National Collegiate Athletic Association

NCAA News Archive - 2010

back to 2010 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index

Apr 14, 2010 1:40:05 PM

The Division II Management Council may have focused much of its attention on Phase II of the Life in the Balance initiative when it met Monday and Tuesday, but that did not keep it from spending time on a couple of significant academic issues.

The Council agreed to recommend sponsorship of legislation for the 2011 Convention that would amend Bylaw 14.3.1.2.2 so that it describes conditions for nontraditional courses used to satisfy Division II core-course requirements. The legislation would require that:

• Instructors and students have ongoing access to one another.
• The student's work is available for review and validation.
• The period for completion of the course is included.

The proposal, which would take effect in August 2011 if approved in January by the Division II membership, mirrors Division I legislation that will take effect later this year.

Under the proposal, the NCAA Eligibility Center would determine the viability of the courses, which are often unaccredited and not connected to the prospect's high school.

Stephanie Smith, director of academic and membership affairs, said that attempted uses of such courses have not been frequent in Division II so far but that the incidence may increase when Division II increases its core-course requirement to 16 in 2013.

Some concern was expressed Monday about the meaning of phrases included in the recommendation, such as "ongoing access" and "regular interaction" between the student and the instructor. Proponents countered that such interaction would not necessarily have to be voice-to-voice. Devices such as chat rooms, electronic blackboards, e-mails and videocams could satisfy the requirement.

"A student just filling in blanks on a computer screen, that's the concern," said Bob Fortosis, athletics director at Eckerd College and Management Council liaison to the Academic Requirements Committee.

The Council also received an analysis of Division II Academic Performance Census data. The report, which was based on responses from 273 of 277 Division II member institutions, analyzed the first year academic performance of student-athletes who first enrolled in 2008-09 and the second- and third-year academic performance of student-athletes who first enrolled in 2006-07 and 2007-08.

Among the key findings:

• Partial qualifiers and nonqualifiers were almost four times more likely to have "0-for-2" outcomes (not eligible and not retained) as full qualifiers. Only 6.7 percent of qualifiers were 0-for-2, compared to 25.3 percent of partial and nonqualifiers.
• A grade-point standard of 2.2 without a standardized-test requirement yielded almost the same initial-eligibility outcomes as a strict 2.0 and 820 SAT requirement, with a less disparate effect on minority populations. Among qualifiers, 89.2 percent of the GPA-only cohort remained eligible, compared to 89.1 percent for the 2.0/820 approach. For GPA-only, 79.0 percent were retained compared to 78.8 percent for 2.0/820. However, the initial-ineligibility rate for minorities was 17.2 percent for the 2.0/820 approach, compared to 13.0 percent for GPA-only.

Gregg Summers, associate director of research, said that the data confirm that high school core grade-point average is a better predictor of first-year outcomes than test scores, although both working together have the most predictive value. He also noted that using a GPA-only model would reduce the impact of partial qualifiers.

The Academic Requirements Committee has taken no action on the matter, but it directed the staff to present similar information next year (which will include additional years of data), including projected graduation rates from each model.