REPORT OF THE
NCAA WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW INITIAL-ELIGIBILITY TRENDS
NCAA President Myles Brand authorized creation of the NCAA Working Group to Review Initial-Eligibility Trends for the purpose of reviewing recent trends in secondary-school education and how such trends should impact NCAA legislation and academic policies. The working group met February 14-15 and considered action in the following areas.
1. The process for review and approval of nontraditional courses for use as NCAA core courses, including addressing concerns about the legitimacy of some high school credentials presented by some prospective student-athletes for purposes of determining NCAA initial eligibility.
2. The legislated core-course time limitations in Divisions I and II.
3. The legislative requirements for reporting ACT and SAT test scores and the requirements’ impact on test-score fraud.
4. The use of core courses earned at prep schools.
The working group agreed upon the following key underlying assumptions that will guide its work and final recommendations:
1. Relying on the integrity of high school principals who are subject to state regulation and oversight is a sound principle the NCAA should maintain. Thus, it is fair to conclude that public high schools have a means to determine the validity of high school work. It also should be noted that many nonpublic high schools are subject to state review and thus have a means to determine the validity of high school work.
3. Distance learning, use of the Internet, and other technology advances have created sound educational options that are now an important part of the high school and college educational system. The method of educational delivery is not at issue; however, in certain instances the integrity of the school and course work has been in question.
4. Home schooling is a viable and important educational option in this country and NCAA initial-eligibility standards have always provided a means for such students to earn qualifier status for athletic purposes. The process for review and approval of home-school
student’s transcripts is different form the review of nontraditional high schools. It is not anticipated that the working group will consider changes to the home-school evaluation process.
5. Achieving the appropriate balance between over-regulation/bureaucracy and ensuring academic integrity is a challenge. Over the years the membership has moved toward reducing the bureaucracy of certain processes in order to expedite decision making. Unscrupulous adults and students have taken advantage of this momentum.
6. Member institutions are responsible for admitting student-athletes with sound academic preparation. Since the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse began operations in 1994 some institutions have operated with the premise that the clearinghouse is solely responsible for ensuring academic integrity. A model of shared responsibility between member institutions and the clearinghouse is necessary to facilitate greater academic integrity.
7. Preparatory schools play an important role in American education and in the majority of instances are used as a means to enhance a student’s education. However, in certain instances preparatory schools are used as a means to circumvent NCAA initial-eligibility regulations. Instances have been observed where an individual takes a much larger number of core courses at a preparatory school then the student had been able to complete at his or her high school. In addition, sometimes much higher grades are obtained from enrollment at a preparatory school.
8. Test scores are a key component of the initial-eligibility standards. Ensuring that students have properly achieved the score used in the certification is an important component in ensuring student-athletes are prepared for college work.
9. Early clearinghouse registration benefits student-athletes by ensuring they receive a preliminary certification report. Encouraging early registration is an important component of shared responsibility.
10. The issues identified are not solely NCAA problems but problems that exist within our secondary-school and higher education communities for athletes and nonathletes alike. The working group must identify the role the NCAA can play in the issue and partner with other entities where appropriate.
Issues Identified and Initial Recommendations:
The working group identified the
following issues and initial recommendations. The working group encourages
membership and external constituencies to provide comment on these concepts
prior to the working group’s next meeting, April 17-18. Comments can be provided to any of the
following staff members:
1. Issue – Source of Graduation and Core Courses. Certain nontraditional, nonpublic or preparatory schools that are not regulated by their state or other entity have taken advantage of the authority placed with the high school principal by the NCAA to undermine the academic integrity of secondary-school education. Specifically, instances were identified where individuals could pay a flat fee for a high school diploma, where limited or no interaction between teacher and student occurs, and where no apparent learning is taking place. Further, situations were identified where a student-athlete leaves high school during his or her second semester senior year to attend another high school to avoid taking a required state exit exam, or to take a large number of core courses, or to obtain a significantly improved grade-point average.
Recommendation to address the source of
graduation and core courses:
a. Establish a more comprehensive process for reviewing high schools used to meet the graduation and core-course requirements for purposes of meeting NCAA initial-eligibility requirements. This enhanced review process would ensure basic academic components are met for high schools to be certified for use in meeting NCAA initial-eligibility requirements.
b. The enhanced review process might include in-person site visits of certain schools.
c. Implementation of this recommendation could begin in early May after presidential approval during the NCAA Divisions I and II presidential meetings in April.
d. This recommendation will require legislative change. Presidential action will be requested on this item in April.
e. Details identifying the more comprehensive process will be finalized by an appointed subcommittee of the working group prior to the April meeting.
2. Issue – Core-Course Patterns. Individuals who have performed poorly academically during their first three years of high school are in some instances showing miraculous recoveries during their senior year and beyond. After or while attending a high school where the student-athletes competed in athletics, the student enrolls at a nontraditional high school or a preparatory school for a short period of time and takes a large number of core courses and multiple-sequential core courses during the same term (e.g., taking English I, II, III and IV during same term). In other instances prospective student-athletes delay high school graduation to enroll in one of these schools to complete core courses or retake core courses to improve their grade-point averages.
Recommendations to address core course
patterns:
a. Place a maximum on the number of core courses that can be earned during a student-athlete’s fourth year of high school and beyond.
b. Place a limit on the number of sequential courses that may be taken during the same term (e.g., Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, and Trigonometry).
c. Amend the core-course time limitation legislation in a manner that encourages sound educational practice. For example, the current Division I rule discourages high school graduation by some students.
d. A subcommittee of the working group has been established to identify the appropriate numbers of core courses within this recommendation and to finalize a recommendation on the core-course time limitation.
3. Issue – Test Taking Patterns. Currently only 30 percent of the scores reported to the clearinghouse are official test scores. Since the clearinghouse does not receive official test scores in most cases, it may not be notified of canceled test scores and thus may use an invalid test score to certify a prospective student-athlete’s eligibility. Further, irregularities have been noticed in the reporting of certain student-athletes SAT and ACT scores. Specifically, a student-athlete will report a single SAT score but may have taken the ACT three times with significantly lower scores. Without the ability to see all scores, fraudulent test scores may be used to certify eligibility.
Recommendations to address test-taking
patterns:
a. Explore the option of obtaining official test scores for all prospective student-athletes directly from the testing agencies.
b. Explore the option of requiring test scores used for initial-eligibility purposes be taken prior to July 1 following a student’s eighth semester of high school.
c. Explore the option of requiring official test scores for some prospective student-athletes.
d. These options will be further vetted during the working group’s April meeting.
4. Issue – Shared Responsibility in the Initial-Eligibility Process. There seems to be a growing trend of late clearinghouse registration by students and by institutions in placing student-athletes on an institution request list (IRL). This leads to an inability to properly advise student-athletes regarding academic deficiencies. Encouraging early registration and IRL enhances the integrity of the clearinghouse process and fosters sound academic behaviors.
Recommendations to encourage shared
responsibility:
a. Require a prospect be placed on an IRL prior to or during an official visit; prior to providing a written offer of admission; or prior to providing a written offer of financial aid, whichever is earliest.
b. Require a prospect to register with the clearinghouse prior to or during official visit; prior to accepting a written offer of admission; or prior to accepting a written offer of financial aid, whichever is earliest.
c. This recommendation will require legislative change. Presidential action will be requested on this item in April.
5. Issue – Ability to Identify and Respond Appropriately to Suspected Academic Fraud. Persons inclined to commit academic fraud are not limited to the set of issues currently being addressed by the working group. As systems and legislative changes are implemented to close existing loopholes, unscrupulous individuals will work to find new ways to circumvent the system. Additionally, even modified systems are vulnerable in cases where outright deceit or lies are promulgated. The college admissions process generally contains some element of subjective review in addition to quantitative evaluation of academic credentials. This subjective review provides the opportunity for a
college to deny admissions when a prospective student's academic credentials appear fraudulent or educationally unsound. The current clearinghouse process is entirely quantitative, and does not provide the opportunity to discount academic records that appear to be fraudulent or based on erroneous information.
Recommendation to address academic fraud on
an ongoing basis:
a.
Provide a mechanism to conduct special review of a
prospects academic records and/or a high school's information where there is
the appearance of malfeasance in the academic record. As a result of such
special reviews, a student could be deemed a nonqualifier by not accepting
transcripts, test scores, graduation, or high school core courses.
b.
Such a special review would be conducted initially by
the clearinghouse and/or NCAA staff and could include review by an identified
group of experts.
c.
This recommendation will require legislative
change. Presidential action will be
requested on this item in April.
6. Issue – Development of Partnerships to Address Issues of Academic Integrity. Issues being addressed by the working group are not solely NCAA matters. Strategies both nationally and locally need to be identified.
Recommendation:
a. When academic fraud is discovered it should be reported to local and state law enforcement officials and appropriate high school associations (e.g., local school boards, accrediting agencies).
b.
Groups within the secondary-school community and NCAA
community will be identified to assist in these efforts.
The working group meets April 17-18 during which time it will review feedback provided on these matters and finalize its recommendations. A final report will be provided to President Brand and the governance structures in Divisions I and II by June 1.