The Division II Management Council took a first look at the work of a project team assigned to review graduation rates in Division II when it met October 22 in Indianapolis.

The topic has been moving to the forefront of Division II issues in recent months (see "Division II places fresh emphasis on graduation-rate survey" in the July 2 issue of The NCAA News). The primary concern is that although Divisions I and II graduation rates are compiled the same way, various factors combine to make Division II academic performance appear worse than it is.

In its report to the Management Council, the Division II Graduation-Rates Project Team noted two primary concerns with the way the current report is compiled in order to comply with the federal Student Right to Know Act.

First, the project team noted that many Division II student-athletes are walk-ons who do not receive athletically related financial aid. Since the federal government report monitors only individuals receiving athletically related aid, a large segment of the Division II student-athlete population is not tracked.

Second, the project team noted that two- and four-year transfer student-athletes have a direct impact on Division II graduation rates. Under the Association's agreement with the government, transfers out count against the original institution's graduation rates; on the other hand, if an incoming transfer student-athlete graduates, the degree-granting institution is not allowed to count that student-athlete toward its graduation rate. While the approach helps make the overall compilation of graduation rates more manageable, it tends to depress the graduation rate to a low level.

Because of those concerns, the project team believes that a supplemental graduation-rate report may be desirable. It adopted a set of principles to guide its future discussions:

In addition to investigating the feasibility of a supplemental report, the project team will consider implementing an "exhausted eligibility" report and possibly develop a pilot study (for example, a graduation-rate survey based on men's basketball) to gauge the reporting burden on the membership.

Senior woman administrator

In general, the October 22 Management Council meeting focused on routine matters, one of which appeared to be a report from the Division II Project Team to Review Issues Related to Diversity. Part of the report was a draft of a PowerPoint presentation that could be used to educate key audiences on enhancing the role of the senior woman administrator.

However, the Management Council's ensuing discussion revealed differences of opinion over what the role should be.

In Division II, institutions are permitted, but not required, to have a senior woman administrator. The position currently is defined as the highest-ranking female administrator involved with the conduct of a member institution's intercollegiate athletics program. The Presidents Council has endorsed proposed legislation for the 2003 Convention to stipulate that the position be a professional athletics administrator with substantive responsibilities for the conduct and administration of an institution's athletics program; that the SWA must be a member of the institution's senior athletics management team; and that gender should not dictate only gender-specific duties and responsibilities.

The Presidents Council also is expected to propose that a female athletics director may appoint a senior woman administrator, but several Management Council members expressed concern that if that occurred, the senior woman administrator no longer would be the "highest-ranking female administrator."

Questions and situations also were posed relating to the purpose of the position. Although the proposed presentation advocates a clear administrative role for the position, some Management Council members believed that coaches, for example, may have administrative aspirations and could benefit from serving as SWA.

Also, there were differing views on whether the senior woman administrator should advocate women's interests. The diversity project team's position is that the SWA should be an administrator who happens to be a woman, but one female athletics director said she would prefer for the SWA to be an advocate for women's issues, such as Title IX.

No action was taken and the discussion was not binding. However, the remarks will be reviewed by the project team during a December conference call.

Other highlights

Division II Management Council
October 22/Indianapolis