Only three months since its creation, the NCAA Working Group to Review Initial-Eligibility Trends is forwarding emergency legislation to the Division I Board of Directors and the Division II Presidents Council that fortifies the integrity of the process prospective student-athletes use to matriculate into NCAA colleges and universities.

The presidential groups will consider the proposals at their April 27 meetings in Indianapolis. If approved, those measures will become effective immediately.

At the core of the proposals is the establishment of a more comprehensive process for reviewing high schools used to meet the graduation and core-course requirements inherent in NCAA initial-eligibility standards.

The enhanced review process will include in-person site visits of certain schools to strengthen the validation of academic credentials. It also provides a mechanism to conduct a special review of a prospect’s academic records or a high school’s information where malfeasance appears to exist. That review could lead to a student being deemed a nonqualifier by not accepting transcripts, test scores, graduation, or high school core courses.

The special review would be conducted initially by the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse or NCAA staff and could include review by a group of experts.

Another significant proposal amends legislation regarding unethical conduct by holding accountable institutional staff members who know of incomplete or inaccurate information used by the Clearinghouse on a prospect’s academic record.

Under the amendment, institutions are responsible for promptly reporting all discrepancies in information used in a student-athlete’s initial-eligibility certification to the Clearinghouse. Failure to provide that information, or fraudulence or misconduct in connection with entrance or placement exams, would be considered unethical conduct and subject violators to sanctions.

The latter proposal is part of an effort to emphasize the shared responsibility between member institutions and the Clearinghouse in the certification process.

When the issue of fraudulent practices on the part of some preparatory and nontraditional high schools broke earlier this year, one of the criticisms was that institutions relied too heavily on the Clearinghouse to do their academic legwork for them. But working-group Chair Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for membership services, said that ultimately, member institutions are responsible for admitting student-athletes with sound academic preparation.

“Since the Clearinghouse began operations in 1994, some institutions have operated with the premise that it is solely responsible for ensuring academic integrity,” he said. “While the Clearinghouse does a lot of the trench work for institutions, schools are accountable for admitting students who fit their institutional mission and are prepared to do college-

level academic work. The working group sees this determination as a shared responsibility between schools and the Clearinghouse.”

Toward that end, the working group also is recommending that Divisions I and II sponsor legislation for the 2006-07 cycle that requires institutions to place prospects on an Institutional Request List before an official visit or before providing a written offer of athletics aid (whichever is earliest). Prospects also would be required to register with the Clearinghouse under those same parameters.

Working-group members say that would address a growing trend of late Clearinghouse registration by students. It also would address cases in which institutions are late in placing student-athletes on an IRL, which compromises proper advisement regarding student-athletes’ academic deficiencies. The proposals would give the Clearinghouse more time to do its job efficiently and would mitigate the temptation for institutions to use the Clearinghouse as the sole determinant of eligibility.

The group also asked the Divisions I and II presidents to consider nonlegislative action that requires prospects to notify the Clearinghouse of all the standardized tests they have taken. That would address current cases in which, for example, a student-athlete reports a single SAT score but does not reveal three other ACT exams with significantly lower scores. Without the ability to see all scores, fraudulent test scores may be used to certify eligibility.

The proposals represent a quick response from the 23-member panel appointed in January after a New York Times story revealed academic fraud in several preparatory or nontraditional high schools at which students, some of whom were student-athletes, obtained high school diplomas under suspect conditions. While the NCAA believes the scope of the problem encompasses more than athletics, Association President Myles Brand deployed the working group to ensure that basic academic components are met for high schools to be certified for use in meeting NCAA standards.

Brand has employed the working group or task force approach successfully in other areas as well, including a panel appointed last year that addressed discrepancies in official visits for recruits. Additional groups have addressed sports wagering, basketball-related issues and other topics.