Grade appeal process flowchart
Grade appeal process flowchart showing the ladder from informal instructor review to chair, appeals committee and final decision, with deadlines and re-mark loop.
What the grade appeal process is
A student who disputes a grade needs to know where to go first, how long they have and what happens if they are not satisfied. Without a written ladder, appeals reach the wrong person, miss deadlines or go round in circles.
This template follows the usual escalation across five roles: Student, Instructor, Department Chair, Appeals Committee and Registrar. Each level can uphold the grade, adjust it or pass it up. The one genuine loop is "Commission an independent re-mark", which returns to "Committee decision?" so a re-mark informs a decision rather than replacing it.
It sits beside the [academic integrity case process](/templates/academic-integrity-case-process), which handles allegations rather than disputed marks, and the [customer complaint process](/templates/customer-complaint-process) for complaints about service. Roles and time limits are illustrative.
What this flowchart covers
In this template
- The entry check "Within the appeal window?" and the route "Decline as late and explain any exceptional route".
- Three review levels: the Instructor's "Re-read the work against the marking criteria", the Department Chair's "Obtain a second marker's blind opinion" and the panel's "Committee decision?".
- The close: "Issue final decision letter with reasons", "Log the decision and point to any external review" and "Update the record and issue the amended grade" handled by the Registrar.
When to use this template
- You are documenting an appeals procedure for a handbook, regulation or website.
- Students and staff disagree about which level handles an appeal and by when.
- You want to check that every level has a clear outcome and that an appeal cannot stall.
How it works
Set the window
Define when the clock starts for "Within the appeal window?" and what grounds are accepted at "Request informal review with grounds in writing".
Decide each level's powers
For the Instructor, Department Chair and Appeals Committee lanes, state whether they may raise a grade, lower it or only confirm it, and whether a re-mark can lower a mark.
Close with a record
Make the Registrar the single point that changes the grade and logs the decision. If your institution also handles misconduct, see the [academic integrity case process](/templates/academic-integrity-case-process) alongside the [course approval process](/templates/course-approval-process) for how academic decisions are recorded.
Frequently asked questions
Why try an informal review first?
Most disputes come from a misunderstanding or an addition error and are settled by the instructor re-reading the work against the criteria. The informal step is quick and keeps formal panels for harder cases.
What is a blind second marking?
A second marker sees the work and the marking criteria but not the first mark, so the opinion is independent. It is a common safeguard at chair or committee level.
Can a re-mark lower the grade?
That depends on your policy. The chart leaves the rule to you, but whichever you choose should be stated to students before they appeal.
Where this process fits
In most operations this process follows Academic integrity case process flowchart.
Comes before
- Academic integrity case process flowchart — Academic integrity case process flowchart: informal resolution or formal referral, student response, review panel finding, sanction, appeal window and record.
Part of
- Education
- Academic governance