ACADEMICS AND CULTURAL ISSUES

1. Academic Success of Student-Athletes

The Division III Philosophy places “the highest priority on the overall quality of the educational experience and on the successful completion of all students’ academic programs.” Survey results indicate that 100 percent of respondents support this philosophy and approximately 90 percent of respondents indicate that this philosophical basis be addressed at the institutional level. Since this is a high priority at the institutional level, should institutions monitor the successful completion of its student-athletes distinguishing them form students generally? If so, should the division establish a related philosophical principle? Should the NCAA include this philosophical basis in the Institutional Self-Study Guide (ISSG), (e.g., graduation rate, GPA, class standing) and assist with the creation of definitions; forms; best practices?

· This is a moot point if the true philosophy of Division III is adhered to be ALL members of the division.

· Annual report like Division I as opposed to ISSG – or in addition, number of years to graduate rate – student-athlete vs. student.

· This is a very good idea to ask institutions to get this information on the ISSG

· Should look to see if student-athletes are representative of student body. Look to see what student-athlete should be and then see if they achieve these academic objectives.

· NCAA should not legislate this area, but assist. Intent is to help institutions, not be requirement.

· This, in my opinion, will divide us even more. Institutional comparisons academically happen already – many of these issues are strong pressures on our campuses already and each of us is doing everything we can to strive for excellence.

· Does this fly against the philosophy? Not treating athletes differently used as a recruiting tool by some institutions. Should be a local decision, to complex for NCAA to get into.

· Graduation rate is great issue for public institutions, definitions would be challenging.

· Less differentiation between student-athletes/students is better. Don’t want to distinguish athletes from other students.

· Division III already lists solid foundation of their philosophy, no need to do more. Already report graduation rates.

· How does this fit with treating them like all students; are we setting a higher standard, treating student-athletes unfairly?

· This seems too close to Division I, allow us to do our work on our campus since they are students and do not receive scholarships.

· No, isn’t this inconsistent with NCAA directive to treat student-athletes the same as other students on campus?

· If it’s a priority, then measure and require it in some form. A standard for admissions? Clearinghouse?

· Continuing eligibility better at national level with a tiered approach by class in school. Some worry that this is going down Division I path but is needed.

· Yes, institutions should monitor student-athlete academic progress/success and should set up a philosophical principle. The primary goal of this, I think, is to reassure the faculty.

· NCAA and conferences should address this issue. Must look at class rank to compare schools. Mellon Foundation had good things to measure progress, NCAA surveys are too simplistic.

· Yes, if it is a multi-variant definition of successful completion tied into the mission or the school, representative of the school.

· Philosophy is to treat student-athletes the same, but if a study was done, results would show that student-athletes perform better.

· What is the intention? It should be something dealt with by individual institutions, not the NCAA.

· Minimum of 12 credits is not enough to graduate on time.

· If we compare student-athletes to general student body, what is the purpose/intent/goal? It is not necessary to distinguish between groups, not done with other groups on campuses.

· Institutional decision to monitor.

· Graduation rates, retention, GPA and academic success should be included in ISSG. Why are we treating student-athletes differently.

· Progress to degree, increase credits for normal progress to degree. Eight semesters = 96 credits.

· Once again, this is an institutional issue. Suggestions, at most, may come from the national level.

· Very complex to track, but helpful internally. Perception of Division I schools rubbing off on Division III (negative in academics). Use GPAs, maybe use ISSG.

· Are schools already doing this? Is it contrary to separate student-athletes from students?

· Important to laud student-athlete academic retention and success, impacts future development. Use registrar office for data, ISSG will be useful to show how student-athletes perform compared to students.

· Tuition driven schools need data to show student-athlete successes, conferences should show student-athletes high academic successes. Use ISSG, but don’t get info out of context.

· Division III schools have student-athletes who quit athletics but stay in school. Very hard to track who “student-athletes” are for graduation rates, etc.

· Most schools are doing this in-house already, no need to compare at divisional or Association level. Such data should be provided to institutional CEO, not shared across institutions.

· Would not want to add or establish a requirement to the ISSG. Current ISSG is satisfactory now. Institutional autonomy should be exercised.

· No, we are not Division I. Institutions are currently doing this, but we don’t need it formalized.

· Asking the question in a broad-based fashion is OK, asking institutions if they monitor the graduation rate of student-athletes is fine. It seems to be good practice to look at it on a five-year basis. This would be a way to engage FARs/faculty in the ISSG process.

· Simply ask institutions if they track, don’t mandate method.

· We don’t currently track student-athlete grad rate, GPA or class standing, so any new inclusion would create work. As our athletic administration is quite small, any change like this, despite philosophical agreement, would not be encouraged.

· Do not support tracking student-athlete beyond the normal reports made on graduation rates of all students.

· Possibly increase academic standards Association wide.

· Feel this could be a Division I issue. Most schools keep at institution. Institutional autonomy. Admission processes where it starts to see who is let in.

· Do not separate student-athletes from general student population.

· Grad rate success formula not accurate due to transfer factor. Difficult to evaluate grad rate with number of factors in Division III athletics.

· Should be monitored, already do. Should be part of the ISSG. Should this be shared? Presidents should decide.

· Support maintaining the same treatment for student-athletes as the general student body.

· Gather graduation rates for Division III to make our case that student-athletes are academically successful. Use IPED information.

· Institutions should monitor academic achievement of student-athletes. These issues can be dealt with at a conference level and institutionally. Support philosophical statement but not a reporting process.

· Important to do so, in large measure, to help support the educational ability of student-athletes. Yes, monitor graduation rates.

· Already monitor GPAs and graduation rates, it would be helpful to include. Great to report the good things in terms of academic success. Possibly have conference collect data, due to fact that ISSG stays on campus.

· Some form of academic success measuring should be included in the ISSG. Some opposition to including graduation rates because there is so much variability in how a grad rate is determined.

· Student-athletes should be compared similarly to generally student body. Definition of graduation rate is very important at Division III. Is it fair to count someone who only appeared on a roster as a freshman? Division III is unique in that can have individuals only playing one year.

· The idea has merit, but it needs some further evaluation (parameters to follow).

· NCAA shouldn’t separate out athlete academic progress as a policy. Should be institutional policy if they want to see these results.

· Must if we all adhere to and interpret the philosophy of the division. Report the graduation rates of Division III to clearly show philosophical alignment. Should be submitted to the NCAA (on sign-off petition) student-athlete and overall. Annually on grad rate info, could be random.

· Student-athletes should have comparable outcomes as the student body in general (GPA, class standing, etc.).

· Including graduation rate – institutional research – transfers need to be accounted for to get accurate rate of graduate athletes – owe best effort. Should be part of institutional self-study guide.

· Should not single out student-athletes. Institutional autonomy to analyze their own data, not the NCAA. Faculty have the concern that the Division is driven by championships, not academics.

· All three questions involve small changes that do have merit. But what does this have to do with the “future of Division III?”

· Academic success should be monitored by the institution. Admissions procedures are unique to each institution and students are selected for different reasons based upon the priority of the institution. Therefore, there should not be legislation which prohibits an institution from making autonomous admissions decisions about those who are qualified to succeed at the institution.

· Yes, should be included.

· Reporting wouldn’t be a problem by assisting with definitions, should be institutional.

· More integration education opportunities/sessions would be useful. Especially from those who do it well.

· Inclusion of graduation rates of student-athletes should be monitored by institutions. Must be careful how it is defined, (transfers in and out, etc.), a graduation rate of student-athletes should be part of the ISSG.

· Best left at the institutional level, big brother is watching, institutional autonomy is threatened. Best practices as examples, Division III needs to be represented when the public hears about grad rates.

· Do an exit survey of student-athletes who graduated. This should be an institutional priority and not the NCAA. Keep at institution because it creates another competition.

· Would be worthwhile to make ISSG membership deal. Don’t want the NCAA too involved, maybe just simple measures. Once thing to track it, another to create policy around it. Institutional issue to define standards, not further than satisfactory progress about it.

· This is an institutional issue, but NCAA should reaffirm its importance, especially at Division III level. Need common definitions.

· Several were highly suspicious of the Mellon report and concerned it was not representative of Division III. Some were afraid that NCAA was “in bed” with them and using Division III as its sacrificial lamb.

· Increase mailings.

· Nothing wrong with increasing academic standards for all Division III, GPA, credit requirements, etc. Class standing is not as important a criterion, differences between institutions.

· The benefit of this type of policy would be to highlight that the academic and athletic cultures in NCAA Division III can coexist. That in Division III success/persistence rates are indeed higher than those for non-athletes.

· Only value I see is to prove athletics do not deter academic success.

· Self study – what’s the harm. Do we compare grad rates rather than state facts? Can’t say that it be done just every five years? Is this the attention t need, or should it be an annual assessment.

· Most schools do, should it be a requirement. Tracking process, departing/coming in late. Conference/national tracking and recognition.

· Must schools already monitor this? May impact schools negatively if info is posted. Could take away from institutional autonomy. May cause discrepancy with coaches associations. Would be interesting to track information.

· No, same as all students for participation institutional control. Reporting how athlete population does related to general population is fine. Most collect data already.

· Academic tracking is already done (IPOD). This is an institutional decision; the NCAA should stay out of it. It would be even more overwhelming to include academic tracking in ISSG.

· Should remain an institution issue, no additional disclosures.

· Yes, include self study, “are these comparable?” Have to provide definitions. Leave outcomes/results to institutions.

· Code everything and get quickly, zero in. What are the other students doing? Don’t need to be the only one under the microscope. GPAs are hard measure, hard to reduce them to a number. Need some other things.

· Already done at many schools, should not be required and should not be part of philosophy. Should advise but not mandate, include in ISSG as best-practice document.

· It would be a positive, not a negative, but it isn’t necessary. We don’t like the idea, it’s another thing to do, and it would distinguish them from the student body.

· Do not want to increase the amount of requirements. Do not want to distinguish them from the student body.

· Are they students or student-athletes? Association seems to use the terms when convenient. Not so sure, risk of media involvement. Institutions should decide if these issues are salient to the campus.

· From a competition-eligibility standpoint, split on GPA, normal progress requirements, etc. Consensus to have criteria included for ISSG.

· Do not legislate treating athletes superficially. Confirm support as it is now.

· Do we require some tracking of other campus co-curricular participants?! Institutions should have autonomy as to what they collect and how used, just require to have a system rather than report data.

· No, best to keep student-athletes and students treated as much alike as possible.

· Group resists the idea of more forms and national reporting requirements. Appeared to be almost unanimous agreement about this.

· How do students who don’t graduate figure in due to normal attrition? May have only been on team for one semester.

· NCAA rules on academic eligibility are a low bar, how does progress towards major completion figure in? Is this an NCAA issue at all, should this be conference or institution based?

· What would the NCAA do? Different ways institutions certify, should certify every semester to help monitor, should parallel what they do for all students. Consistency, not frequency is the issue.

2. Cultural and Campus Integration

Survey results indicate that approximately 90 percent of respondents strongly support or support the CEO being actively involved in the oversight of intercollegiate athletics. However, survey results also show that directors of athletics more frequently report to chief student affairs officers (48.7 percent) or chief academic officers (19.6 percent) as compared to the CEO (20.2 percent). Based on the athletics reporting structure in Division III, should institutions identify strategies for engaging the student affairs and academic offices in the ISSG? Should the national office create flexibility for institutions to identify the chief student affairs officer and chief academic officer for NCAA communication initiatives (Top 6 as opposed to Top 5)? What other strategies would better integrate these individuals?

· Just because AD does not report to CEO doesn’t mean that the CEO isn’t highly involved. Can add an unnecessary layer of involvement. This is an institutional issue.

· Special sessions for VPs and Deans of Student Affairs, mailings to VPs and Deans in addition to CEOs.

· The distribution of NCAA information need to be simultaneously completed to the CEO, the campus primary officer for academics the primary officer for student affairs, the director of athletics the faculty athletic representative and the senior woman administrator.

· Yes to both if that is who meet with them, that is who the materials should be sent to.

· Academic officer to think of athletics as part of academic experience. Institutional issue, not Association wide.

· I would make sure that the person whom the AD reports to should get the info.

· ADs report who to send info to.

· Communication to student affairs/academic officers should be included. Should add a sixth person. Not adding any kind of legislative requirement is key, but ADs should be forwarding as well to CEOs as appropriate.

· More chief student affairs officers and chief academic officers should be involved and even attend NCAA Conventions and added to communications from NCAA. Large number of ADs report to these individuals.

· If AD reports to someone other than CEO, yes that other person should be in the information loop for NCAA and at the conference level.

· Mailings are forwarded to VP of academic affairs or student affairs. CEOs likely didn’t complete survey, VP did.

· ADs report to both VP and Chancellor. Provide grants to VP of academic affairs to attend NCAA Division III meeting. Institutions can specifically ask for materials for VP. Would ISSG be signed by CEO and VPs too? Campuses are incorporating VPs on campus – need to know basis.

· Have each school designate who gets NCAA information, send to top six.

· Yes to top six, but likely will not use fully.

· Conference structure which should engage individual to whom AD reports.

· Training for chief student affairs and academic officers, strategies should be included in ISSG. Chief student affairs and academic officers should be included in all mailings. CSAO and CAO should be included in conference structure, cabinet level officer.

· We should be including student affairs office/deans based on reporting structure. Institutions should provide proper training to these individuals, bring into conference structure.

· Training for student affairs officer, FAR. Both student affairs officer and dean should be included.

· Continued cooperation between these areas is important.

· VSGs should be part of discussion to have a dialogue. Develop a policy committee of athletic directors and supervisors. Get CEOs part of communication groups.

· Add additional space for another person. Could be for secondary (FAR) or another reporting line officer. Possible additional NCA speaker privileges if this officer attends.

· It makes more sense to include the student affairs officers. Since so many Ads report to them, student affair officers should be invited to other conferences and this one. SAOs have more time than CEOs.

· Yes, that would be a good addition. CEO is responsible for most everything. Presidents often involved when it goes awry – should be involved at onset. Commissioner has a lot to do with it – helps the situation. Definitely actively engage another reporting officer. Creating programs for student affairs and academic officers would encourage participation.

· Encourage CEOs to get more involved. Encourage regular (semester) meetings, between CEO, AD’s direct report (i.e., other than CEO).

· None of the ADs at this table report to CEO; report to various others. Administrators may not have much interest in becoming involved in athletics. Should athletics become important enough, or is it important enough, to be given major attention by CEO? Prefer to report to someone else because can be given more focus.

· CEOs are either fundraisers or academics. Let the institution decide to whom athletics reports; don’t force/require institutional hierarchy.

· Definitely don’t want top 6. To add another person is ludicrous. Embarrassed by how much paper and postage spent to communicate. CEOs not on campus most time. Informationally, we are reporting to CEOs. Athletics should not be direct line to CEO, but for example, AD to provost to president. Should not add one more person to mix. They don’t have time. Cut down layers, but can’t mandate hierarchy.

· CEO needs to be involved. Include the communication. How do you handle it with the governance issues?

· CEO not directly involved; maybe shouldn’t be.

· Adding 6^th person would be a good idea. Convention could entertain this issue – push for more student affairs/chief academic officers to attend. Further emphasis on institution integration/communication. CEO/academic officers/SWAs/ADs/FARs/Student-athletes/Coaches.

· “Direct reports” should be included in communications. Including student affairs and academic officers could be fine for issue. Maybe also environment, development.

· The individual to whom the athletics department reports should receive all NCAA correspondence – the direct reports should be collected by the NCAA. The president should still be included (top 6).

· Whomever the athletics department reports, the mailings should be sent to them. This should be indicated in annual institution informational disclosure.

· Better to use direct-report position. All should get regardless of reporting structure.

· Institutional autonomy – is it an issue? However, it would be good to have a top 6 option to have someone else. If you started inviting VP, deans, and they would go and the CEOs would not go. Presidents are busy – so get who deals with this on a day-to-day basis. Definitely include. Helps a lot of ADs – so they know what happens. Equally as important as on FAR.

· Should incorporate student affairs officers in contacts (makes a statement for NCAA rather than being forwarded directly from AD, etc.) Create a program that orients student affairs with the NCAA because they work with athletic material at many institutions (training/orientation program). More emphasis if they are directly contacted. Don’t want to add another layer to governance structure.

· CEO needs to receive things from student affairs. Should not be too hard to get the information. Should be able to add a person. Designate a person the AD goes to. They oversee athletics, and they don’t’ know a lot.

· CEO should receive all information from student affairs. Be able to add a person – designate a person the AD reports to. Improve communication between AD, president and student affairs.

· Yes, but the CEO’s role shouldn’t be diminished. Chief student affairs’ officers and chief academic officer should be integrated into conference structure. CEOs need to be educated about Division III athletics.

· Real need to include the direct reports in every facet.

· Provide information for top 6. Include the academic dean in mailing. But this may be an ___ for various institutions. The majority of schools in our conference have the AD repot to academic dean.

· Yes, yes, yes – these are the people who have direct supervision over athletics. They may be overlooked presently, resulting in some items falling between the cracks.

· Help to send info. (NCAA) to the person athletics reports to.

· Should report to CEO.

· This item creates the greatest strength of opinion of any and there were strong feelings. Major disconnect between ADs and presidents – the next time survey like this done – get signatures of AD and president. Needs signature from all ____ SAACS reps, FARs, etc. All areas – ADs and conference ____ strong statement about CEO involvement/lack of involvement in response to this questionnaire. ADs and VPs + student life people - are the key players and knowledgeable on a daily basis and need to be involved. Not all presidents are involved and directing communication to them (solely) is problematic.

· Why not let LAC(?)/CSAC come to the conference and get the communication. No problem with this – idea should be moved on immediately. That said, CEOs should get the information to remain involved in the dialog.

· Person(s) who athletics reports to should be the person who gets the mail and attends meetings and conventions.

· Do it. I move to report to, but need educational background provided – have VPs get more information.

· Yes, but if do not report to CEO, you are in lesser position. NCAA should get CEOs involved. Student affairs to busy to deal with athletics. President’s designee is a possibility.

· Need to be on the “top” list. Attendance at convention. Best practices developed by the NCAA.

· Many small schools have no distinction. AD supervision should be part of it (the communication group. Cultivate, integrate – supervisors of AD – vice presidents need to recognize. Not accepting of day-to-day. Realignment is important; waiting period; still questions.

· Presidents (CEOs) are not coming to the convention. Instead, have the individual on each campus who the AD reports to attend the convention.

· Add another person to the “Top 5” list.

· President (CEO) should stay in loop but add direct report as #6.

· Yes, include them (top 6). Let them represent the president at convention. Go to function or have special functions for them. Some conferences are already moving in that direction.

· Include the chief student affairs officers on all NCAA correspondence (or whomever the AD directly reports to).

· Institutions should be permitted to identify who the AD reports to. That individual should get mailings.

·   &nb