Recent revelations regarding changes in the National Athletic Trainers' Association certification process have resulted in much speculation.

As most athletics administrators have already learned, the "internship route," which allowed student athletic trainers at non-NATA curriculum institutions to sit for the NATA certification exam, is being discontinued, effective in 2004.

As the concept of student-athlete welfare continues to be in the forefront of the NCAA's strategic plan, many wonder how institutions will be able to commit the necessary resources to accomplish the goal of better, more comprehensive sports medical care for student-athletes. Clearly, at this point, questions are numerous, and realistic solutions are few.

Why do we suddenly find ourselves in this dilemma?

For roughly the last 30 years, student trainers desiring to become certified by the NATA, the so-called "gold standard," were able to pursue certification via two routes. By accumulating 1,500 hours under the supervision of NATA-certified athletic trainers and taking appropriate course work, students were allowed to sit for the certification exam. Upon successful completion, the candidates were awarded the title of "ATC" and required to complete prescribed continuing education units in order to maintain certification.

The other route to certification has been to apply, be accepted in, and successfully complete a curriculum in athletic training at an NATA-approved institution and pass the certification exam.

The internship option apparently is being closed permanently by NATA curriculum reforms. This action will result in a clear disincentive for students interested in pursuing a career in athletic training to enroll in a "non-curriculum" institution. Their hours of service simply no longer will be recognized by the NATA.

We have heard various explanations why the internship option is being eliminated. Most of these allude to the desire to achieve consistency in the level of instruction, which

in theory, results in a higher standard of care.

At first glance, this certainly is an admirable goal since the health and welfare of our student-athletes always should be uppermost in our minds. But how will "non-curriculum" member institutions provide comprehensive coverage for student-athletes without some assistance from student training staffs?

Even if institutions hired additional certified trainers -- and many need to do so -- the disappearance of student training staffs as we know them would undermine any attempts at improving the level of care.

NATA-approved curriculums are few (fewer than 15 percent of NCAA member schools currently have one), and the lines for admission to these high-demand programs will grow longer. Students who are considering careers in athletic training will have difficult decisions to make before choosing a college or university. If they are not accepted in one of the curriculum programs, should they abandon their goal of becoming an athletic trainer?

Can there be any question that the future pool of students interested in athletic training will be significantly reduced?

Membership surveys have revealed what most already know but don't want to admit. Regardless of the effect of NATA curriculum changes, many institutions need to have a more comprehensive plan for emergencies as well as the day-to-day care of their student-athletes. The bigger problem becomes staffing the plan once it has been devised. Once again, athletics administrators are expected to do more with less, a charge too frequently heard at many institutions today.

Schools have been scolded for relying too much on student trainers for "coverage" of our athletics teams. "Coverage" in itself does not guarantee quality of care, but it's a place to start. The athletics programs of our member institutions are the laboratories for our trainers of the future. Much learning can and does take place as students observe and develop basic hands-on skills.

There are countless numbers of highly competent certified trainers who did not come through "curriculum route" but rather pursued the "internship route." Formal curriculums arguably may lead to a better result, but should these curriculums have a monopoly on learning? Can we afford to close down 85 percent of our campus athletics labs simply because they are not NATA certified?

As we attempt to follow both associations' (NATA and NCAA) strong recommendations that we examine and enhance emergency coverage for student-athletes, the following question arises: What role in the future, if any, should student trainers play?

Colleges and universities are in the business of preparing their students, not just for careers through the formal classroom process but also for providing meaningful experiences to build on. These experiences lead to the development of a sense of responsibility and accomplishment, qualities that are highly desirable in students' preparation for life.

Should student athletic trainers have the opportunity for these types of experiences? Yes. Do they need to be supervised? Yes. Have they played, and should they continue to play, a role in the comprehensive coverage that our student-athletes deserve? Yes.

But therein lies the problem. What will the experiences of student athletic trainers at non-curriculum institutions count for? From the NATA standpoint, they will no longer count for anything. If the NATA considered the internship route inferior, why didn't it attempt to improve it instead of simply wiping it out?

It is difficult to argue against raising standards, but lofty goals sometimes must be tempered with a dose of reality and common sense. Perhaps the NATA overlooked the unintended consequences that would result from its reforms. But some believe that one of the consequences, the reduction of the number of new certified trainers, was intended from the beginning. Over the years, the NATA has done much good, but on this issue, their motives have been called into question.

It remains to be seen whether this issue will galvanize the NCAA membership toward exploring other options for delivering sports medicine services to student-athletes.

In a good-faith effort to revisit this important issue, the NATA should consider declaring an immediate moratorium on its certification reforms.

Let's hope that the day is near when the athletics and sports medicine communities will work together to develop improvements in athletic trainer preparation while at the same time enhancing the sports medical care for student-athletes.

James W. Watson is director of athletics at West Liberty State College. He also is a member of the Division II Management Council.