The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- April 26, 1999

Core-course legislation embraces increased high-school involvement

BY JANE JANKOWSKI
STAFF WRITER

CHICAGO -- The Divisions I and II Core-Course Review Committee has agreed to move forward with legislative recommendations that would broaden the definition of high-school core courses acceptable to meet NCAA initial-eligibility standards. The committee also has agreed to recommendations that would change the course content requirements in various academic disciplines.

The recommendations, made during the committee's April 1-2 meeting, were approved with nearly unanimous support from committee members, including those from the high-school community. The committee sought input from high-school organizations as it formulated the proposed legislation, then asked for written and verbal comments after changes were drafted. Many people within the high-school organizations support the recommended changes, but several continue to debate whether the NCAA should have any role in the evaluation of high-school courses and standards.

The committee approved forwarding proposed legislation to the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Division II Academic Requirements Committee for consideration. The changes would expand acceptable core courses to include those taught via the Internet, distance learning, independent study, individualized instruction, and correspondence courses that meet specified criteria. Elements such as appropriate evaluation of the course by proper academic authorities, access between the instructor and student during the course and acceptability of the course for placement on a student's transcript are among the criteria needed before such a course would satisfy core-course requirements.

In addition, the proposed legislation would change the existing definition of a core course. Primarily, the changes would eliminate the requirement that at least 75 percent of a course's instructional content be in specified areas for consideration as a core course. Replacing the 75 percent instruction content requirement would be criteria more general in nature that provides more autonomy to high schools to determine what constitutes a core course.

Responsibility 'where it should be'

If adopted, the proposed legislation would be require that a course be considered college preparatory, be taught at or above the high school's regular academic level and qualify for graduation credit in English, math, natural/physical science, social science, foreign language, computer science or nondoctrinal religion/philosophy, among other requirements.

"We are returning more and more responsibility to the high schools, where we believe it should be," said Robert Frank, faculty athletics representative at Oregon State University and a member of the committee.

High-school organizations throughout the country were invited to attend the meeting or to submit written comments about proposed legislative changes. Representatives from several high-school organizations, including the Minnesota State Board of Education, North Central Association, the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Department of Distance Education, National Association of Secondary School Principals and National Association of College Admissions Counselors, spoke, provided comments or gave presentations before the committee's deliberations.

James Schiefelbein and James Sherwood of the University of Lincoln-Nebraska, Independent Study High School, offered a presentation about their accredited program, which provides print-based correspondence and Web-based courses to about 5,000 students worldwide annually.

"Our students transition successfully into college programs," said Schiefelbein, the school's principal. "In distance education, this is the wave of the future. We have all types of students, including some from small schools with limited curriculums, some whose parents are not happy with the curriculum, some training for the Olympics and some traveling with their parents."

Tom Wilson, a principal from Eagan (Minnesota) High School and high-school representative on the committee, suggested that the NCAA should eliminate all evaluation of high-school courses rather than modifying current standards.

"You should evaluate the graduate and determine if that individual is academically prepared," said Wilson. "But you should not be evaluating the teacher or the course or the school. That's our job and that's why we're struggling with this."

Alan Hauser, faculty athletics representative at Appalachian State University and chair of the committee, said the core-course review process is a way for the NCAA to ensure that prospective student-athletes have a minimum solid academic base.

"Assessing preparedness is the key issue," he said. "Our role is to establish a configuration of courses that will reasonably prepare a student-athlete to do well at a university. It's a means of determining if the prospective student-athlete has the academic background to succeed in the classroom and in athletics.

"This is not an attempt to assess the quality of instruction but a baseline to determine if a student will do well," Hauser said.

If approved by the Divisions I and II membership, the core-course changes could be implemented for prospective student-athletes entering college in fall 2000.