This document was created for the NCAA membership to discuss issues related to academic support, particularly in light of the recently adopted increased progress-toward-degree standards. The majority of the new progress-toward-degree requirements became effective for student-athletes first entering a collegiate institution in fall 2003, with the requirement to earn six credit hours each term of attendance applicable to all student-athletes beginning with the fall 2003 term. Beginning fall 2005, the first class of student-athletes required to earn 40 percent of their degree credits will enroll in their third academic year. The new academic standards also affect transfer student-athletes, whether they transfer from another four-year institution, a two-year school or foreign institution.

As institutions transition from the previous satisfactory-progress standards to the new progress-toward-degree requirements, there will be an impact on academic support staffs. The increased academic standards are intended to ensure student-athletes are making significant progress toward their degrees each year. The intent of this document is to help the membership discuss ways institutions can support meaningful educational experiences for their student-athletes within their own campus structures.

In January 1991, the NCAA Division I membership adopted NCAA Proposal No. 29 mandating academic counseling and tutoring services for all Division I student-athletes. The premise supported was that an institution that recruits a student-athlete owes that individual the opportunity to receive a full educational experience. The objective was to maximize the academic performances of all student-athletes.

Over the course of the next eleven years, the list of permissive academic services provided for in Proposal No. 29 was expanded to include a comprehensive list of academic counseling and support services an institution could provide its student-athletes. In 1989, the membership added counseling services for the treatment of eating disorders. On-campus student development and career counseling were added in 1995. However, the largest change came in 2002 when Proposal No. 2001-106 was adopted. Institutions now are permitted to finance any academic support services determined to be appropriate and necessary for the academic success of student-athletes.

With the adoption of Proposal No. 2001-106, institutions were given the freedom to expand their academic support services and programs. Many are in the process of evaluating their programs in anticipation of the needs student-athletes will have when they become subject to the new standards (e.g., 40 percent degree completion by the start of year three).

A piece of the academic reform package that directly impacts academic support services is the percentage-of-degree legislation stipulated in NCAA Bylaw 15.5.4.1.2. This legislation identifies the minimum requirements a student-athlete needs to meet in order to make appropriate progress toward graduation within five years of initial full-time collegiate enrollment.

By incorporating the new academic progress-toward-degree requirements, the NCAA membership fortified the priority of moving student-athletes toward graduation through minimum grade-point averages and credit-toward-degree requirements applicable after each term of academic enrollment. It is anticipated that this renewed commitment to progress toward graduation will increase the demand for quality academic advising and academic support programs for student-athletes.

The quality of academic services an institution offers can impact a recruit's decision to attend that institution. Some schools replicate one another in the type of academic services they provide. Most schools offer computer lab time and space to their student-athletes. Many schools have some form of computer access limited to student-athletes.

Study halls, tutoring, study skills education and academic excellence recognition are provided within most Division I academic support programs. Study halls generally are mandatory for first-year student-athletes, all transfer student-athletes in their first year at the certifying institution and those student-athletes who have been identified as "at-risk" students. The monitoring programs mentioned previously help to identify the "at-risk" student-athletes as early as possible, in order to identify the services they need. Tutoring sessions often are arranged to help a student-athlete understand a subject in which he or she is challenged. Tutoring services provided by the athletics department tend to be in the general studies areas, with accommodations for student-athletes with specialized needs as situations arise.

As part of the academic support program, student-athletes also learn study skills. Study-skills sessions provide valuable tools student-athletes can use to improve study habits such as time management, organization and note taking. Study-skills sessions are offered in both group and individual settings for optimum results.

In an attempt to encourage good academic results, most schools have programs for identifying academic excellence. Many schools use an honor roll to identify all student-athletes who perform above a set criterion (e.g., 3.2 grade-point average for the term). Schools also identify academic excellence through annual scholar-athlete awards. Such awards typically identify the top male and female academic and athletics achievers for the academic year.

Due to the increasing number of students who are identified as learning disabled, schools have responded with an appreciable amount of academic support. Most schools offer some form of learning-disability support system either within the athletics department or through established institutional programs.

In one form or another, most schools offer career- and job-oriented counseling for their student-athletes on a continual basis. In addition, schools offer seminars throughout the academic year that encompass a variety of topics, including drug and alcohol education as well as other social issues important to student-athletes (e.g., hazing, sexual misconduct, etc.).

Many schools provide an academic support program supervised by an individual considered to be a senior athletics department official. The majority of institutions have a small (e.g., two to three individuals) staff of full-time personnel dedicated to monitoring the student-athletes' progress and providing appropriate academic counseling in conjunction with the faculty advisors in the student-athletes' areas of study. In some programs, the athletics academic advisor spends less time advising, and serves primarily as a liaison between student-athletes and the academic programs provided by the institution.

Academic Evaluation Prior to Enrollment

Institutions evaluate the academic progress of a student-athlete prior to enrollment for purposes of determining initial-eligibility status. At this point, an institution has access to the prospect's high-school coursework and can make a determination as to the strength of the individual's academic foundation before the prospect enrolls at the institution. The institution also may make a determination as to whether an individual's academic profile is similar to that of the institution's freshman entering class.

Institutions should be involved proactively in the academic advisement of student-athletes. One way to accomplish this is to require the prospects, and the coaches recruiting them, to attend a planning session with an appropriate academic advisor prior to enrollment. The purpose of such a meeting would be to map out an academic plan to achieve the appropriate credits and grade-point average for the first- and second-year eligibility certifications. It is understood that many students are uncertain about a major when entering school, and academic plans account for this by inclusion of courses that create a solid academic foundation for any degree program.

Some limiting factors that could affect this approach are timing within the recruiting process and a prospect's uncertainty of his or her intended major. An ideal time to sit down with the coach and prospective student-athlete would be during the prospect's official visit. While this would help to reinforce an environment of academics as a critical component of the student-athlete experience, it may be premature, in that not all prospective student-athletes who come for an official visit will ultimately enroll in that institution. This could generate an unreasonable amount of additional work for academic advising staffs that are already low on resources. Additionally, a prospective student-athlete may not have a good understanding of what major he or she is interested in pursuing. This would make the academic planning session difficult for the advisor and could create an overwhelming environment for the prospective student-athlete.

Academic Plans

Division I has adopted legislation designed to determine athletics eligibility on the basis of progression toward a degree within five years. The requirements identify minimum annual benchmarks that a student-athlete must meet in order to graduate within a five-year period.

With that change, institutions are faced with the responsibility to adapt academic advising practices to prepare student-athletes to graduate in five years. While many student-athletes already graduate within five years, it is apparent that some institutions take full advantage of remedial courses and minimum course enrollment (12 hours) for some student-athletes. Eligibility during the first two years may include credit hours in any of the institutions degree programs if the student-athlete has not declared a degree. However, the percentage-of-degree requirements that apply later in the student-athlete's academic career will be increasingly more difficult for student-athletes to meet if they have not appropriately planned their academic careers.

One practice academic advisors may use to aid communication and monitoring of student-athletes' academic progress is to require the creation of an academic plan for each student-athlete on their enrollment at the certifying institution. Each plan would identify the necessary coursework required during each term to make appropriate progress toward a degree. In addition to using such a plan for monitoring purposes, academic advisors could use them as tools in educating student-athletes about their paths to graduation. If a student-athlete had such a plan from initial enrollment on, he or she could be expected to take more responsibility for his or her academic progress and, thus, the potential effect of misadvisement or nonadvisement by institutional staff members would be minimized. 

Responsibility for Academic Advisement

Following the philosophical shift in 1991, when the Association agreed that institutions should provide each student-athlete the opportunity to receive a full academic experience, institutions have consistently expanded academic support services for their student-athletes. While increasing academic standards at the institutional, conference and NCAA level loom, academic advisors play an important role in ensuring that student-athletes remain eligible while pursuing their degrees. The new progress-toward-degree requirements will inevitably strain the resources of the academic advising support staffs. An example of this is the new percentage-of-degree requirements, which could make monitoring of courses more time consuming, since student-athletes will be responsible for earning more credits toward a specific degree at an earlier point in their academic careers. This could result in advisors tracking more classes, for more of the degree programs, to ensure appropriate academic progress is maintained. In addition, increasing roster sizes compound the resultant effect of these changes on advisors.

As resources are strained and standards increase, the likelihood of student-athletes receiving incorrect information from an institutional staff member also may increase. This effect is compounded if an institution placed a person with very little experience with NCAA academic legislation in an advising role. While there may be a tendency not to hold a student-athlete responsible for academic requirements when incorrect advice is given, it is the institution's responsibility to have a comprehensive academic advising program to prevent such occurrences. If an institution can determine that "but for" the academic advising error the student-athlete would have otherwise been eligible, it is difficult to penalize the student-athlete for the actions of an institutional staff member. As a result, the Division I membership must decide whether institutions will be held accountable for failing to minimize advising and administrative errors while operating comprehensive academic support programs.

Academic Support Reporting Lines

A positive message is sent to student-athletes and the institutional community when the academic supervisor is a high-ranking administrator in the athletics department, as such placement indicates the department values and respects the academic achievement of its student-athletes. In addition, this reporting line implies the academic component of the student-athletes' experiences is at the forefront of all athletics department decisions. Additionally, it facilitates the provision of optimum academic support services, because athletics personnel are in a better position to evaluate program needs in relation to the demands of the student-athlete's athletics schedule. This provides an efficient way for schools to deal with issues concerning student-athlete academic welfare in a timely manner. However, it also provides the opportunity for malfeasance. In light of the stricter new academic standards, athletics academic advisors may be pressured by high-powered coaches and/or athletics administrators to funnel student-athletes toward majors that are less rigorous, or even to condone academic fraud.

Some alternative solutions are to assign oversight of the athletics academic support program to the institution's provost or academic authority responsible for academic matters for all students or to create an oversight committee of institutional academic authorities. This would provide for appropriate "checks and balances" to demonstrate institutional control and send a message to the institutional community that student-athletes are held to the same standard as other students. In this reporting scheme, it is likely student-athletes' academic services would be viewed as, and would in reality be, more analogous to that of the general student body, decreasing the perception that student-athletes receive special treatment. Additionally, if the advising program reported to an academic authority, there might be less opportunity for student-athletes to be influenced to make academic decisions that benefit the athletics programs rather than the individual student-athlete.

Recent reports of academic fraud at some institutions should serve as a warning to what may happen if appropriate "checks and balances" are not established in the area of academic support. Administrators within the athletics department have the potential to develop a conflict of interest when the success of a program seems to depend on the eligibility of a student-athlete. The mere possibility of this happening may be reason enough to protect the academic welfare of the student-athlete and the integrity of the athletics department and institution by appointing reporting lines for academic services that are consistent with campus-wide academic support programs.

Academic support services will be impacted by implementation of the new academic standards. Through this review, the Division I membership will have the opportunity to share information regarding "best practices" in the area academic support services as well as consider whether wide-reaching policy or legislative updates are appropriate. Further development of this initiative will include:

• Input from the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics and NACADA, including data collection and assisting their efforts to engage the Division I membership in key academic advising discussions.

• Interviews with individuals who hold supervisory positions within the academic support structure about transition issues related to the new academic standards.

• Further development of "best practices" resources to aid institutions with transitional issues (e.g. increase in percentage-of-degree requirements to 40/60/80), including training materials and resource networks.

• Discussion and consideration of wide-reaching policy and/or legislative updates to help ensure that the academic reform initiative results in greater academic success for student-athletes.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association

April 16, 2004   

AEH:jsl/ljk