The most recent Graduation Success Rate study shows that Division I men’s basketball student-athletes continue to graduate at steadily higher rates while the overall rate for Division I student-athletes remains stable.

The single-year Graduation Success Rate for men’s basketball student-athletes rose from 65 percent for student-athletes entering college in 2001 to 66 percent for those who entered in 2002. Even more dramatic was the long-term improvement – up from 56 percent for the entering class of 1995 (the first year of data collection).

The overall single-year Graduation Success Rate, which hit 79 percent last year, remained steady, though the four-year rolling rate improved from 78 to 79 percent.

The latest study was released Wednesday.

The NCAA developed the Graduation Success Rate to account for transfer student-athletes and others not tracked by methodology mandated by the federal Student Right-to-Know Act. The NCAA rate captures about 37 percent more students than the federal rate, resulting in a more accurate assessment of the academic success of student-athletes.

However, the federal rate provides the only method by which student-athletes can be compared with the general student body. Even under the federal rate, student-athletes continue to graduate at rates higher than their student-body counterparts, 64 percent to 62.

Men’s basketball student-athletes typically have not fared well in graduation-rate studies, and several working groups have been created over the years to improve their academic performance (along with addressing recruiting and financial aid rules).

Among those was the Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group, which finished its work earlier this year. Though its proposed reforms have not yet been adopted (many will be considered in this year’s legislative cycle), some believe its work – and the overall impact of academic reform for all Division I student-athletes – has led to a culture change in men’s basketball.

“We’ve seen a more thorough examination of academic preparedness of the prospective student-athletes being recruited by men’s basketball coaches and a greater campus involvement in recruiting evaluations,” said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs. “Academic reform and the (Academic Progress Rate) have become common subjects of conversation among coaches. Campus-wide improvement plans are receiving buy-in from coaches and administrators at all levels, and there is a very real concern over potential sanctions. That all indicates to me a real cultural change in basketball.”

Lennon expects graduation rates in men’s basketball to continue their climb if the Basketball Academic Enhancement Group’s proposed reforms are adopted and implemented. While earlier working groups concentrated their efforts primarily on other aspects of the sport – with occasional academic improvement as a positive side effect – the Basketball Academic Enhancement Group was created solely to improve academic performance by keeping more student-athletes in school and eligible. If improvement doesn’t happen, officials will revisit the policies now in place.

“Much of reform is making policy decisions based on good data and then evaluating if it in fact is working,” Lennon said. “If the presidents and others do not see more graduates, then we will revisit whether the APR is working. That’s the whole point – not just to have an APR, but to produce more graduates.”

Next year’s release will include student-athletes who entered college in 2003 – the first class required to meet increased progress-toward-degree standards and the first subject to the APR throughout their college careers, two reforms that could push graduation rates in men’s basketball – and all sports – higher.

Historically, every time Lennon has seen an “intervention” concentrating on a specific sport, an uptick in graduation rates has followed. Even before reform was implemented earlier this decade, Lennon said the announcement of the plan and the commitment of the presidents on the Division I Board of Directors provided a wakeup call to the men’s basketball community.

“Some programs needed to do a better job of bringing in young people who have a real chance at graduating from their institution and providing the academic support for the student-athletes once they are on campus to help them succeed,” Lennon said. “The coaches and student-athletes responded, and we’re seeing some of the results of their actions.”

The latest Graduation Success Rate data did reveal areas of concern. A slight decline was noted in the rate for Division I Football Bowl Subdivison football student-athletes over the past few years. The late NCAA President Myles Brand created another working group to study academic improvement for football student-athletes, and that group is developing solutions.

Female student-athletes continue to graduate at high rates, though some sports (softball and basketball) showed one-year declines. Both sports still graduate student-athletes at higher rates than they did eight years ago.