The NCAA panel appointed to review whether recent trends in secondary-school education align with the intent of the Association’s initial-eligibility standards is recommending quick action to prevent students who complete secondary-school requirements at “diploma mills” from using those courses for NCAA eligibility.

Meeting February 14-15 in Newport Beach, California, the 23-member Initial-Eligibility Trends Working Group also emphasized that the problems of academic fraud posed by some prep schools affect all of secondary and higher education, not just college athletics.

However, the group discussed possible solutions that could be implemented quickly to resolve the issue as it relates to intercollegiate athletics. Group members in fact plan to recommend changes that affect the academic certification of this year’s class of prospective student-athletes. While final recommendations won’t be made until June 1, the panel already is leaning toward a plan that includes the following concepts:

n Identifying prep schools that fall outside of state oversight or jurisdiction related to the quality and monitoring of the curricula, sorting out those schools that are not academically sound and removing them from the list from which courses are accepted for review by the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse;

n Limiting the number of NCAA-required core courses a student can take in his or her senior year of high school and beyond, such as at a prep school;

n Examining the number of courses a high school student takes concurrently, to ensure they are truly learning the course material;

n Considering whether to have testing agencies, such as ACT and SAT, send results directly to the Clearinghouse; and

n Requiring prospects to register with the Clearinghouse before or during their first official campus visit.

Working group Chair Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for membership services, said whatever changes are adopted will be designed to have an immediate impact. He warned current prospective student-athletes who are considering taking courses that have little or no academic rigor from such prep schools to rethink their strategy if they want to be eligible to play college sports next year.

“We believe we have the resources and the commitment of the Association to address these issues in a timely manner,” Lennon said. “The bottom line is that any student who is thinking about leaving his or her high school right now simply to pick up additional courses for eligibility purposes should be aware that the NCAA will be implementing policies in the near future to address those abuses. Students need to be taking real academic courses and not simply buying eligibility.”

The growing number of prep schools and nontraditional high schools is in itself a challenge. Lennon estimated about 5,000 schools could come under initial scrutiny, but that a much smaller number would be identified for more in-depth questioning.

“The vast majority of high schools and prep schools do a good job of preparing our young people for higher education. Our focus is to deal with certain institutions where perhaps that integrity is lacking,” he said.

A critical element, Lennon said, is to ensure that actual instruction is taking place. He said technology and other enhancements have provided students with legitimate opportunities to learn through methods not available in the past. “The issue isn’t so much about how coursework is delivered, but more so on the integrity of the coursework,” he said.

The New York Times published a story several months ago that exposed a Miami school as offering diplomas with little or no coursework or instruction involved. The NCAA already has removed that school and two others from the list of acceptable institutions.

NCAA President Myles Brand created the working group in December after several college presidents raised concerns over the academic credentials of some students who attend certain types of prep schools or diploma-mill high schools or take nontraditional courses to meet NCAA initial-eligibility requirements. The panel includes college and university presidents and other higher education administrators; faculty members; athletics directors; conference officials; high school officials from state and national organizations; and NCAA staff.

At the outset, panel members acknowledged that the NCAA is not solely responsible for addressing the issue. Solutions must come from many institutions and organizations at the local, state and national levels, members said.

“At some point, we have to say that this is a joint effort among the NCAA, universities and colleges, secondary educators, state and federal government, and many others,” said J. Bernard Machen, president of the University of Florida and member of the working group. “There is a certain responsibility that rests with our schools and many other organizations.”

Lennon said data show that most students who attend the schools that have come under NCAA review are not student-athletes. “It’s not just an athletics issue, but it is one in which the NCAA can play an important role,” he said.

The NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse certifies that prospective student-athletes have successfully completed the minimum academic requirements for initial eligibility set by the Association. About 145,000 students register with the Clearinghouse each year, and about 65,000 of them are reviewed each year by Division I and Division II institutions.

Lennon stressed that Clearinghouse certifications, if used in the college and university admissions process, should be just one of many factors considered by campuses when deciding to admit future student-athletes.

“Certification from the Clearinghouse is an important factor,” Lennon said, “but it is more important that the admissions program on each campus make its own evaluation of that student’s readiness for the academic rigor on that campus. To say that because an individual is certified by the Clearinghouse he or she is therefore likely to be successful on that campus is an inaccurate statement and sets some students up for failure.

“I think we’ll see an increased emphasis on the admissions process because of the work of this panel. It is each campus’ responsibility to look at the veracity of the academic profile of these students before they are admitted.”