The Division I Board of Directors and the Division II Presidents Council adopted emergency legislation at their April 27 meetings that establishes a more comprehensive process for reviewing high schools and individual student academic credentials for purposes of meeting initial-eligibility requirements.

The legislation, based on recommendations from the NCAA Working Group to Review Initial-Eligibility Trends, deepens the Association’s involvement in determining the academic integrity of preparatory schools and nontraditional high schools, and it amplifies the shared responsibility among institutions and the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse in verifying a prospective student-athlete’s eligibility.

The effect of the legislation is that prospective student-athletes who compile academic portfolios at schools the NCAA identifies as fraudulent will not be able to compete next year. The NCAA plans to circulate a list of such institutions this summer. The new policies also empower the Clearinghouse to more actively identify concerns with prospects.

The Board and Presidents Council approved proposals and recommendations that allow the NCAA to do the following:

• Conduct an academic review of any high school and any prospect’s academic credentials, which could lead to that school or those credentials not being used for the purpose of meeting NCAA initial-eligibility requirements (effective for student-athletes whose initial collegiate enrollment occurs in fall 2006 or thereafter);
• Require the official test score used to certify a prospect to be reported to the Clearinghouse and require prospects to report to the Clearinghouse all SAT and ACT tests taken (effective August 1, 2007); and
• Expand NCAA bylaws regarding unethical conduct to include a prospect’s failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA or the college admissions office regarding his or her academic record (effective immediately).

The action comes just three months after NCAA President Myles Brand authorized the working group to review how recent trends in secondary-school education affect NCAA legislation and academic policies. That review was prompted by concerns about possible academic fraud at some preparatory schools and nontraditional high schools at which many students, including some student-athletes, were receiving their academic credentials under suspect conditions.

Working-group members in fact reviewed instances in which individuals paid a flat fee for a high school diploma; schools where limited or no interaction between teacher and student occurred; and cases in which no actual teaching or learning took place. Other instances were cited in which a prospective student-athlete left one high school to attend another either to avoid taking a required state exit exam, to take a large number of core courses or to obtain a significantly improved grade-point average.

Though NCAA officials believe the problem transcends athletics, President Brand nonetheless deployed the working group immediately to address the issue as it pertains to prospective student-athletes.

Working-group Chair Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for membership services, said the procedures the Division I Board and Division II Presidents Council adopted allow the NCAA to scrutinize the growing number of schools that have no oversight from an accrediting agency or state authority or no involvement with state high school athletics association. “The new legislation also gives the NCAA more authority to review individual student records that raise questions,” Lennon said.

Schools that come under scrutiny (Lennon said several hundred could fall into that category) will have to answer questions about their curriculum and teacher certification. The review may include a site visit from the NCAA, though officials emphasized that the Association’s review should not be construed as a formal accreditation.

The reviews primarily will be staff-driven, but Lennon said the policies also call for the Division I Academics/Eligibility/

Compliance Cabinet and the Division II Academic Requirements Committee to appoint a group to hear appeals of staff decisions.

Lennon said the call to action should not be seen as a “sweeping indictment” of the secondary school environment. “The vast majority of secondary schools, preparatory schools and nontraditional schools do a good job of preparing young people for higher learning,” he said. “Our efforts strategically target those institutions that are not subject to state regulations and that clearly are involved in suspicious academic practices.”

While the review provisions form the key component of the new legislation, Lennon said amending the ethical-conduct bylaw also heightens awareness that ultimately, member institutions are responsible for admitting student-athletes with sound academic preparation. In that vein, the Division I Board and Division II Presidents Council also approved amending the student-athlete statement to include language affirming that complete and accurate information was provided to the NCAA, the Clearinghouse and the institution’s admission office regarding ACT or SAT scores, high school attendance, completion of coursework and high school grades.

Future proposals

While those measures have an immediate impact, the presidents also supported working-group recommendations to be considered in the 2006-07 legislative cycle.

One proposal would require institutions to place prospects on an Institutional Request List and prospects to have registered with the Clearinghouse before an official visit or before the written offer of athletics financial aid, whichever occurs first. The intent is to give the Clearinghouse time to do its job more effectively, and perhaps more importantly, allow for proper advisement of prospects’ academic deficiencies.

In addition, Division I members will be asked to consider a proposal to require prospects to finish high school before being able to take a limited number of core courses to complete initial-eligibility requirements. Current Division I legislation generally does not allow for core courses to be completed after high school graduation, which in some cases has resulted in prospects withdrawing or intentionally failing from high school so they can complete core courses for initial-eligibility purposes somewhere else. 

The working group also considered legislation capping the number of core courses that can be earned during the senior year and the number of sequential courses that may be taken during the same term. But members stopped short of a proposal because not enough data are available to inform decisions regarding the number of core courses completed in a given year.

Still, one of the identified abuses is when a prospective student-athlete — after or while attending a high school where he or she competed in athletics — enrolls at a nontraditional high school or a preparatory school for a short period of time and completes a large number of core courses and multiple-sequential core courses during the same term (for example, algebra I, algebra II, geometry and trigonometry). 

In lieu of a legislative proposal, the working group recommends incorporating those types of situations into the review of the individual student-athlete records until research from the Clearinghouse on the number of core courses taken in a given year and sequential course-taking patterns can inform legislation.

NCAA to use collaboration approach

In addition to legislative proposals, the NCAA Working Group to Review Initial-Eligibility Trends also developed a three-pronged approach to strengthen relationships with key constituents, including secondary-school organizations and law enforcement officials to address abuses. 

The NCAA will:

• Initiate contact to present issues at professional association meetings and other relevant forums.
• Report potential abuses to appropriate local, state or federal oversight entities.
• Initiate a review of current Division I athletics certification and Division II self-study review criteria to determine if strengthening is appropriate.
• Establish dialogue with the Attorneys General Association to determine next steps.
• Member institutions and conferences will be encouraged to:
• Seek independent review and verification as to a student-athlete’s academic credentials for admission to the school from the admissions office.
• Establish guidelines for reviewing a student’s standardized test score(s) to assure consistency with high school academics performance and previous test score performance.
• Identify areas in which conference guidelines or procedures may be most appropriate.

Local, state and federal officials will be asked to:

• Act on information forwarded from the NCAA and member institutions related to suspect nontraditional schools and investigate and prosecute “diploma mills” when appropriate.
• Act on information forwarded by the NCAA and member institutions in which abuses are occurring.