Athletic training education reform, well on its way to full implementation, has caught the attention of colleges and universities across the country.

The reform, while it entails many educational upgrades, has focused on the route to certification. Currently, students may take the athletic training certification exam after successfully completing an accredited curriculum or successfully finishing an internship.

By 2004, the internship route will not be an option -- but its impact will be felt long before that date as time runs out for students to meet testing deadlines.

The result? Sports-medicine programs that previously used scores of student athletic trainers mistakenly fear the loss of those students at a time when collegiate athletics health care is of growing concern.

The two events -- education reform and appropriate medical care in colleges -- are independent of one another. In fact, if institutions place students in properly supervised roles, the issues become even less threatening.

There are two benchmarks that can be used to determine approximately how much the education changes will affect an institution. First, it is going to be inversely proportional to the number of certified staff a school has. If a school has seven ATCs, it will be much less affected than schools with one or two ATCs.

For institutions that choose not to seek accreditation, schools that endorse 10 students for the exam are going to be much more affected than those that endorse one every two or three years.

The ongoing reform has spurred debate, discussion -- and in some cases, misunderstanding.

The NATA Education Council, along with the NATA Board of Certification and the Joint Review Committee on Athletic Training, have identified and clarified five major myths concerning education reform:

Myth No. 1: Internships will not be affected until 2004.

While January 1, 2004, is the cutoff date for interns to apply for the certification exam, the internships actually will be affected much earlier. Athletic training experience hours must be complete at the time of application, and they must have been accumulated in a period of no less than two academic years from the date of application. Essentially this means that students cannot begin an internship unless able to accumulate 1,500 hours two academic years before January 1, 2004. In practical terms, no students will enter internships after 2001.

This may catch some institutions off guard because many remain under the impression that internships will remain unchanged until 2004.

Myth No. 2: Colleges that do not have an accredited athletic training curriculum cannot have students working in the athletic training program.

No one is saying that students cannot be involved. The only difference is if that student wants to go on to become an ATC, he or she will have to enroll in an accredited program elsewhere at some point.

A proposal to be considered at the April CAAHEP meeting could create the first entry-level master's program in athletic training, allowing students to earn an undergraduate degree from a non-accredited site and enter the athletic training profession via a master's program.

Schools without an accredited curriculum have other options to keep students involved. For instance, they can affiliate with an accredited program.

Northeastern University, for example, uses Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and nine other sites -- both high-school and college -- to place their student athletic trainers for clinical experiences.

Institutions that cannot affiliate with an accredited program can employ student assistants in the athletic training room, through a work study program or other system.

Myth No. 3: Students can fulfill the same roles as full-time, certified staff.

Student athletic trainers must work under the direct supervision of an ATC. At no time is a student to take the place of qualified staff.

In the case of student assistants -- or students working in the athletic training program who are not enrolled in an accredited curriculum -- even more caution must be used.

And newly released guidelines outlining appropriate medical coverage in intercollegiate athletics further define the minimum qualifications of those involved with sports health care.

The guidelines state all personnel who might be associated with medical coverage must be certified to provide CPR, first aid and the prevention of disease transmission.

Sports with moderate risk should have a certified athletic trainer present or able to respond within four minutes, and sports with higher risk should have an ATC physically present.

Myth No. 4: The NATA education reform limits the number of schools that can gain CAAHEP accreditation.

Every school that meets the accreditation standards of the JRC-AT and CAAHEP will gain athletic training accreditation. Currently, 113 schools in 43 states have accredited programs, and approximately 80 accreditation applications are pending. It is important that schools be realistic as they review what is required to run a quality program, and to be realistic about the number of programs in any given geographic area.

Another consideration is the actual cost of an accredited program, ranging from candidacy and accreditation fees to the cost of supplies, facility maintenance, and faculty and support staff salaries.

Myth No. 5: Athletic training education reform has not really begun and can be stopped.

The process began years ago and is almost complete. These decisions were first researched beginning in 1994, were finalized in 1996 and implementation began immediately. The NATA's education reform process is much broader and deeper than simply eliminating the internship route to certification. Every aspect of entry-level, graduate and continuing education has been affected.

The bottom line is that professional preparation for certified athletic trainers is the responsibility of the NATA, the NATABOC and the JRC-AT, and those groups are ready to make this happen.

Kent Falb is the president of the National Athletic Trainers' Association.