Student Review Process
This process exists to support student growth and professional development while protecting the learning community. It begins with direct, caring faculty response and moves toward formal review only when concerns persist or escalate. The goal at every phase is restoration when possible — and accountability always.
Most concerns follow Phases 1 → 2 → 3 in order. Egregious concerns may be referred directly to Phase 3 at any time (see Immediate Referral Pathway below) and will include the University Dean of Students referral and consultation with DOS and CHHS Dean’s Office.
| ⚠ Immediate Referral Pathway · Egregious Concerns
Some situations are serious enough that stepwise escalation is not appropriate. When a single incident involves any of the following, any faculty, affiliate, staff member, or advisor may refer the concern directly to the Program Director to initiate a Phase 3 Student Performance Review immediately, without completing Phases 1 or 2:
• Threats, violence, or behavior that raises safety concerns for students, faculty, staff, clients, or internship sites
• Serious ethical violations, including conduct that endangers or exploits clients or violates core provisions of the NASW Code of Ethics
• Harassment, discrimination, or abusive conduct toward students, faculty, staff, or community partners
• Serious academic or professional misconduct (e.g., falsification of internship hours or client records)
• Criminal conduct or violations of law connected to the student’s role in the program or internship
• Any conduct that jeopardizes the department’s agency partnerships or the safety and integrity of an internship placement
How to make an immediate referral: Contact the Program Director directly (by phone or email, same day when possible) and follow up with written documentation of the incident. The Program Director, in consultation with department leadership, will determine whether the situation proceeds directly to Phase 3 or is redirected to Phase 1 or 2. In addition to Program Director, the Dean of Students’ Office will be notified through a referral and/or direct contact with the DOS office.
Concurrent obligations still apply: Immediate safety concerns should also be reported to Campus Police and/or the Dean of Students; incidents involving discrimination or sexual misconduct must also be reported per university Title IX/EO policy; internship-site incidents should be communicated to the Internships Director. The department review process runs alongside — not in place of — these university processes. |
Phase 1: Early Support & Response
When a concern is identified by faculty, staff, an advisor, or a peer, the first response is direct: address it in the moment or directly following concern with the student or students involved. This phase can be repeated two or three times if needed.
Step 1 · Address the concern directly
Speak with the student one-on-one, address behavior in the classroom or online space where it occurred, or — if peers are involved — facilitate a conversation or conflict mediation with all parties. Be specific about the behavior and its impact. This is a professional development conversation, not a disciplinary one.
Step 2 · Document the interaction
Keep a record of emails and meeting summaries. Enter a note in Navigate360 or Workday. This step protects the student, you, and the process.
| Navigate360 / Workday documentation note
“Met with student/s to address concerns. Next steps include [insert any next steps].” |
You can consult at any point — even early on
Faculty are encouraged to reach out to their teaching team, lead faculty, faculty advisor, or program director at any step in Phase 1. Consultation does not mean escalation — it means using your team.
If concerns continue or escalate after two or three direct interactions, move to Phase 2. If a single incident is egregious, use the Immediate Referral Pathway above.
Phase 2: Collaborative Consultation & Review
When a pattern emerges or behavior escalates, the concern moves beyond a single classroom relationship. Phase 2 brings in the broader teaching team, advising, and department leadership to gather a full picture and coordinate a response.
Step 1 · Notify Program Director and Academic Advisor
Faculty officially contacts the Program Director and the student’s Academic Advisor. Request that communication be sent to all faculty currently teaching the student, asking them to share observations about the student’s status and behavior across courses.
Step 2 · Gather information across the teaching team
Collect input from all instructors. Look for patterns. The Faculty Advisor is made aware and included in all communications from this point forward. Program Director assists faculty with next steps, though the process still remains at the faculty/advisor level for support of student.
Step 3 · Meet with the student
A meeting is held with the student, the relevant faculty or staff, and the Faculty Advisor if the student wishes. The student may also bring a support person. The goal is to share concerns clearly, hear the student’s perspective, and establish next steps together. Program Director is not included at this meeting but can be in consultation with the faculty and advisors.
Step 4 · Document in Navigate360 / Workday
All communications throughout Phase 2 should be tracked in email and in Navigate360/Workday. Documenting only need to know information, who attended meetings, and what was agreed/next steps.
| Navigate360 / Workday documentation note
“After consultation with department, met with student/s to address concerns [include who attended]. Next steps include [insert any next steps].” |
If Phase 2 does not resolve the concern, the Program Director collects all documentation from faculty and initiates Phase 3. The Program Director may also initiate Phase 3 directly at any point if the situation warrants it. The Program Director can include the Dean of Students throughout this process as necessary.
Phase 3: Student Performance Review
Phase 3 is a structured, formal review led by the Program Director in collaboration with the leadership team. It is initiated when earlier phases have not resolved the concern, or when a situation is referred through the Immediate Referral Pathway.
Step 1 · Student is notified
The Program Director sends a written notice to the student’s MSU Denver email summarizing the concern, identifying the relevant Standards of Professional and Ethical Behavior, and explaining the review process, the student’s rights, and what to expect. This notice is written in consultation with the Program Directors, Internship Director, Student Services Director, and Department Chair as needed. The Faculty Advisor is included in all communications. Documentation of Student Performance Review will be entered into Navigate 360/Student Workday.
The notice will include:
- Summary of the concern and relevant professional standards
- Information on MSU Denver’s Student Code of Conduct and Student Rights and Responsibilities
- Contact information for the Dean of Students and the CHHS Dean
- Invitation to submit a written response before the review meeting
Step 2 · Review meeting — within 5 business days
A review meeting is scheduled within 5 business days of the notice. The student may consult with their Faculty Advisor beforehand and may request the following people attend:
- Faculty Advisor
- Access Center representative
- Relevant instructors
- Internship supervisor(s)
- Student-selected support person (with approval)
- Legal counsel (with required university notification)
Step 3 · Outcome determined by voting members
Following the review meeting, the voting members (BSSW and MSW Program Directors, Internships Director, and Student Services Director) review all documentation and determine the outcome. Possible outcomes include:
- Written warning or letter of concern
- Learning or remediation plan
- Change or removal from internship
- Referral to CHHS Dean or Dean of Students
- Academic sanctions (e.g., probation, course failure)
- Dismissal from the program (in the most serious cases)
Step 4 · Student notified in writing
The outcome is communicated to the student by MSU Denver email with next steps. A copy is sent to the review committee, the student’s faculty and academic advisor, and the Department Chair. A copy is also saved in department files and shared with the CHHS Dean’s office. If any parties do not agree with the outcome, they may appeal the decision in an email to the Chair of the Department within a week of receipt of committee review outcomes. The Chair will review the decision and make a final decision within 2 weeks of appeal.
Standards of Professional and Ethical Behavior
Standards of Professional & Ethical Behavior
The Department of Social Work at Metropolitan State University of Denver is mandated by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) to foster and evaluate the professional development of all students enrolled in the BSSW and MSW programs. In accordance with the 2022 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) and grounded in the values codified by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics (2021), the Department of Social Work has identified specific behavioral expectations that all students are required to uphold. These Standards of Professional & Ethical Behavior are designed to ensure that students are prepared for the ethical, justice-oriented, and professional demands of the social work profession, and are grounded by the mission and vision of the Social Work department at MSU Denver.
All students who are accepted and enroll in our programs explicitly agree to follow social work professional and ethical behavior standards as part of our programming.
As members of a values-based profession, social work students are expected to demonstrate a commitment to human dignity, social justice, integrity, and service—not only in formal learning environments, but in all interactions within and beyond the university. The behavioral standards articulated in this document apply across multiple domains of student activity: in the classroom (in-person and online), in internships, in interactions with peers, faculty, and staff, in all forms of written and verbal communication, and in community contexts where students represent the Department.
The Department is committed to supporting all students in their professional formation and to provide clear guidelines for conduct that reflect the responsibilities of social work practitioners. The Standards of Professional and Ethical Behavior are enforceable and exist to protect the integrity of the learning environment, the safety and dignity of all community members, and the public trust in the profession. Students are always held accountable to these Standards during their enrollment, and failure to meet them may result in a grievance that will be addressed using the Student Review Process framework. Possible outcomes may include a warning, academic sanction, or other disciplinary consequences as outlined by department and university policy. These standards are binding regardless of whether a student has signed an acknowledgment form.
The Social Work Department’s Standards of Professional & Ethical Behavior consist of key Social Work values as well as CSWE Professional Competencies.
Student Review Process
This process exists to support student growth and professional development while protecting the learning community. It begins with direct, caring faculty response and moves toward formal review only when concerns persist or escalate. The goal at every phase is restoration when possible — and accountability always.
Most concerns follow Phases 1 → 2 → 3 in order. Egregious concerns may be referred directly to Phase 3 at any time (see Immediate Referral Pathway below) and will include the University Dean of Students referral and consultation with DOS and CHHS Dean’s Office.
Some situations are serious enough that stepwise escalation is not appropriate. When a single incident involves any of the following, any faculty, affiliate, staff member, or advisor may refer the concern directly to the Program Director to initiate a Phase 3 Student Performance Review immediately, without completing Phases 1 or 2:
• Threats, violence, or behavior that raises safety concerns for students, faculty, staff, clients, or internship sites
• Serious ethical violations, including conduct that endangers or exploits clients or violates core provisions of the NASW Code of Ethics
• Harassment, discrimination, or abusive conduct toward students, faculty, staff, or community partners
• Serious academic or professional misconduct (e.g., falsification of internship hours or client records)
• Criminal conduct or violations of law connected to the student’s role in the program or internship
• Any conduct that jeopardizes the department’s agency partnerships or the safety and integrity of an internship placement
How to make an immediate referral: Contact the Program Director directly (by phone or email, same day when possible) and follow up with written documentation of the incident. The Program Director, in consultation with department leadership, will determine whether the situation proceeds directly to Phase 3 or is redirected to Phase 1 or 2. In addition to Program Director, the Dean of Students’ Office will be notified through a referral and/or direct contact with the DOS office.
Concurrent obligations still apply: Immediate safety concerns should also be reported to Campus Police and/or the Dean of Students; incidents involving discrimination or sexual misconduct must also be reported per university Title IX/EO policy; internship-site incidents should be communicated to the Internships Director. The department review process runs alongside — not in place of — these university processes.
Phase 1: Early Support & Response
When a concern is identified by faculty, staff, an advisor, or a peer, the first response is direct: address it in the moment or directly following concern with the student or students involved. This phase can be repeated two or three times if needed.
Step 1 · Address the concern directly
Speak with the student one-on-one, address behavior in the classroom or online space where it occurred, or — if peers are involved — facilitate a conversation or conflict mediation with all parties. Be specific about the behavior and its impact. This is a professional development conversation, not a disciplinary one.
Step 2 · Document the interaction
Keep a record of emails and meeting summaries. Enter a note in Navigate360 or Workday. This step protects the student, you, and the process.
“Met with student/s to address concerns. Next steps include [insert any next steps].”
You can consult at any point — even early on
Faculty are encouraged to reach out to their teaching team, lead faculty, faculty advisor, or program director at any step in Phase 1. Consultation does not mean escalation — it means using your team.
If concerns continue or escalate after two or three direct interactions, move to Phase 2. If a single incident is egregious, use the Immediate Referral Pathway above.
Phase 2: Collaborative Consultation & Review
When a pattern emerges or behavior escalates, the concern moves beyond a single classroom relationship. Phase 2 brings in the broader teaching team, advising, and department leadership to gather a full picture and coordinate a response.
Step 1 · Notify Program Director and Academic Advisor
Faculty officially contacts the Program Director and the student’s Academic Advisor. Request that communication be sent to all faculty currently teaching the student, asking them to share observations about the student’s status and behavior across courses.
Step 2 · Gather information across the teaching team
Collect input from all instructors. Look for patterns. The Faculty Advisor is made aware and included in all communications from this point forward. Program Director assists faculty with next steps, though the process still remains at the faculty/advisor level for support of student.
Step 3 · Meet with the student
A meeting is held with the student, the relevant faculty or staff, and the Faculty Advisor if the student wishes. The student may also bring a support person. The goal is to share concerns clearly, hear the student’s perspective, and establish next steps together. Program Director is not included at this meeting but can be in consultation with the faculty and advisors.
Step 4 · Document in Navigate360 / Workday
All communications throughout Phase 2 should be tracked in email and in Navigate360/Workday. Documenting only need to know information, who attended meetings, and what was agreed/next steps.
“After consultation with department, met with student/s to address concerns [include who attended]. Next steps include [insert any next steps].”
If Phase 2 does not resolve the concern, the Program Director collects all documentation from faculty and initiates Phase 3. The Program Director may also initiate Phase 3 directly at any point if the situation warrants it. The Program Director can include the Dean of Students throughout this process as necessary.
Phase 3: Student Performance Review
Phase 3 is a structured, formal review led by the Program Director in collaboration with the leadership team. It is initiated when earlier phases have not resolved the concern, or when a situation is referred through the Immediate Referral Pathway.
Step 1 · Student is notified
The Program Director sends a written notice to the student’s MSU Denver email summarizing the concern, identifying the relevant Standards of Professional and Ethical Behavior, and explaining the review process, the student’s rights, and what to expect. This notice is written in consultation with the Program Directors, Internship Director, Student Services Director, and Department Chair as needed. The Faculty Advisor is included in all communications. Documentation of Student Performance Review will be entered into Navigate 360/Student Workday.
The notice will include:
Step 2 · Review meeting — within 5 business days
A review meeting is scheduled within 5 business days of the notice. The student may consult with their Faculty Advisor beforehand and may request the following people attend:
Step 3 · Outcome determined by voting members
Following the review meeting, the voting members (BSSW and MSW Program Directors, Internships Director, and Student Services Director) review all documentation and determine the outcome. Possible outcomes include:
Step 4 · Student notified in writing
The outcome is communicated to the student by MSU Denver email with next steps. A copy is sent to the review committee, the student’s faculty and academic advisor, and the Department Chair. A copy is also saved in department files and shared with the CHHS Dean’s office. If any parties do not agree with the outcome, they may appeal the decision in an email to the Chair of the Department within a week of receipt of committee review outcomes. The Chair will review the decision and make a final decision within 2 weeks of appeal.