Progression policies have been a controversial issue in institutions of higher learning. For those new to it, these are policies that require students complete an academic year and get the results for all courses done before proceeding to the next year.
It may sound like common knowledge that one should complete an academic year before proceeding to the next. However, some campuses allow students to proceed to the next academic year before getting all results where circumstances caused a delay.
If they do not do well in a paper, they can resit the exam as they proceed with the new academic year. For instance, if one fails “Professional Ethics”, which is a course offered in their second year, they will be allowed to do third year courses but at the same time, redo the “Professional Ethics” course.
With progression policies, that is not so. One must receive all results from their current year of study before proceeding to the next one. Alike, should one get a retake, they have to resit the exam and get the results for the affected paper(s) before they can proceed to the next academic year. Is this, then, the way to go?
There are benefits to this. For one, it discourages the challenge of delayed release of results. This is because at the end of the academic year, lecturers must submit all results. This prevents the prevalent crisis of graduation season dawning yet students do not have all their results. It also discourages the culture of complacency and procrastination, allowing students to focus on their present academic year and not previous ones.
The policy faces a number of hindrances. First is defiance from course instructors. Despite the policy aiming to eliminate delays in receiving results, lecturers may still decide not to comply, which defeats the purpose.
Second, such defiance may have a ripple effect on students. Where other processes are dependent on academic progression, these processes may stall. With the automation of systems, processes like booking of rooms, renewing student IDs or school fees reflect on the students’ portal, depending on their progress (for example, if the portal shows that one is still in their second year, they cannot book a room for their third year because they are deemed as not having progressed.) These processes may, in turn, face headwinds, causing problems for the students.
Whether or not to have such policies would be dependent on various factors. It would need an enforcement mechanism that is strict, ensuring there is no anarchy. This is particularly a problem in public institutions, where misconduct often goes unpunished. Strictness would ensure the challenge of defiance is dealt with. In addition to this, the semester timelines have to be well planned in advance. This would ensure that the examination period is set as well as the time for resitting examinations.
There’s been criticism as well regarding the rigidity of the process. Some consider it retrogressive or something that should end at high school. All in all, wherever such policies exist, administrators should ensure that the learners do not suffer due to any mishaps that may come in the way of effecting such a policy. I also think the students’ views should be taken weightily in determining whether or not to have such a far-reaching policy as they are the ones it affects most.
