Have student athletes benefitted academically from NCAA reforms?

1. Have student athletes benefitted academically from NCAA reforms? Theresa Wood PSY492 UA February 22, 2010

2. Abstract Growing concerns of academic deficiency and low graduation rates by student athletes, has lead to the development and implementation of a threefold academic reform initiative by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The three part reform included: (a) initial eligibility standards, (b) the Academic Progress Rate (APR), and (c) sanctions and fines. Prior research has shown the academic reform initiative to have a positive impact on academic success and graduation rates. On the other hand, studies have indicated that the academic reform has disproportionate effects on minority colleges. Further research is needed to identify discrepancies within the reform and to verify the direct correlation between academic reform and student athletes graduating.

3. Introduction Lack of academic success and low graduation rates among student athletes are a primary concern of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The NCAA is a voluntary organization consisting of institution, conference, and organization leaders who are “committed to the best interests, education and athletic participation of student athletes” (National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA], 2008, para. 1). Previously, several institutions were criticized for allowing student athletes who “essentially lacked the ability to read” to participate in intercollegiate athletic activities (Franklin, 2005, p. 16). As a result, the NCAA developed an academic reform initiative to ensure academic success for student athletes (Franklin, 2005).

6. Determine the acceptance and willingness of institutions and coaches in following the academic reform

9. Life of a Student Athlete (cont.) Scott, Paskus, Miranda, Petr, & McArdle (2008) introduce the theory that student athletes achieve higher academic success during the playing season than they do out of season. The theory is based on “the structure that the playing season provides in helping student athletes organize their time and avoid nonacademic distractions” (Scott et al., 2008, p. 205). On the other hand, Morgan (2008) suggests values held by student athletes are often compromised by the demands of the coaching staffs, institutions and alumni’s focus on winning. Stinson and Howard (2008) confirm the theory in their research study of patterns in private giving. Preliminary analysis “indicates that successful athletic programs influence both the number of donors making gifts to an institution and the average dollar amount of those gifts…winning teams have direct effects on both athletic and academic gifts” (Stinson & Howard, 2008, p. 1).

10. NCAA reform and Institution’s Responsibilities A qualitative research study by Christy, Seiford, & Pastore (2008) which examined the viewpoint of college athletic program directors and head coaches from the six Bowl Championship Series (BCS) conferences, in all 75 questionnaires were analyzed. From this data, 48 out of 75 responses agreed that the APR reform had a positive impact on academic success (Christy et al., 2008). Prior to implementation of the new reform, less than half of the student athletes from 42 NCAA colleges participating in the 2005 NCAA basketball tournament graduated (Christy et al., 2008). Moreover, of the 64 college teams participating in the 2006 tournament, 38 colleges graduated 70 percent of white athletes versus 21 colleges graduating 70 percent of African American athletes (Christy et al., 2008).

11. NCAA reform and Institution’s Responsibilities (cont.) Subsequently, with the APR in place a college must maintain at least 50 percent graduation rate equating to a score of 925 in NCAA terms (Christy et al., 2008). If the institution fails to do so, loss of funds and scholarships will follow (Christy et al., 2008). Since the reform, Christy et al. (2008) indicates a 4 percent decrease in lost scholarships due to poor academic performance, within the first two years of the APR rule. Conversely, the APR has been found to have disproportionate effects on “historically black colleges and universities and mid-major schools from the non-Bowl Championship Series (BCS) schools” (Christy et al., 2008, p. 3). Similarly, the University of Western Michigan, lost two scholarships and an undisclosed amount of funding through the new APR reform at a time when the college “had a program best 2.81 grade point average and graduated most of its athletes” (Christy et al., 2008, p. 3).

12. NCAA reform and Institution’s Responsibilities (cont.) Through the academic reform, which holds institutions and coaches accountable for the academic success of the student athlete, stress of winning previously held by staff, institutions and alumni has been reduced. Furthermore, “the Basic Academic Skills Study (BASS), a multi-faceted scale designed for use by the NCAA measures interests, attitudes and academic skills of student athletes” (p. 319). Information obtained from the BASS provides a working model for student athlete engagement in educational activities that promote cognitive and affective outcomes (Gayles & Hu, 2009). Comparably, Umbach, Palmer, Kuh, & Hannah (2006) maintain students learn by becoming involved whether they are athletes or non-athletes. Therefore, interaction with peers, study groups, student-faculty interaction, and involvement in educational related activities lead to academic success regardless of athletic participation (Umbach et al., 2006).

13. Conclusion Prior research of the academic reform confirms a positive organizational engagement between the NCAA and institutions. Holding institutions and athletic programs accountable for the academic needs and outcome of student athletes has encouraged both groups to work toward a collective goal. However, little has been reported as to how the reform has been integrated into the educational programs offered by institutions. Therefore, further research is needed to examine the relationship between the NCAA and academic facilitators of the institutions with regard to the academic success of student athletes.

15. Franklin, B. (2005). College athletics as a model for promoting academic integrity in higher education. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 19(1), 15-23.

16. Gayles, J. G., & Hu, S. (2009). The influence of student engagement and sport participation on college outcomes among Division I student athletes. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 315-333.

17. Hyatt, R. (2003). Barriers to persistence among African American intercollegiate athletes: A literature review of non-cognitive variables. College Student Journal, 37(2), 260-275.

18. Morgan, W. J. (2008). Markets and intercollegiate sports: An unholy alliance? Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 1, 59-65.

20. Sellers, R. M. (1992). Racial differences in the predictors for academic achievement of student- athletes in Division I revenue producing sports. Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 48-59.

21. Simon, R. L. (2008). Does athletics undermine academics: Examining some issues. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 1, 40-58.

22. Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2008). Winning does matter: Patterns in private giving to athletic and academic programs at NCAA Division I-AA and I-AAA institutions. Sport Management Review, 11, 1- 20.

23. Umbach, P. D., Palmer, M. M., Kuh, G. D., & Hannah, S. J. (2006). Intercollegiate athletes and effective educational practices: Winning combination or losing effort? Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 709-733.