The bane of intercollegiate athletics over the last 20 years has been the charge that student-athletes are not being educated. From newspaper editorials to academic panels, there has been steady and nearly universal concern that athletes are not really students.

All of that, frankly, is because Division I men's basketball and -- to a lesser degree -- football student-athletes are graduating at rates below or far below the rest of the student body or other student-athletes in Division I. The fact that Division I student-athletes on average are graduating at a higher rate than the rest of the student body (and considerably better if you remove men's basketball and football from the calculations) is lost in the noise that surrounds the dismal results of the most athletically elite student-athletes at the most athletically successful colleges and universities.

This is an issue where national policy largely has been a dramatic success. Graduation rates of all student-athletes have increased by six percentage points since Proposition 48 -- the first initial-eligibility standard that combined grade-point average in a set of core courses with results on standardized tests to determine freshman eligibility. Graduation rates of African-American males have risen by nine percentage points. Both of these figures have risen faster than their counterparts in the student body. And the latest data -- the basis for recommendations presented on page 3 -- tell us that even greater success is available with new national policy that focuses more on the college experience to predict progress toward graduation than the high-school performance snapshot we have relied upon the last 15 years. In other words, for the majority of student-athletes, the best is yet to come if colleges and universities adopt as national policy the new initial- and continuing-eligibility standards under consideration.

Why has a national policy that has been successful in almost all sports been less successful (see the accompanying table) at increasing graduation rates for men's basketball and football student-athletes? The only rational explanation is that something about the recruiting or practice of those sports at the local level have defeated an otherwise sound policy at the national level. The new standards under consideration are worthy of support, and I encourage each of you to acquaint yourself with the research and recommendations and speak with an emphatic presidential voice in favor of these changes. But don't let better research and a more scientific approach deceive you into believing that these new national policies cannot also be defeated by local practices.

The Division I governance structure also is considering a set of incentives and disincentives that will add starch to the fabric of eligibility standards. These are important and also deserve your support.

However, the real will to act on this issue is the will to set local standards for recruiting, local expectations for enrolled student-athletes and local accountability for linking outstanding athletic performance with real academic success. In my opinion, there are three areas you should examine locally to ensure real academic success:

Recruiting Practices. Do you have a "profile" of the students you are seeking to recruit so as to promote the admissions of only those student-athletes who have a reasonable chance of graduating? Are your coaches instructed not to recruit prospects who publicly indicate that they plan to play college sports only until the first opportunity they have to turn professional?

Academic Support Programs. Do academic support programs for student-athletes report through the chief academic officer on campus? Are student-athletes who are admitted with below-average academic profiles provided with the necessary academic support to be successful? The Division I athletics certification program contains an element on this subject and I encourage you to have the proper academic authorities on campus familiarize themselves with the issues.

Athletics Practice Policies and Student-Athlete Time Demands. Does your campus have a policy that prohibits or restricts academically at-risk student-athletes from being able to participate fully in all practice opportunities?

Our constituents hold intercollegiate athletics accountable in ways they don't other departments on the campus. It always has been and will continue to be so. The public, media, faculty and fans clearly expect that colleges and universities will educate the student-athletes in their charge. It is time to make good on the promise.

The academic consultants who have been working on new national policy have made great strides in terms of understanding what the research tells us and how to apply the data. The challenge for you as chief executive officers on campus is to make sure your standards and practices align not only with the letter but also with the spirit of initial eligibility and progress toward a degree. Examine your recruiting, academic support and student-athlete time-demand policies against the questions above. If you can't answer yes to all or most of them, I suspect you will fall short of truly educating your student-athletes.

Academic Standards

The Association's academic standards have been a work in progress for many years. With the introduction of Proposition 48 in the early 1980s, the Association committed itself to studying the impact of its rules on student-athletes. This commitment has resulted in a wealth of data by which to make thoughtful decisions regarding the types of standards that will support academic success. Recent legal challenges have been resolved favorably, clearing the way for academic reform.

During its April 1999 meeting, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors charged a membership group of academic consultants with reviewing the Association's academic standards. The Board provided the consultants with the following directive: Identify standards that increase graduation rates while minimizing the adverse impact on minority groups. These two objectives with suggested solutions are outlined as follows:

Incentives and disincentives

As the Division I membership looks at academic reform, additional measures beyond the standards themselves should be considered. The Association must help create an environment and culture in intercollegiate athletics that supports the high standards established. To achieve this aim, the development of incentives and penalties that reward academic success and promote academic welfare should be adopted. Such an incentive and disincentive model could include access to championships or revision of the revenue-distribution formula for athletics programs that achieve either unacceptable or admirable levels of academic success.

Time demands

Finally, these initiatives should be augmented with a thorough review of the time demands on student-athletes. A significant component of the Association's commitment to the academic success of student-athletes should be our assurance that adequate time is provided for academic pursuits.

Those who would like more detailed information on these issues may visit the NCAA Web site at www.ncaa.org