NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance July 2007 Meeting

Prepared for the NCAA Division I Board of Directors

1. Review of NCAA Division I Academic Performance Program (APP) data related to transfer student-athletes. [Data will be reviewed during the meeting.]

2. Measuring Improvement within the APP Penalty Structure. The NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance approved a revision to the historical-penalty review process to require institutions to have a Fishers Exact Test (FET) score of less than or equal to 0.5 in order to satisfy the review factor requiring meaningful NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) improvement in the historical-penalty model. This will result in a greater number of teams meeting the improvement standard. The committee also approved a model that emphasizes institutional resources in the application of mitigation for historical penalties.

3. APR Improvement Plan Requirements. The committee revised the APR improvement plan guidelines for all teams with an APR below 925 and will require teams with a rate below 900 to submit APR improvement plans to the NCAA national office. Teams submitting waivers, institutions applying for Supplement Support Funds and institutions subject to data reviews also will be required to submit APR improvement plans according to the guidelines adopted by the committee. In addition, the committee is considering public announcement of plan initiatives when those initiatives factor into a decision to conditionally approve a waiver of APP penalties.

4. Governance Structure Review. The committee generally was supportive of the proposed modifications to the overall governance structure; however, the committee made the following recommendations:

a. The committee should remain intact at least through full implementation and evaluation of historical and contemporaneous penalties (e.g., for an estimated four or five years).

b. The committee’s reporting line to the NCAA Division I Board of Directors should continue. Committee members expressed concern with the eventual elimination of direct presidential involvement in the APP reform initiatives, other than the Board of Directors, since the Academics Cabinet will not have any presidential members.

c. Consideration should be given to the appeals procedures, including those developed for in-person hearings, once the program transitions to the new cabinet. The committee does not believe the proposed Academic Cabinet is necessarily the body to hear such appeals, but acknowledges there is sufficient time to identify the most appropriate body.

REPORT OF THE

NCAA DIVISION I COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

JULY 10, 2007, MEETING

ACTION ITEMS.

1. Legislative Action Item.

· None.

2. Nonlegislative Item.

· None.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.

1. Measuring NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) Improvement within the NCAA Division I Academic Performance Program (APP) Penalty Structure. The NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance approved a revision to the historical-penalty review process to require institutions to have a Fishers Exact Test (FET) score of less than or equal to 0.5 in order to satisfy the review factor requiring meaningful APR improvement in the historical-penalty model. This will result in a greater number of teams meeting the improvement standard. The committee noted that using the 0.5 standard was an appropriate measure to demonstrate improvement within the penalty structure, because that score indicates a team has demonstrated a better than chance probability of true improvement.

2. Evaluating Team APR Improvement When Considering APP Penalty Relief. The committee considered several models for reviewing APR improvement when considering APP penalty waivers, including a model that used institutional resources in the application of mitigation for historical penalties. In this model, NCAA Division I institutions were divided into quartiles by institutional resources using the average of: per capita institutional expenditures; per capita athletics expenditures and per capita Pell Grant expenditures for the campus. Then, each quartile was assigned a standard of improvement to meet in order to satisfy this review. This approach was considered in an effort to more precisely identify the impact of available resources on an institution’s ability to improve a team’s APR in a relatively short timeframe. The committee directed the staff to use this model, as specified by the NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance Subcommittee on Appeals, when considering providing historical-penalty relief.

3. APR Improvement Plan Requirements and Review. The committee revised the APR Improvement Plan guidelines for teams with an APR below 925. The committee also noted that teams with a rate below 900, teams submitting waivers, institutions applying

for Supplement Support Funds and institutions subject to data reviews all will be required to submit APR improvement plans according to the guidelines adopted by the committee. Teams with a multi-year APR below 900 are required to submit previous improvement plans, progress reports of the implementation of the plans and specific target annual APR goals as part of the improvement plan submitted to the NCAA national office in fall 2007. The committee noted that the establishment of specific target APR goals will be useful to the staff in the future evaluation of improvement plans and consideration through the waiver process, if necessary. In addition, the committee discussed the possible public announcement of plan initiatives when those initiatives factor into a decision to conditionally approve APP penalties. The committee will continue to explore implementation of this public announcement concept during its October meeting. [Attachment A]

4. Review of Student-Athlete Transfer Data and Consideration of Potential Policy Changes. The committee continued its extensive review of the impact of transfer student-athlete behavior on the APR and graduation rates. The NCAA research staff provided comprehensive data on the academic impact of transferring, which was analyzed in an effort to assess which variables were the most accurate in predicting graduation. The APR data confirms that retention is a strong predictor of graduation and, as such, the committee is considering adjustment opportunities to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, rather than altering the APR calculation for all transfers. In particular, the committee examined a model that would permit an adjustment of the retention point for a transfer with a strong academic profile (e.g., as indicated by the student-athlete’s grade-point average). If approved, such student-athletes would earn a “1/1” in the final term in the cohort. The committee noted the importance of considering an additional year of data, which will permit the examination of three years of student-athlete transfer behavior. Data will be prepared for such a review to occur during the committee’s October 2007 meeting.

5. Research regarding “0 for 2” Student-Athletes. The committee heard a presentation from the research staff on the demographics and trends in the number of Division I student-athletes in the 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 APR cohorts who left their respective institutions prior to meeting academic eligibility requirements (i.e., “0 for 2”). Research indicates that the number of “0 for 2” student-athletes overall has decreased over the three-year period. In addition, there have been noteworthy decreases in the sports of men’s baseball and football and a smaller decrease in men’s basketball. Overall, student-athletes in most sports were more likely to leave their institution academically ineligible after their first or fifth years of full-time enrollment at the institution than in years two, three or four. The committee also noted that even with the increased progress-toward-degree requirements that went into effect August 1, 2003, the preliminary data indicate the number of “0 for 2” student-athletes has been stable or decreased in some sports. The research staff also noted that a lower high school core-

course grade-point average and transferring at least one time subsequent to initial full-time enrollment at any collegiate institution were reliable predictors of a student-athlete’s likelihood of leaving an institution academically ineligible. In fact, high school grade-point average had an impact ten times greater than other factors, including transfer status, sport, gender and ethnicity. The committee will expand its review of this research during a future meeting.

6. Implementation of Additional Historical Penalties for Low-Performing Baseball Teams. The committee was directed by the NCAA Division I Board of Directors to develop policies to implement APP penalties that require any baseball program with a four-year average APR less than 900 to reduce its playing season by 10 percent in both the number of contests and length of season (i.e., not more than 50 contests and not more than a 119-day playing and practice season). The committee noted several issues that should be considered before implementing this concept, including when the penalty should be imposed, how the penalty should overlap with other penalties and specificities of the corresponding appeals process. An ad hoc group comprised of current committee members was formed to continue the development of this penalty. The group will make recommendations to the full committee during its October meeting.

7. Proposed Division I Governance Structure. The committee received a report regarding the NCAA Division I Management Council Governance Subcommittee’s work and recommendations for modifications to the Division I governance structure. The Governance Subcommittee has proposed the elimination of the committee after the APP penalties and rewards are fully developed. Ongoing APP work then would be assumed by the new Academics Cabinet. The committee generally was supportive of the proposed modifications to the overall governance structure; however, the committee made the following recommendations:

a. The committee should remain intact at least through full implementation and evaluation of historical and contemporaneous penalties (e.g., for an estimated four or five years). Then, at an appropriate time, the committee could be phased out and related work transitioned to the new Academics Cabinet. The committee noted that its work will not be complete until behavior has changed. Further, it was suggested that the committee be phased slowly into the Academics Cabinet to ensure continuity and transfer of knowledge.

b. The committee’s reporting line to the Board of Directors should continue. Committee members expressed concern with the eventual elimination of direct presidential involvement in the APP reform initiatives, other than the Board of Directors, since the Academics Cabinet will not have any presidential members.

c. Consideration should be given to the appeals procedures once the program transitions to the new cabinet. The committee noted that once historical penalties are fully implemented, institutions subject to the most-serious penalties have the opportunity to present an appeal during an in-person hearing and such procedures should be considered when determining the size, composition and structure of the body identified to hear appeals. The committee does not believe the proposed Academic Cabinet is necessarily the body to hear such appeals, but acknowledges there is sufficient time to identify the most appropriate body.

8. Update regarding the Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Working Group. The committee received an update regarding the work of the Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Working Group, which is a group of presidents and chancellors, head coaches, commissioners, campus athletics administrators and faculty athletics representatives charged with developing strategies to enhance the academic performance and graduation rates in Division I men’s basketball. The committee expressed its support for the group’s work and forwarded an incentive concept regarding access to athletics activities (e.g., summer skill instruction) for its consideration. The committee also suggested the working group examine the “year of academic readiness” concept, which would permit prospective student-athletes to attend a member institution on athletics aid for a remedial academic year and practice without triggering the current progress-toward-degree requirements, to determine its relevance and value to the sport of men’s basketball.

9. Incentive Concept Regarding Access to Athletics Activities for Women’s Basketball. The committee received a report from the NCAA Division I Women’s Basketball Issues Committee, who expressed interest in pursuing the concept of providing the opportunity for increased access to women’s basketball student-athletes through skill instruction as a possible incentive for those teams achieving academic success. The committee directed the staff to work with the Women’s Basketball Issues Committee over the next year to further discuss and develop specific recommendations for the full committee’s consideration at a future meeting.

10. Requests from Other Sport Communities Interested in Improving Student-Athlete Performance. The committee was informed that the football and wrestling sports communities have expressed interest in examining the academic culture of their respective sports and in developing strategies to enhance the overall level of academic performance of student-athletes in their respective sports. The committee expressed its support and willingness to assist these groups in their reviews as appropriate and will consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.

11. Possible Adjustment to APR calculation to Account for Institutional Characteristics. The committee continued its discussion regarding the inclusion of institutional

characteristics as factors in the calculation of the APR. The committee reviewed possible alternatives to alter the APR formula to consider institutional characteristics and to judge how well student-athletes at a given institution are performing compared to student-athletes from similar institutions. Given this determination, the committee asked the research staff to conduct similar analyses on three years of APR data to be presented at the next meeting. In the interim, the committee will continue to use institutional characteristics as part of the penalty-waiver process.

12. Division I Membership Requirements. In response to a request from the NCAA Division I Management Council Membership Subcommittee, the committee supported the Membership Subcommittee’s efforts to include team academic performance as a factor for consideration when institutions advance to active Division I status. The committee asserted that whether or not an institution has a team(s) subject to penalty while in the membership reclassification process is an important indicator for the Membership Subcommittee to consider. For example, the Membership Subcommittee could identify a maximum number of teams that could be subject to penalty in order to meet the criteria. Further, the committee noted that historical penalties in particular could be a key identifier, as these are the most severe penalties and ultimately can lead to restricted membership status for an active Division I member institution. The committee emphasized that using APR alone does not account for institutional characteristics and improvement factors that are keys in the determination of penalties. While the APR could be used in conjunction with penalty considerations, the committee suggests the APR alone should not be used as a membership requirement.

13. Requests to Delay the Application of Occasion-Two Historical Penalties. The committee amended its policies and procedures and the penalty waiver directive to permit an institution to request a delay in applying an Occasion-Two Historical Penalty for one or more of its teams. However, the committee noted such requests will be approved only in rare cases when an institution can demonstrate that it is unable to apply such penalties within the prescribed period due to unanticipated and extraordinary circumstances outside the control of the institution, team and involved student-athlete(s). At this time, a team subject to historical penalties must impose these penalties in the academic year immediately following notification of the penalty. For example, a team notified during the 2007-08 academic year that it is subject to Occasion-Two Historical Penalties must impose such penalties during the 2008-09 academic year. However, the committee recognized that there could be situations and/or circumstances (e.g., natural disaster) that may require an institution to delay the application of an Occasion-Two Historical Penalty. Finally, the committee noted that institutions are on notice of the potential for Occasion-Two Penalties after receiving notification that it is subject to Occasion-One Historical Penalties. [Attachments B and C]

14. Penalty for Institutions that do not Apply the Historical Penalty within the Prescribed Period. The committee amended its policies and procedures to indicate that institutions that fail to apply historical penalties within the prescribed time period are required to report violations of applicable NCAA bylaws (e.g., NCAA Bylaws 23, 15 and/or 17) to the NCAA enforcement staff. If an institution has failed to apply a historical penalty in the prescribed timeframe and has exhausted its waiver and delay appeal opportunities through the committee, then a violation of NCAA bylaw(s) has occurred and the enforcement staff and the NCAA Committee on Infractions will have jurisdiction in the matter.

15. Staff Discretion in Application of the APR Adjustment Directive to Cases Involving Unique Mitigating Circumstances. During its April 2007 meeting, the committee delegated to the staff the authority to use its discretion in the application of the APR adjustment directive depending on the unique mitigating circumstances of a particular adjustment request. The committee approved language clarifying this change to the APR adjustment directive amendment. [Attachment D]

16. Adjustment of the Retention Point When the Missed-Term Exception Criteria are Satisfied. The committee approved an amendment to the APR adjustment directive to permit institutions to request, one time during the student-athlete’s academic career, an APR adjustment to a lost retention point in cases where the missed-term exception requirements are met, based on the following criteria:

a. The student-athlete must meet all criteria for the missed-term exception as outlined in Bylaw 14.4.3.5-(a);

b. The student-athlete must return to the institution as a full-time student in a subsequent term; and

c. The student-athlete must have lost the retention point but earned the eligibility point in his or her last term in the APR cohort prior to departure. [Attachment D]

At its April 2007 meeting, the committee adopted a policy permitting an institution to request relief for the lost retention point when the missed-term exception is applied. The committee clarified the application of this relief as an APR adjustment and noted that such an adjustment may be requested for a student-athlete who is not enrolled full time in multiple regular-academic terms.

17. APR and Penalty Reporting Forms. The NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting approved the final version of the institutional and public APR and penalty reports to be used in the 2007-08 academic year. The reports are intended to communicate team APR’s and

contemporaneous and/or historical penalties. In addition, the reports will include detailed worksheets explaining how the penalties were calculated.

18. APP data reviews. The Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting received a list of the 20 institutions selected for APP data reviews for the 2007-08 academic year. Additionally, the subcommittee was informed that three institutions carried over from the 2006-07 academic year also will complete the data review process this year.

19. Request from a Member Institution Related to Advance Approval of an APR Adjustment Request. The Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting reviewed correspondence from a member institution requesting an APR adjustment prior to a student-athlete’s re-enrolling at the institution so that it can determine the impact of his or her inclusion in the APR cohort. The Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting was not supportive of providing an institution with a conditional adjustment, in that the awarding of athletics aid, which would trigger inclusion in the cohort, is ultimately an institutional decision. Additionally, the subcommittee began preliminary discussions regarding a possible revision to the current definition of the APR cohort to remove student-athletes who professionalize themselves from the APR cohort in subsequent terms of enrollment at the institution. The Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting charged the staff with collecting data and additional information for further consideration during its October meeting.

20. Request from Member Institution Related to Institutional Characteristics and Student-Athlete Departures Due to Campus Judicial or Disciplinary Issues. The Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting heard a request from a member institution seeking relief for student-athletes who lose retention and/or eligibility points due to disciplinary reasons at any time during their enrollment at the institution. The institution requested special consideration due to its unique characteristics, which, it believes, have a negative impact on team APR. More specifically, the institution requested a blanket waiver for points lost for student-athletes who are suspended by the institution for disciplinary reasons. While acknowledging the uniqueness of the institution, the Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting was not supportive of a blanket waiver and noted that the Division I membership is comprised of member institutions with varied academic and institutional missions. The Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting further noted that institutional characteristics and mission may be considered during the penalty-waiver process.

21. Consideration of “Student-Athlete Learning Assessment” Research Request. The committee reviewed the proposal “Creating a Student-Athlete Learning Assessment (SALA)” and agreed not to request NCAA funding for the program. The committee noted that the NCAA Data Analysis Research Network (DARN), a group of highly regarded scientists from institutions across the country, also were not supportive of the funding request. The committee concurs with DARN’s assessment that the Collegiate Learning Assessment, the basis of the SALA, does not provide the NCAA with any significant information beyond what the association already captures in graduation rates, the APR, the Academic Performance Census (APC), and initial-eligibility information (i.e., SAT/ACT scores, core-course taking behavior).

22. Update on APP Educational Initiatives. The committee received a report regarding educational initiatives conducted by the national office and partner organizations to assist institutions in implementing strategies to support academic reform on their respective campuses. These initiatives included one-day seminars in conjunction with the NCAA regional rules seminars; development of an online course and summer institute in partnership with the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA); and an APR Workshop Pilot conducted in conjunction with the National Association of Athletic Advisors (N4A). The committee noted participation by 312 member institutions in one or more of these initiatives in 2006-07 and work is underway to develop additional educational initiatives for the 2007-08 academic year.

Committee Chair: Walter Harrison, University of Hartford, America East Conference

Committee Liaisons: Julie Cromer, Membership Services

Diane Dickman, Membership Services

Kevin Lennon, Membership Services

Todd Petr, Research

Bill Regan, Membership Services

NCAA Division I Academic Performance Program

NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate Improvement Plans Guidelines

Purpose.

This document is intended to provide institutions with steps to consider when developing a plan to improve student-athlete academic performance, retention and graduation. In addition, the document highlights those items the NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance requires institutions to include in the plan.

The committee recommends that institutions use Attachment Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to collect and analyze data regarding individual student-athlete and team NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) performance. Attachment No 1 is an example of how to organize the data collected in an effort to determine what issues need to be addressed.

After identifying issues that need to be addressed, an APR improvement plan must be developed for each identified issue. [Attachment No. 4]

Background.

During its April 2005 meeting, the committee approved a requirement that each institution must develop an APR improvement plan for any team(s) that fails to meet the established APR benchmarks in the contemporaneous- and historical-penalty structure. The committee believed this requirement would encourage low-scoring teams and institutions to make improvements in student-athlete academic performance, retention and graduation. The committee identified specific guidelines requiring institutions to: (1) Address athletics and institutional cultural changes needed to support better student-athlete academic performance, retention and graduation; (2) Specify appropriate, progressive goals for improvement; and (3) Outline active engagement of academic support services. The guidelines also require involvement of the head coaches and appropriate approval of the plan by executive-level institutional authorities.

In January 2007, the committee continued its review of the APR improvement plans and confirmed that these plans need to address the areas of: admissions, retention, academic support and graduation. Finally, at its April 2007 meeting, the committee amended its policies to require teams with an APR below 900 to submit their APR improvement plans to the NCAA national office. In addition to submitting its APR improvement plans, each institution must submit copies of all previous APR improvement plans, progress reports of those plans and any intended plans amendments.

As part of an institution’s request for relief from a contemporaneous and/or historical penalty, it will be required to submit the applicable team’s APR improvement plans. Additionally, the institution will have to provide evidence of the plan’s implementation, effectiveness in addressing current issues, evaluation and revision of the plans, and specific APR goals for the team(s). APR improvement plans will also be collected and evaluated through data reviews, athletics certification and Supplemental Support Fund applications.

Step One: Identify APR Improvement Plan Development Team.

The committee requires broad-based campus participating in the APR improvement planning process. Institutions should establish a team that will be responsible for development, assessment, evaluation and submission (as appropriate based on the requirements) of the institutions APR improvement plans. Planning teams should include representatives from both in and outside of the athletics department including, but not limited to some of the following individuals:

1. Faculty athletic representative.

2. Director of the academic support program.

3. Compliance director.

4. Head coach.

5. Academic administrator.

6. Athletics administrator.

7. Faculty athletics council member.

8. Admissions officer.

9. Financial aid administrator.

10. Enrollment management administrator.

11. Campus academic advisor.

Planning teams should identify a primary contact responsible for electronically submitting the plan to the national office by the established deadline.

Step Two: Data analysis.

Institutions should complete and submit a data analysis to identify the specific issues impacting the team’s APR. Factors that could be reviewed in this analysis include:

1. Overall APR.

a. The team’s percentile rank compared against:

(1) All other NCAA Division I teams.

(2) All other Division I teams in the same sport.

(3) The institution’s teams.

b. Multi-year APR trends.

2. Eligibility.

a. Academic profile of student-athletes losing “E” points.

b. Multi-year APR trends.

c. Team’s eligibility APR compared against the institution’s teams.

3. Retention.

a. Academic profile of student-athletes losing “R” points.

b. Multi-year APR trends.

c. Team’s retention APR compared against the institution’s teams.

d. Point of departure.

e. Athletics profile of student-athletes not retained.

f. Qualitative analysis of reasons for departure (e.g., exit interview result, team culture survey results).

4. Analysis of any 0/2’s.

a. Academic standing prior to term that was 0/2.

b. Seasons of competition used.

c. Engagement of student-athlete during the 0/2 term.

d. Athletics standing prior to term that was 0/2.

5. Entering academic profile of the team members.

6. Team academic record, including term-by- term grade-point averages and term-by-term hours earned.

7. Mitigating factors that affect the team’s APR (e.g., coaching change). Demonstrate a clear connection between the mitigating factor and the impact on the team’s APR.

Step Three.

Summarize observations, draw conclusions of data analysis and identify primary issues/areas needing improvement. Describe specific events or mitigating circumstances that impacted the team’s APR.

Step Four.

The committee has identified a list of program areas that impact academic performance, retention and graduation of student-athletes. Those areas can be grouped into three categories: pre-enrollment, enrollment and graduation/post enrollment.

Review the program areas that your institution has identified as connected to your areas needing improvement. The committee does not require that all program areas are reviewed.

Additional program areas for review can also be included in the plan.

Pre-Enrollment.

1. Recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

a. Policies and procedures: Include individuals involved and their specific responsibilities.

b. Areas of evaluation (e.g., athletics, academic, character).

2. Evaluation of academic readiness of prospective student-athletes and assessment to determine individual and collective academic support needs.

3. Special admissions policies and procedures.

4. Admission of prospective student-athletes.

Enrollment.

1. Academic support.

a. Academic Advising: Course selection, class scheduling, degree program assistance and priority registration.

b. Defining “At-Risk” Status: Institutional criteria for determining status.

c. Tutoring: Availability; procedures and criteria for obtaining assistance; assignment, qualifications, training, experience, etc.; compensation, rate of pay, pupil loads, qualifications, experience and other terms and conditions of employment.

d. Success Skills: Study skills, note and test taking, writing and grammar skills and time-management skills.

e. Study Hall: Availability, facilities and policy for mandatory attendance.

f. Freshman/Transfer Orientation: Availability and attendance requirements.

g. Academic Progress Monitoring and Reporting: Individual’s responsibility, frequency, procedures for periodic grade and attendance checks.

h. Assistance for Special Academic Needs: Provisions for diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities.

i. Learning Assessments: