Statement on NCAA Challenge
The following statement was signed by more than 100 National high
school reform leaders, challenging the NCAA. An article about this
statement appeared in the USA Today.
The intentions of the NCAA's initial eligibility process are worthy. The
approach is wrong and should be reformed immediately. When a small
group of college presidents met in the early 1980's to review academic
requirements for student athletes, their intent was to preserve the
integrity of intercollegiate athletes. Faced with widely publicized
reports about athletes who left college unable to read, the college
presidents could have created rules that would have held the NCAA's
own member institutions accountable for the education they provided
to student athletes. Instead the presidents inappropriately chose to
impose strict new requirements on high school athletes.
The NCAA's Initial Eligibility Process has discouraged and dismayed
thousands of students, including some of the nation's most
academically able and responsible young people. The NCAA and its
Clearinghouse have disrupted nationally recognized efforts to improve
high schools. The NCAA bears responsibility for mistakes made by the
Initial Eligibility Clearinghouse it created and funds, just as General
Motors has responsibility for its sub-contractors. Remarkably, NCAA
attorneys have argued that the organization does not have to follow
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The NCAA is inappropriately attempting to dictate curriculum for the
nation's high schools. In this country, state and local boards of
education, not the NCAA, establish graduation requirements and
course curriculum. The K-12 community welcomes collaboration with
higher education. Dictates, especially from those with no legal
authority over K-12 education, are not welcome.
Current NCAA recommendations appear, for example, to reject
vocational courses and independent study as appropriate for college
preparation. School districts face legal liability from parents furious
with the damage NCAA processes have caused, which districts had no
role in creating.
The NCAA should re-examine and reject current proposals for revisions
in the Initial Eligibility process which attempt to dictate course content
to high schools.
We offer a few examples of the damage the NCAA has done. Then, we
suggest several steps which should be taken immediately. Here are a
few examples of the NCAA's actions.






The NCAA prevented a student who with a 3.97 high school grade
point average, high test scores and membership in the National Honor
Society from playing football at the Air Force Academy last year. Why?
The NCAA rejected l/3 of a required 10th grade English class. The New
York Times, 10/ 23/96
The NCAA ruled a student with a strong academic record ineligible to
accept a track scholarship on the basis of a single science class. As a
result, she had to drop out of college. USA Today, 10/29/96
The NCAA tried, simply on the basis of courses taken, to prevent a
high school class valedictorian from participating in college sports. This
student had been appointed to one of the nation's military academies.
Detroit News 12/15/96
The NCAA denied full eligibility for two student athletes in the top 10%
of their Philadelphia high school while taking college preparatory
courses, solely because of their standardized test scores, a violation of
guidelines for test use developed by the test-makers themselves. Last
January, the two students filed a class action race discrimination
lawsuit against the NCAA. Cureton v. NCAA
The NCAA tried to block a student from participating in basketball,
rejecting his principal's contention that he had taken an acceptable
number of mathematics courses. A Connecticut district court rejected
NCAA arguments, noting that the NCAA's Clearinghouse Director
revealed that to his knowledge, none of the people on his staff "is, or
ever was a school principal or a teacher who had experience in
designing courses." Phillip v. NCAA, 1996 WL 870680 (D. Conn.)
Minority and lower-income student athletes are denied full eligibility at
rates three to four times the rates of other students, due both to test
score and course requirements. NCAA leaders ignored warnings from
NCAA researchers about the disparate impact. (Washington Post
9/9/97)




The NCAA rejected an innovative public school's method of evaluating
students, which requires them to demonstrate skills and knowledge
before graduating from high school. After a year of correspondence the
NCAA informed the school that its performance based, rather than
credit-based system, was inconsistent with NCAA standards. The
young woman directly involved in this struggle achieved an ACT score
which put her in the top 5% of students. She earned more than 80
college credits while still in high school, compiling an A- average. Yet
the NCAA insisted that her college or university would have to appeal
on her behalf before it would approve her athletic scholarship. St. Paul
Pioneer Press, 5/27/97
A suburban teacher who the National Council of Social Studies named
"outstanding teacher of the year" has spent frustrating months trying
to gain NCAA approval of carefully developed interdisciplinary courses.
His principal wrote the NCAA, "After having had too many experiences
calling, submitting curricula, resubmitting curricula, and receiving
different answers to the same questions because one can never talk
with the same Clearinghouse representative, it makes my guidance
counselors and me wonder whether the NCAA Academic Requirements
Committee know anything at all about curricula and those components
of a planned course which qualify it as a core course." Principal ,
Chartiers Valley High School to NCAA Academic Requirements
Committee 9/11/97
The NCAA has argued in court that it does not have to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The US Department of Justice
disagrees. The DOJ has found that current NCAA rules specifying
course and standardized test requirements for student-athletes with
learning disabilities violate the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The Department of Justice has told the NCAA it should
compensate a number of these student-athletes and modify their
eligibility status.
The NCAA now faces lawsuits from students with learning disabilities,
including a swimmer now at Michigan State who was denied full
eligibility because of special education courses he took early in his high
school years. By the time he was a senior in high school, he was doing
well in honors courses at a highly regarded suburban high school. But
because of the special education courses he took earlier in his high
school years, he was not allowed to compete as a college in his a
freshman year.

The NCAA rejected an interdisciplinary course stressing research and
writing skills, thus temporarily blocking several outstanding
student/athletes from participating in college sports. The NCAA's three
sentence memo rejecting the course had three grammatical mistakes.
(New York Times, 10/ 26/96) It is attached to this statement.
The National Association of State Boards of Education recently noted,
the NCAA "is interfering with states' academic reforms....the NCAA is
far behind the curve of education reform efforts...the NCAA relies on
the traditional and increasingly outmoded Carnegie unit - seat time,
when many states and thousands of school districts are moving to
assess student achievement through outcomes...and are
experimenting with other innovations such as block scheduling and
charter schools which are far beyond the static and limited purview of
the NCAA."
Fundamentally, the NCAA has assumed for itself the authority to pass
judgment on high school curricula at the nation's more than 20,000
high schools, and to use SAT and ACT scores in ways not supported by
people who created the tests. The NCAA has neither the right nor the
capacity to act as a national school board. Current problems with
NCAA's Initial Eligibility Clearinghouse are an inevitable consequence
of the NCAA's massive and misguided undertaking.
The NCAA can and should play a useful and constructive role in the
academic lives of student athletes. However, that will require
rethinking its actions, and focusing more attention on the academic
work of students while they are in colleges and universities.
We recommend the following:
1. The NCAA should abandon its efforts to dictate course content for
American high schools. By the school year 1999-2000, the NCAA
should halt its inappropriate reliance on the SAT and ACT tests.
Instead, the NCAA should work with national testing and measurement
authorities, some of whom are at member universities, to rethink ways
to assess skills and knowledge students have when they enter college.
2. The NCAA should increase scrutiny of its own members by tightening
academic requirements for student athletes who already are on college
campuses, imposing stricter"continuing progress rules, and punishing
colleges and universities that fail to educate their athletes. The NCAA
should reconsider the issue of freshman eligibility.
3. A major national independent commission should be created, with
open public meetings. Half the members should represent higher
education, and half should be appointed by, and represent those
legally responsible for setting K-12 curriculum standards at the state
and local levels. Over the next nine months, the Commission should
o invite students, parents and educators who have experience with the
Initial Eligibility process to present their experiences at the
Commission and at the 1999 annual NCAA meeting. The Commission
should hold at least 5 open public hearings around the nation, allowing
a variety of people to present their experience, research and
recommendations.
o re-examine the way the NCAA assesses student preparation for higher
education.
o review the research on the limitations as well as the strengths of
standardized tests
o consider other, more appropriate ways to assess what high school
students know
o review current NCAA policy regarding academic standards athletes are
expected to meet while in colleges and universities, both in terms of
acceptable and unacceptable course content, and required grade point
average.
o develop and present recommendations throughout the nation prior to
the 1999 annual NCAA convention.
o consider reinstituting the policy of making freshmen ineligible to
participate in major sports, at least until they have successfully
completed a quarter or semester at a higher education institution.
o present a report, with explanation of reactions to it, at the next annual
convention of NASBE and NCAA.
Other organizations representing school administrators, principals,
counselors and teachers should be invited to participate. But the NCAA
should remember who has the legal authority to establish curriculum
standards in high schools.
4. The NCAA should also publish and make publicly available committee
meeting minutes and staff memos relating to the Initial Eligibility
committee for the last 3 years, including discussions about the
Clearinghouse. The NCAA also should provide research about the
impact of its initial eligibility process on students, including students
from different backgrounds.
5. The NCAA should follow U.S. Department of Justice recommendations
regarding compensation of students with disabilities who have been
inappropriately treated in the Initial Eligibility process. The NCAA
should consider compensation to other students whose lives and
educations have been disrupted, despite otherwise acceptable work,
because the NCAA rejected one or more of their courses.
People Who've Signed the Statement *


















Mary Beth Blegen, National Teacher of the Year, 1996
Tracey Bailey, National Teacher of the Year, 1993
Thomas A. Fleming, National Teacher of the Year, 1992
Elaine Griffin, National Teacher of the Year, 1995
Bob Rodrigues, 1997 National Council of the Social Studies
"Outstanding Social Studies
Teacher of the Year," and Department Head, Chartiers Valley High
School, Bridgeville, PA
Dr. Karen Butterfield, Arizona State Teacher of the Year, 1993
Cathy Nelson, Minnesota State Teacher of the Year, 1990
Del Holland, 1988 Iowa Alternative School Teacher of the Year
Jeanne Allen, President, Center for Education Reform, Washington,
D.C.
Dr. Howard Fuller, Distinguished Professor of Education, Founder and
Director of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning, Marquette
University
Dr. Asa Hilliard, Professor, Georgia State University
Dr. Herbert Kohl, Senior Fellow, Open Society Institute and co-winner,
National Book Award, Pt. Arena, California
Jonathan Kozol, educator and author
Deborah Meier, Coalition of Essential Schools Vice Chair, and Principal,
Mission Hills School
Dr. Vito Perrone, Director of Teacher Education Programs Harvard
University Graduate School of Education
Charles Rooney, National Center for Fair and Open Testing
Dr. Theodore Sizer, Chair, Coalition of Essential Schools and University
Professor, Brown University
























Bobby Ann Starnes, President, Foxfire Fund, Inc., Mountain City, Ga.
Anna Amato, President, EdTec, Detroit, Michigan
John Ayers, Executive Director, Leadership for Quality Education,
Chicago, Illinois
Dr. Gloria Bonia-Santiago, Associate Professor, Rutgers University
Dr. Robert Barr, Dean, College of Education, Boise State University,
Boise, Idaho
Dr. Michael Bonacci, Principal, Chartiers Valley High School,
Bridgeville, PA.
Dr. William Boyd, Professor of Education, Penn State University
Karen Byars, Executive Director, Action for Children's Education,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Joe Beckmann, Development Director, OEKOS Foundation, Harvard,
Ma.
Steve Camron, Legal Counsel, Lenawee Intermediate School District,
Adrian, Michigan
Dr. James G. Cibulka, Chair, Department of Education Policy, Planning,
and Administration, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Rustin Clark, Superintendent of Schools, Chase-Raymond District,
Chase, Kansas
Judith E. Conger, Dean, Community High School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Frank Dooling, Tacoma, Washington
J. Terry Downen, Principal, North High School, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Dr. Judy DuShane, Branch Intermediate School District, Coldwater,
Michigan
John Esty, Concord, Massachusetts
Sy Fliegel, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, New York City
Greg Firn, principal, Principal, Cascade High School, Everett,
Washington
Laura Friedman, Director, Charter Schools Resource Center, St. Louis,
Missouri
Dr. Pamela George, School of Education, North Carolina Central
University, Durham, North Carolina
James N. Goenner, Executive Director, Michigan Association of Public
School Academies, Lansing Michigan
Samuel Halperin, Co-Director, American Youth Policy Forum,
Washington, D.C.
Mary Hartsfield, Program and Education Director, Devereux Center,
Mims, Florida

























Frank Heller, , President, Global Village Learning, Brunswick, Maine
Dr. Wayne Jennings, President, Designs for Learning, St. Paul,
Minnesota
Mary Johns, Vice President of the Adams Twelve School Board,
Northglenn, Colorado
Richard Kazis, Jobs for the Future, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Dr. Jim Kielsmeier, President, National Youth Leadership Council
Ron Kowalewski, Principal, Waterford Kettering High School,
Waterford. MI
Deborah Lazarus, ESOL Teacher, Fallsberg, New York
Ed Lyell, Senior Fellow, Center for the American West, Denver,
Colorado
Jenny McCampbell, Consultant for Gifted/Talented, Clinton County
Regional Service Agency, St. Johns, Michigan
Jack Marlotte, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Paul Nachtigal and Toni Haas, co-directors, Annenberg Rural Challenge
Dr. Joe Nathan, Director, Center for School Change, University of
Minnesota Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Lucy Nesbeda, Director, Oekos Foundation, Harvard, Massachusetts
Emanuel Pariser, Community School Co-director, Camden, Maine
Dr. Frank Pignatelli, Chair, Educational Leadership Department, Bank
Street College, New York
Eric Premack, Director, Charter Schools Project, California State
University, Sacramento
Bill Quinn, North Central Regional Laboratory, Illinois
Dr. Al Ramirez, Associate Professor, Educational Leadership, University
of Colorado, Colorado Springs and former Chief State School Officer,
Iowa
Editorial Board, Rethinking Schools Magazine, Milwaukee
Pamela Riley, Director Center for Innovation in Education, Pacific
Research Institute for Public Policy, San Francisco
Dr. Walter Roberts, Mankato State University and Government
Relations Chair, Minnesota School Counselors Association
Dr. Jack Shelton, Director, Program for Rural Success and Research,
University of Alabama
Marty Strange, Director, Annenburg Rural Challenge Policy Program
Dr. Margaret Tannenbaum, Professor of Education, Rowan University,
Glassboro, New Jersey 08028
Sarah Tantillo, New Jersey Charter School Resource Center

Dr. Jon Thompson, Director, Oakland Science, Mathematics and
Technology Academy, Clarkston, Michigan
* Titles provided for information only.