decision that will either uphold the appeal, deny it, or reach another appropriate decision.

(82) Within five working days of the hearing, the Executive Director, Students or their nominee will:

1. notify the student, the original decision maker, and any other relevant areas in writing (the student may request to be notified in person, with or without a support person present) of the Committee's decision and the reasons for it, and
2. if the appeal is not upheld, inform the student of their right to seek further internal or external review of the decision, as appropriate.

External Review and Appeal

(83) Students who are not satisfied with the outcome of RMIT’s internal review and appeals processes may seek external review by:

1. the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), for matters relating to RMIT’s compliance with the Outcome Standards or the requirements of a training product
2. the Victorian Ombudsman for vocational education student matters relating to the handling of a review or appeal
3. the National Student Ombudsman, for higher education student matters relating to RMIT’s handling of a review or appeal, or any other matter.

Section 5 - Compliance

(84) Any non-compliance with this procedure should be reported to the relevant program manager and/or Associate Deputy Vice-Chancellor Learning and Teaching for review.

(85) Non-conformance with clauses of this procedure resulting in potential or actual material student disadvantage should be reported to the Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education. Section 6 – Definitions

Section 6 - Definitions