Stockton University has quietly implemented a restrictive and non-retroactive grade replacement policy during the Fall 2023 semester, leaving many students unaware and some concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding the decision. The policy change, which affects course retakes for a better grade, has significant implications for students’ GPAs, particularly during this critical time of year. Assistant Professor of Writing and FRST, Joe Cirio, has taken a staunch stand against the newly implemented restrictive grade replacement policy put forth by the university’s APP committee. 

Cirio expressed concerns about the nature of the policy in a letter dated December 2021. His letter highlights the potential consequences for undergraduate students, which becomes especially critical now as Stockton lurches towards its final stretch of the Fall 2023 semester when GPA calculations become crucial for various academic purposes.

Cirio’s opposition to the policy is outlined in the document titled “Addendum to Grade Replacement Proposal,” a comprehensive response to the comments and questions raised by the APP committee following their November meeting. The committee’s proposal seeks to impose restrictions on grade replacement, questioning the number of times a student can avail themselves of this option and whether it should be extended to students charged with academic dishonesty.

In his addendum, Cirio argues that imposing limits on course retakes via grade replacement is unnecessary and potentially detrimental to students’ academic progress. While acknowledging the need for responsible use of the policy, he proposes that students be allowed a reasonable number of automatic replacements, equivalent to one full-time semester of credits as well as adaptation of a policy that would allow grade replacement in an ethical manner. Beyond that, additional replacements would require approval from the respective program coordinator/chair, dean, or provost.

Regarding the inclusion of students charged with academic dishonesty, Cirio firmly believes that the grade replacement policy should apply to all students, regardless of their disciplinary history. He contends that academic dishonesty is adequately addressed through existing procedures and that penalizing such students further by restricting grade replacement undermines the integrity of the educational system

Ciro writes, “Of the NINE grade replacement policies I’ve linked to in my original proposal, THREE of those policies have limits on the number of times a replacement is granted” (all other universities do not have caps): 

William Paterson University: “…the option to repeat a course may be exercised no more than five (5) times in total during their matriculated enrollment” 

Kean University: “Only four (4) repeated courses or twelve (12) credits, whichever is greater, may be excluded from the GPA”

Ramapo College: “This option is only available twice during a students’ academic career”. 

In a recent survey conducted among undergraduate institutions, it was found that more than three-quarters (79%) of respondents do not limit the total number of credits or courses that can be repeated. This statistic emphasizes that the majority of universities have flexible grade replacement policies, allowing students to retake courses and have improved grades that impact their GPAs freely.

The implementation of the new grade replacement policy at Stockton University has raised concerns about a lack of transparency and its potential impact on students’ academic records. The administration’s decision to keep the policy change secretive has left many undergraduates unaware, right in time for finals. 

Despite Ciro’s protest, proponents of the new policy argue that it is necessary to maintain the integrity of the grading system and discourage academic misconduct. They contend that grade replacement for students involved in academic dishonesty could send the wrong message and devalue the importance of honesty and integrity in education.

Moving forward, it is essential for Stockton University to address the lack of communication surrounding the policy change and provide guidance to students. If nothing else, open lines of communication and transparent policies are necessary to support students’ academic journeys and ensure fairness in the evaluation of their academic performance.

Sources: