A movement is growing in Division II to deal with graduation-rate information that many administrators believe may be giving the division an undeserved black eye.

At issue is the report produced annually as a requirement of the federal Student Right-to-Know Act. Data from that report show a graduation rate of 49 percent for Division II student-athletes who entered in the 1993-94 class, a seemingly uninspiring figure that attracted attention in the January 5 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle noted that the Division I cohort for the same year graduated at a 58 percent rate and postulated that a primary reason for Division II underperformance is that academic-
support resources -- academic advisement, tutoring, equipment and the like -- are less available in Division II than in Division I.

It is true that Division I academic support far exceeds what is available in Division II. In the most recent version of the NCAA racial demographics study, responding Division I institutions reported 537 academic advisors/counselors. Institutions responding in Division II reported only 73 academic advisors/counselors.

Second, while Divisions I and II rates are figured the same way, several factors can make comparisons of the two sets of data misleading.

Third, no matter what the reporting standards are, action is being considered that could improve graduation rates. Some Division II decision-makers want to address the issue by providing Division II student-athletes with five years of athletics eligibility, a substantial policy change that would require Convention approval. A more traditional approach involves new national programs that already have been put in place and will take effect over the next three years.

Faulty report?

In most ways, Division II concerns about the graduation-rate report mirror those of Division I, where the discussion has attracted more national attention. If an institution accepts a transfer student-athlete who subsequently graduates within six years of initial enrollment, the degree-granting institution doesn't get credit. Conversely, if a student-athlete transfers out of an institution, that individual counts against that institution as having not graduated, regardless of whether he or she subsequently gets a degree from another school.

"I think that (the report) provides misleading information and does not reflect the behavior of our students," said Kay Schallenkamp, president of Emporia State University.

Schallenkamp noted that transfer students can have a major impact when graduation rates are figured.

"I was in the Wisconsin system for five years and saw the benefits of being able to show policy-makers that our students are very mobile and that our graduation rates would go up 20 percent in some instances," Schallenkamp said.

Bernard Franklin, president of Virginia Union University, sounded a similar theme.

"We've got to revisit the process so that we are in fact getting accurate counts and so that institutions aren't penalized in terms of their graduation rates -- for instance, when a student transfers to another institution," he said.

The NCAA is studying ways in which academic outcomes for transfer students may be tracked. One possibility involves the development of a partnership between the Association and the National Student Loan Clearinghouse, which maintains a comprehensive national database on the status of students receiving financial aid. Division II is creating a Graduation-Rates Project Team to examine the issue and may be able to work in tandem with Division I to develop a report that provides a different perspective on graduation rates.

Invalid comparison?

While a report that tracks transfer students more effectively likely would lead to higher percentages for both Divisions I and II, it might not reduce the contrast between the divisions. However, lower Division II rates appear to be explainable. Beyond the amount of available academic support, factors at work include the following:

* Top students who are top athletes attend Division I institutions in higher numbers, skewing graduation rates in favor of Division I.

* Division II institutions may have a higher proportion of nontraditional students, both athletically and overall, as part of their institutional missions; such an approach is educa-
tionally sound, but it may serve as a graduation-rate depressant.

The biggest difference, however, may relate to money, since Division II student-athletes don't have the same financial support that their Division I peers have. While every football, basketball and women's volleyball student-athlete receiving aid at every Division I institution is on a full grant-in-aid that includes room, board, tuition and fees, almost all Division II athletes are on equivalency awards. According to the most recent NCAA revenues and expenses report, in the 1997 fiscal year the average student-athlete at a Division I-A institution received $6,139 in athletically related aid (average I-A aid expenditure of $2,984,000 divided by an average of 486 athletes); for Division I-AA, it was $4,023. For Division II institutions sponsoring football, the average award was $1,925.

Moreover, since 1991, Division I has used a Special Assistance Fund to help student-athletes with demonstrated financial need. Division II has no such fund at the moment, although one will be implemented in 2004-05.

Despite the challenges, Division II student-athletes still graduate at a higher rate than the overall Division II student body.

The lack of aid money also raises the question of which athletes should be counted in determining graduation rates -- only those receiving athletically related aid or all of those participating in intercollegiate athletics at a particular institution?

"On our campus, we have 54 scholarships stretched over 100 athletes," said Phil Roach, director of athletics at Rollins College. "We have 300 athletes on our teams. I would say we're probably pretty average. There are some institutions that fund much more, but there are a lot of institutions that fund less. So I think it would be very safe to say that over half of the students competing on teams in Division II have no athletics financial aid investment from the institution."

Since the graduation-rate reports track only those students receiving athletically related aid, that means that more than half of Rollins' student-athletes are not measured. In the case of Rollins, the graduation rate is high no matter how the measurement is made, but Roach says the point is that the current survey does a poor job of representing the academic performance of Division II student-athletes.

"I think it's a misnomer, of course, to say that is a graduation rate," Roach said. "We all understand that really and truly it doesn't measure that. It is a way of measuring a cadre of the students who started to school and whether they finish at that school, but the public doesn't understand what it measures and the media never take the time to explain what it truly measures and what the limitations are.

"And for Division II, when we narrow that field of student-athletes to those accepting a scholarship and then say that that's the graduation rate for athletes -- again, the perception isn't even close to the reality."

Eligibility

Although the methodology of the survey is questioned openly in Division II circles, decision-makers do not believe that the answer to producing higher graduation rates rests solely in modifying the report. In particular, a group of athletics directors has been exploring whether different eligibility rules might increase graduation rates.

In that vein, they are considering legislation for the 2002 Convention that would retain the 10-semester rule while permitting five years of eligibility for all Division II athletes. Jim Fallis, athletics director at the University of Northern Colorado, said the proposal makes educational sense.

He pointed to a study by the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange that challenged the traditional notion that students graduate in four years. The study showed that in 1966, 50 percent of all entering freshmen acquired an undergraduate degree within four years, but that in 1992, only 27 percent graduated after four years. For the 1992 class, another 21 percent graduated after five years, with 6 percent completing their degree after six years.

Fallis believes that the extended time frame is no less true for student-athletes than it is for students in general. Moreover, he believes the matter has student-athlete welfare over- tones.

"What the Division II Athletics Directors Association is look-
ing at is this: Isn't there a way that we can provide a fifth year of eligibility, thereby being able to provide that partial grant-in-aid that those student-athletes have been receiving their first four years?" Fallis said. "In turn, the feeling is that you can accelerate the graduation rate into their fifth year if they're taking six years to graduate or accelerating their graduation, period, if they are not graduating at all."

Schallenkamp, the Emporia State president, has an open mind but is aware of the potential friction points.

The question about opportunity involves whether a five-year schedule would unfairly or unwisely exclude new participants. Fallis believes he has a compelling counter-argument.

"Do we have a greater obligation to students who have already given four years or do we have a greater obligation to students who we don't even know are coming in?" he asked. "It kind of parallels what we did a few years back when we reduced grants-in-aid by 10 percent across the board. The same complaint was made at that time -- that you're reducing opportunities when in fact the number of participants on rosters didn't change one bit."

"The reaction among the Division II athletics directors we spoke to is that that makes an awful lot of sense," Fallis said. "If you can tie the fifth year of eligibility to verifying that the individual is within 24 hours of graduating or 15 or whatever the number is, then certainly that makes it much more appealing to everybody because none of us wants to provide a fifth year just for the sake of providing a fifth year. That's not the intent."

New programming

The greatest certainty in the discussion over Division II graduation rates involves new national initiatives designed to enhance educational opportunities, either directly or indirectly.

"The Division II Management and Presidents Councils have developed a long-range budget plan that makes a major commitment to educational resources," said Mike L. Racy, Division II chief of staff.

"We definitely want to raise money in addition to the $100,000 that will be provided by the NCAA," said Marion B. Peavey, executive director of the NCAA Foundation, which will administer the program along with the Division II Athletics Directors Association. Division II administrators who know of potential corporate support for the Division II Degree-Completion Program should contact Peavey at the national office.

The Degree-Completion Program likely will be structured similar to one that already exists in Division I. In the Division I program, student-athletes who have exhausted their eligibility but are within a predetermined number of hours of a degree are eligible to apply. The program has been enormously successful in Division I, where more than 90 percent of those receiving grants have earned their degrees.

The second Division II program, beginning in 2003-04, is designed to enhance academic-support services through grants provided to Division II conferences. The program will be the largest of the Division II new initiatives, funded at $1 million annually. Conferences will be asked to provide proposals on behalf of their members, with the funds being used to enhance academic support in a way that meets local needs. Possible uses might include money for tutoring and more academic advisement, among other things.

Also, beginning in 2004-05, Division II conferences will have access to a $500,000 Student-Athlete Assistance Fund that will aid student-athletes with special financial needs. Administrative details for that program have not been developed, but a similar Division I program makes money available for students who do not have money available for a variety of purposes, in-
cluding essential clothing (such as winter coats), course supplies, medical and dental costs not covered by insurance, and travel expenses for emergencies.

Finally, the Division II Enhancement Fund will be increased incrementally from its current value of $3 million to $4.5 million for 2004-05. Although the increase is primarily intended to develop stronger conference offices, academic development is one of the guiding principles for how the funds should be used.

Division II graduation rates

Graduation-rate data for Division II for key groups for each of the three years that the information has been available, plus comparable Division I data from the 2000 graduation-rate report:

\

New Division II student-athlete funding

New Division II student-athlete funding over the next four years:

Also, at their discretion, conferences may use money from the Division II Enhancement Fund for academic purposes. That fund will stand at $4.5 million by 2004-05.

Revised report poses positive applications

Suppose a Division II graduation-rate report could be devised that included academic outcomes for transfer students or perhaps reflected the graduation rates of all Division II participants, not just student-athletes receiving athletically related financial aid.

Might such a report have applications beyond the information it contains?

Phil Roach, director of athletics at Rollins College, believes so.

"All of us in the business are pretty confident (that such a report) would show that this is a belonging place, that athletes stay longer and do better in terms of graduating and persisting to graduation because they're on a team," Roach said. "And that's big-time stuff for us to say to the world, a credit to athletics in higher education.

"But taking that a step further, this would be a way of showing our accountability to the mission of our particular institutions. What if the NCAA would say that unless you're within a percentage of the graduation rate of your institution, then you cannot be eligible for postseason selection? This would prevent institutions from just bringing in people for one year, two years for competitive purposes and not have any intention of educating them."

Roach said another possibility would be to reduce financial aid for institutions that fail to graduate student-athletes at about the same rate as the overall student body.

"Conversely," he said, "the positive side of that would be if the athletics department were over the graduation rate for your institution at a particular range -- x plus something points? Wouldn't it be great to publish this nationally and be in the top 15 in the country in terms of graduation rates? And wouldn't it be nice to reward those institutions financially if there's enough money for an enhancement kind of a thing? I think that would be a tremendous statement to the mission of our institutions."

"I don't know that I would go so far as to penalize institutions because they haven't reached a particular threshold," said Bernard Franklin, president of Virginia Union University.

"I think that would only encourage game-playing," said Kay Schallenkamp, president of Emporia State University. "There are so many ways where you can manipulate those sorts of things, and I don't want to put our institutions or our students in that sort of situation."

Roach says the apprehension is reasonable, but he believes the ultimate rewards outweigh the risks.

"Philosophically," he said, "it's apple pie. Why wouldn't you say this is what we're about?"

-- David Pickle