Complaint against a university, among other things concerning the alteration of a grading decision. Also a general statement concerning the responsibility of higher education institutions to ensure that information such as results conveyed to students via learning management systems and other systems is unambiguous and correct

Summary of the decision: A student received a message from the learning management system Canvas informing her that she had been assigned a passing grade for a written assignment. Later that day, she received another message informing her that the grade had been altered to failed. The student claimed that this constituted an undue alteration of a grading decision. The university stated that the first message had been sent in error due to an incorrect setting, and that the first assessment had been preliminary and for internal use only.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the course in question contained certain compulsory components in the form of written assignments. He finds no reason to question the university’s information that it would not have been possible to assign a grade for the course until all components had been completed. As a consequence of this, the two messages sent from Canvas did not mean that a grading decision had been notified and then altered.

In conclusion, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it is important that the communication that takes place via learning management systems is unambiguous and that correct information concerning, for example, assessment is conveyed to students. In this case, the students have received information about a preliminary, internal assessment that was never intended to reach them. Furthermore, the message gave the impression that the grading decision had been notified, which was not the case. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it is the responsibility of every higher education institution to ensure that the information conveyed to students is correct and unambiguous.