3Year Cumulative Rates

1
(No Transcript)
2
Early Outcomes from Division I Academic Reform
Initiatives

• NCAA Research
• Prepared for the NACADA Annual Conference
• October 20, 2006

3
Brief History of NCAA Initial Eligibility
Standards in Division I

• 1986 Implementation of Proposition 48. Minimum
  2.0 high school GPA in 11 core courses and
  minimum SAT/ACT required.
• 1995 13 core courses required.
• 1996 Proposition 16. Same minimums as
  Proposition 48 with an additional sliding scale
  requirement that eliminated eligibility for
  prospective student-athletes low on both GPA and
  test score.
• 2003 14 core courses required. Minimum test
  scores eliminated and sliding scale extended.
  Students with low test scores now eligible if
  their GPA is fairly high. Minimum 2.0 core GPA
  maintained.
• 2008 16 core courses will be required.

4
Graduation Rates of All Student-Athletes versus
All Students at Division I Institutions
5
NCAA Data Sources

• The primary data sources used by NCAA Research in
  informing initial eligibility legislation over
  the past 15 years include
• Academic Performance Study (APS) High school
  and college academic outcomes on 12,000 Division
  I student-athletes (1984-1988 HS graduates).
  Data also available on several thousand Division
  II SAs.
• Initial Eligibility Clearinghouse (IEC) HS
  academic data on approximately 1.4 million
  prospective student-athletes (1994-present).
• Academic Performance Census (APC) College
  academic outcomes of large samples (10k-20k per
  year) of Division I student-athletes (1994-2002).
  Some data also available on Division II SAs
  during some of these years.
• Academic Performance Program/Census (APP/APC)
  Mandated collection of college academic outcomes
  on all Division I student-athletes (100,000 SAs
  per year 2003-present).
• Taken together, these databases represent the
  most comprehensive national collection of data on
  high school and college academic performance.

6
Components of Current NCAA Division I Academic
Reform

• Enhanced Academic Standards
• Initial eligibility
• Progress toward degree
• Improved Measurements
• Graduation Success Rate (GSR)
• NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR)
• Penalties and Rewards
• Contemporaneous penalties
• Historical penalties
• Academic improvement plans
• Rewards and Incentives

7
Enhanced Academic Standards

• Initial Eligibility
• Academic success in college
• Single best predictor
• Grade-point average (GPA) in high school core
  courses
• Overall best predictor
• Combination of test scores and core course GPA

8
Enhanced Academic Standards (Continued)

• Fall 2003 Increased Standards Implemented
• Increase from 13 to 14 core courses
• Sliding scale expanded
• Fall 2008 - fully implemented standards
• Increase requirement to 16 core courses

9
Background

• High school academic performance (grades, test
  scores, and core courses taken) is a good but far
  from perfect predictor of early academic
  success/failure in college (e.g., first year
  grades).
• High school core GPA and ACT/SAT scores are both
  independently predictive of first year college
  grades and eventual graduation from college.
• The predictive power of core GPA appears stronger
  presently than that of high school test scores
  (up to 2 to 3 times stronger). Over the past few
  years, this difference in predictive power of
  grades over tests has increased.
• Proximal college outcomes (e.g., first-year
  grades) are generally more predictable from high
  school academic characteristics than is
  graduation.

10
Background

• For this reason, Division I initial eligibility
  rules and progress toward degree standards were
  recently revised to provide a more comprehensive
  monitoring of a student-athletes real-time
  likelihood of graduating. That is, students are
  most likely to earn a college degree if they have
  appropriate HS preparation and make substantive
  progress toward the degree each year.
• Campus admissions must be involved in looking
  beyond HS grades and test scores. Knowledge of
  other characteristics of the student-athlete, the
  requirements of the college, etc. can add
  significantly to the prediction of college
  outcomes.

11
Characteristics of the Current Initial
Eligibility Sliding Scale

• The sliding scale employed in the current
  Division I initial eligibility standards weights
  test score and H.S. core GPA equally with a
  minimum eligibility line set at about one
  standard deviation below the national average for
  college-bound students.
• Research has shown that students along the
  sliding scale have similar academic success in
  college. The previous standards (e.g., 820 SAT
  cut) did not have that property data predicted
  that some students being excluded by the rules
  were more likely to experience academic success
  in college than others not excluded by the rules.
• Testing experts (e.g., the National Research
  Council and the testing companies themselves)
  continue to recommend using test scores in
  combination with other factors (as in the sliding
  scale) rather than in a manner where a poor test
  score in isolation (as in the single cut-score
  approach) can result in denial of opportunity.

12
Key Concerns with New IE Standards

• Has there been an aggregate change in TEST-HSCGPA
  profiles among Division I prospective
  student-athletes (PSAs) subsequent to changes in
  Division I initial eligibility standards
  implemented in 2003? How many PSAs are
  presenting with TEST scores below the previous
  minimum standard?
• Have the changes in initial eligibility rules
  resulted in greater access for minority
  student-athletes?
• How have student-athletes eligible only under the
  new initial eligibility standards (e.g., SATlt820)
  performed academically during their first year in
  college? Are these academic performances
  comparable to previous predictions?

13
High School Academic Characteristics of PSAs on a
Division I IRL who met Division I Initial
Eligibility Standards in 2002 (Prop 16) vs. 2003,
2004 (Sliding Scale)
N 46,718 PSAs on a Division I IRL in 2002 N
45,868 PSAs on a Division I IRL in 2003 N
40,548 PSAs on a Division I IRL in 2004 (2004 IEC
data represent a current snapshot rather than
final data. The IEC processes some nonqualifiers
and others over a longer period of time. It is
expected that final means for 2004 will look more
similar to those in 2003 once data fully
processed.)
14
Best SAT score among PSAs on a Division I IRL in
2002 (Prop 16) vs. 2003, 2004 (Sliding Scale)
15
Demographics and Academic Outcomes for First-Year
College Student-Athletes Receiving Athletics Aid
in 2002 (Prop 16) vs. 2003 (Sliding Scale)
2002 N 11,321 First-Year Student-Athletes on
Athletics Aid 2003 N 11,614 First-Year
Student-Athletes on Athletics Aid Note 211
matched schools providing 2002 and 2003 data
16
First-Year Academic Performance of Newly Eligible
Students vs. Low-GPA Qualifiers in Division I
(2003-04 Scholarship SAs)
Eligible Low Test Avg. Year 1 GPA
2.36 Credits Earned 25.2 Retention Rate
84.2 Percent African-Am. 74.4
820
860
900
720
600
Core GPA
Eligible Low HSCGPA Avg. Year 1 GPA
2.13 Credits Earned 23.4 Retention Rate
76.8 Percent African-Am. 38.2
SAT
17
Enhanced Academic Standards (Continued)

• Continuing Eligibility
• Increased progress-toward-degree requirements
• Progress measured term-by-term
• Credits earned, GPA, percentage of degree

18
Enhanced Academic Standards (Continued)

• New standards began fall 2003
• All student-athletes must earn at least six hours
  per term
• Student-Athletes Entering Fall 2003
• GPA benchmarks after first year and each
  subsequent term
• Minimum 18 hours per academic year
• Increased percentage of degree (40/60/80)

19
Development of Current PTD Rules

• A review of historical academic data on Division
  I student-athletes showed a clear delineation
  between eventual graduates and non-graduates as
  early as the first year in college.
• For example, over 90 of graduates had a
  cumulative GPA greater than 2.0 in the freshman
  year versus only 60 of non-graduates. Over 90
  of graduates earned 24 units in the freshman year
  versus just over 50 of non-graduates.
• The minimum standards currently in place were set
  based on a comprehensive examination of college
  academic profiles of eventual graduates.
  Year-to-year benchmarks were set at the 5th
  10th percentile of graduates to avoid negatively
  impacting students likely to graduate.

20
Example Historical Data on Freshman Year
Outcomes

• Data from the entering class of 1994 indicated
  that 64 of student-athletes who achieved less
  than a 1.8 GPA in their freshman year left the
  institution before the end of year 2. Only 2.8
  of all graduates had less than a 1.8 GPA in the
  freshman year.
• The same data indicated that 67.5 of
  student-athletes who achieved fewer than 24
  credits left by the end of year 2. Only 3.9 of
  all graduates earned fewer than 24 credits in
  their freshman year.

21
Evaluation of Current PTD Standards

• A comprehensive review of the effects of the PTD
  standards in their first three years of
  implementation will be conducted during 2006-07.

22
Improved Measurements (Continued)

• Graduation Success Rate
• Measure academic success of all scholarship
  student-athletes
• Includes data for transfer student-athletes
• First GSR report released December 2005

23
Comparison of GSR and Federal Graduation Rate
Cohorts(1996-1999 Entering Classes)
24
Average GSRs for Division I Student-Athletes in
1995-98 Cohorts Vs. 1996-99 Cohorts
25
Five-Year Trends in GSR for Division I Mens
Basketball and Baseball, and I-A
Football1995-1999
26
Improved Measurements (Continued)

• Academic Progress Rate
• Management tool for presidents and athletics
  directors
• Real-time assessment
• Four-year rolling rate
• Squad size adjustment
• Rates calculated for team academic performance
• Points for academic eligibility and graduation
• Points for retention

27
Creation of the Academic Progress Rate Metric

• Goal Produce a real-time measure of squad
  academic success that is simple, fair and
  defensible (legally and statistically).
• During a two-year development period, potential
  APR components were assessed for validity in
  predicting graduation rates, including
• Eligibility
• Retention
• Graduation
• GPA
• Retention was the single best predictor of
  graduation, but the combination of eligibility
  and retention was a better predictor than either
  variable used alone.

28
Improved Measurements (Continued)

• Academic Progress Rate
• Institutions receive yearly reports
• Current APR reports released March 1, 2006
• Based on two years of data
• 2003-04
• 2004-05
• Eventually APR will be a four-year rate.
• Teams below APR925 subject to loss of
  scholarships

29
Distribution of Two-Year APRs (All Squads)
Notes (1) APR displayed for all squads
(N6,112) (2) Rates include adjustments and
bonuses submitted and processed in fall/winter
2005.
30
Squads with Two-Year APR Scores Below 925(with
and without squad-size adjustment)
Note Total number of teams 6,112
31
Three Categories of Squads with Lowest 2-Year
APRs(Revised 4/13/06)
Note Total number of teams 6,112 (2,851 Mens
or Mixed teams 3,261 Womens teams)
32
Penalties

• Contemporaneous Penalties
• Provide immediate accountability
• Loss of scholarship
• Ineligible student-athletes not returning to
  institution
• Assessed at end of academic year
• First penalties announced with March 1, 2006 APR
  reports

33
Penalties (Continued)

• Historical Penalties
• Incremental penalties begin after three years of
  APR data collected
• Public warning letters
• Financial aid and recruiting limitations
• Playing and practice season restrictions
• Restricted membership status

34
Improvement Plans

• Academic Improvement Plans
• Developed by institutions
• All teams below established penalty benchmarks
• Contemporaneous-penalty cut-line (925)
• Historical-penalty cut-line (900)

35
Rewards and Incentives

• Public recognition program
• Released with March 1, 2006 APR reports
• Other incentives in development phases
• Rewards for team academic achievement
• Awards for academic improvement by teams
• Academic support partnerships
• Need-based institutional grants

36
Questions? Comments?