Student conduct case management software that puts three years of like cases beside every sanction, with the hearing record cited page by page
Every sanction checked against three years of like cases, with a complete hearing record.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Student Conduct Case Management is student conduct case management software in which conduct officers route referrals, build hearing packets and track sanctions and appeals with seven agents. The agents map every report to the code of student conduct, page and redact the hearing packet, set each proposed sanction beside three years of like cases on every campus, and check appeal grounds. The conduct officer decides, and the Dean of Students approves any suspension or expulsion.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
A student conduct office at a three-campus community college receives about 1,400 non-academic referrals a year from campus safety, faculty, staff and the online report form, holds about 220 hearings and answers about 60 appeals. Every case needs the right sections of the code of student conduct, notice of the charges, a complete hearing packet, a fair hearing and a sanction that matches what the college did before. Since Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961), a public college has owed a student notice and a chance to be heard before expelling them; an appeal or a lawsuit then asks whether the sanction was in line with like cases.
Today the intake coordinator decides by hand whose desk a report belongs on, and a report that mixes issues is easily misrouted. An officer copies the report, photos, statements, the damage estimate and the prior record from four systems into a binder, redacts the other students and numbers the pages. Precedent is whatever that officer remembers from their own campus: nobody checks the other two campuses, or the pattern by student group. Student Conduct Case Management puts seven agents in front of that work, so the conduct officer decides against the record and the college's own history.
Estimated hours of staff time on one hearing case, by hand and with the agents; the packet figure follows the spec's arithmetic (about 10 items from four systems at 12–25 minutes each, plus redaction and paging). Our estimate, kept modest.
Seven agents map, page, compare and check every case; the conduct officer decides and the Dean approves.
Case C26-0731: Mateo Salgado, a second-year Automotive Technology student at Brandvale Community College's North Campus. Here is his case, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Kiara Holloway, the conduct coordinator, starts with 23 new referrals already mapped to Code of Student Conduct sections, each with a confidence. Two academic dishonesty reports went to the academic integrity office, a sex-based report is paused for the Title IX coordinator and a threat is with the behavioral intervention team. One anonymous report scored below 0.80, so a person chooses the section.
Officer Ray Tolliver's campus safety report describes a chair thrown in the North Campus Student Commons: a $1,480 wall display and an $820 glass panel, $2,300 of damage. The agent maps it to §3.4 damage to college property (0.97) and §3.7 threats and intimidation (0.88), and declines §3.12 weapons because no weapon appears in any report. A prior §3.9 finding makes this a second offense.
The message that night: “You'll regret Monday. Watch yourself.”
Mateo wrote his statement in Spanish: he threw the chair in anger after Student B mocked his family, did not mean the message as a threat and wants to pay for the damage. The original sits beside the English translation, which Lucía Ferrer of language services checked on Thu Oct 15 at 9:40 am. The Spanish original is the record.
The panel finds Mateo responsible on §3.4 (3–0) and §3.7 (2–1, with the dissent recorded), each finding cited to its packet page. His advisor and a Spanish interpreter attended. The panel recommends expulsion; the conduct officer sets the sanction.
Elena asks the agents to check the case. The hearing packet, 10 items over 28 pages, sits on the left; on the right, one bar runs from written warning to expulsion, with each of 9 like second-offense cases from Central, North and West as a tick at its sanction. Seven received a one-semester suspension with restitution; two were expulsions, and both are marked for a weapon.
The Consistency agent flags expulsion as outside the range: 7 of 9 like cases received a one-semester suspension, both expulsions involved a weapon, and there is no difference by campus or student group.
C25-0093, Central Campus, Spring 2025: a chair thrown through a lounge partition ($2,050) and a threatening message that night. It ended in a one-semester suspension with $2,050 restitution, set by the campus conduct officer and approved by the Dean of Students. Identities and student group are withheld; similarity 0.94.
Elena revises to a one-semester suspension for Spring 2027 with $2,300 restitution in four payments of $575, keeps the no-contact directive and adds a re-entry meeting and a year of probation. She records reason code “Outside the range for like cases” and cites C25-0093, C24-0188 and C26-0122.
Elena signed at 11:02 am, Lucía Ferrer checked the Spanish copy at 11:09 am and the Dean approved at 11:14 am. Only then did the Records agent send the letter in English with its Spanish copy, place the Spring 2027 registration hold and charge $2,300 to the student account. The letter was due Tue Oct 27; it went out the day after the hearing.
Student B was told the final result under FERPA §99.31(a)(13), and the disclosure was logged.
Every view, agent step, decision, letter and disclosure on case C26-0731 is on the trail, from the referral on Fri Oct 9 to the Dean's approval, with who, what, when, why and the evidence. The appeal window runs to Wed Oct 28; the appeal export, the court or subpoena export (with the student notified first) and the Board and accreditor export are one click away.
The same case, seen by the five people who move it from referral to decision: what their day looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents map, page, compare and check every case; the conduct officer decides and the Dean approves.
Reads every report, form, email, campus safety record and photo, maps it to the code sections it may breach with a confidence and the cited sentence, routes academic dishonesty, sex-based conduct and threats, opens the case and starts the clocks.
Builds the hearing packet, pages every item, links each finding to its page, makes the redacted student copy and drafts the hearing record from the recording.
Finds like cases across all three campuses over three years, with the same charges and offense count, each with its similarity and distinguishing factors.
Flags a proposed sanction outside the like-case range, names the distinguishing factor behind any outlier and checks sanctions in the like set by campus and student group.
Translates statements and letters, shows the original beside English and routes each one to language services.
Maps each appeal argument to the grounds the code allows and tests it against the record and the like cases.
Writes the approved decision back as a registration hold and a restitution charge, keeps the FERPA disclosure log and applies retention.
Decide and approve. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The conduct office can ask the agents in plain words; every answer cites its source and opens the screen it came from.
Is expulsion in line with like cases for Mateo?
No. The Precedent agent found 9 like cases in three years on all three campuses: second offense, §3.4 with §3.7. Seven received a one-semester suspension with restitution and two received expulsion. Both expulsions involved a weapon; no weapon appears in Mateo's record. The closest case, C25-0093 (a chair through a lounge partition, $2,050), received a one-semester suspension with restitution.
Draft Mateo's decision letter in English and Spanish
Drafted: a one-semester suspension for Spring 2027 with restitution of $2,300 in four payments, within the range of 7 of 9 like cases. The Spanish copy goes to Lucía Ferrer to check, then to the Dean of Students to approve. Nothing is sent before both.
Which appeal grounds does Jasmine Reyes-Coleman's appeal meet?
One of three. Her argument about texts she could not retrieve maps to §7.2(b) new information: a repair receipt shows the phone was in repair until after the hearing. The sanction argument sits inside the range of like cases (6 of 8), and the bias argument gives no specific fact. Dr. Harold Nwosu decides by Mon Nov 2.
Which referrals are past the 2-day triage clock?
Two, both on North Campus and received Fri Oct 16: R-26-1420 (graffiti, §3.4, 0.90) and R-26-1412 (alcohol at a club event, §3.11, 0.95). Both were escalated to Dr. Malcolm Ibarra this morning, and they can go to Elena Marsh, who has the lightest North Campus caseload.
12 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The sanction scale, the like-case rules, the timelines and the privacy settings are the college's own. Every change is a draft until a second administrator approves it.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Sanctions the Dean approves | Suspension (one or two semesters) and expulsion | A seven-step scale from written warning to expulsion |
| A like case | Same charges, same offense count | All three campuses, so one campus's habits do not set the range |
| Look back | 3 years of closed cases | Closed cases decided within the window, set in years |
| Minimum like cases to flag | 5 cases | Below it, the agent shows the cases but does not flag |
| Flag band | 75% | A proposal harsher or lighter than the band holding most like cases, unless a distinguishing factor is recorded |
| Distinguishing factors | Weapon, injury, prior suspension | Recorded with the sanction and shown on the range |
| Timelines | Triage 2 · notice 5 · packet 3 before the hearing · letter 5 · appeal 5 · appeal decided 10 | Business days, with a reminder and escalation to the director |
| Retention | 7 years after the last action | Expulsion records kept permanently on the student record |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961) · Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) · FERPA, 34 CFR Part 99 (§99.31(a)(9)(ii), §99.31(a)(13), §99.32) · Title IX, 34 CFR Part 106 · “demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our arithmetic, kept modest. Brandvale Community College, its code of student conduct, its campuses and the people named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
Student Conduct Case Management is student conduct case management software in which conduct officers route referrals, build hearing packets and track sanctions and appeals with seven agents. The agents map every report to the code of student conduct, page and redact the hearing packet, set each proposed sanction beside three years of like cases on every campus, and check appeal grounds. The conduct officer decides, and the Dean of Students approves any suspension or expulsion.
A report arrives from campus safety, faculty, staff or a student; it is screened and routed; a conduct officer charges sections of the code, sends notice and meets the student; a hearing officer or panel finds responsibility charge by charge; the officer sets a sanction; and the student may appeal. In this solution the Referral agent routes academic dishonesty to the academic integrity office, sex-based conduct to the Title IX coordinator and threats to the behavioral intervention team before an officer spends time on them.
The Precedent agent finds like cases, with the same charges and offense count, across all campuses over three years and draws each one as a tick on one bar from written warning to expulsion, with the proposed sanction on the same bar. The Consistency agent flags a proposal outside the range, names what explains any outlier, and checks the like set by campus and student group. The officer revises with a reason code, or keeps the sanction with a written reason the Dean sees.
Under Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961), a public college owes a student notice of the specific charges and an opportunity to be heard before expelling them for misconduct, and Goss v. Lopez (1975) requires notice and a hearing even for short suspensions in public schools. The solution keeps the notice, the paged packet, the hearing record and each timeline on the audit trail, so the college can show every step.
The student appeals within 5 business days of the decision letter. The Appeal agent maps each argument to the grounds the code allows, such as procedural error, new information, a disproportionate sanction or bias, and tests each one against the record and the like cases. An appeal officer who took no part in the case decides within 10 business days, and the director confirms any record change.
Conduct records are education records under FERPA. The solution limits access by campus and case assignment, logs every open, redacts other students in student copies and records every disclosure with its exception, such as telling the alleged victim of a crime of violence the final result under §99.31(a)(13).
Yes. The agents never decide responsibility, set or approve a sanction, decide an appeal, send anything in another language before a person checks it, or write to the student record before approval. The panel finds the facts, the conduct officer sets the sanction, and the Dean of Students approves every suspension and expulsion.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your code of student conduct, sanction scale and a sample of closed cases, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own cases first.
Every notice and deadline held to the rule; investigator and decision-maker kept apart.
1-min demoClery Act ComplianceEvery published number tied to its source reports, ready for a program review.
1-min demoBehavioral Intervention Team Case ManagementEvery report scored the same way within a day, with a trail of what the team knew and did.
1-min demoWe'll run Student Conduct Case Management on your code of student conduct and a sample of your closed cases.