August 29, 2008
TECHNOS QUARTERLY Spring 1999 Vol. 8 No. 1
Calling the NCAA's Heavy Hand
By Joe Nathan
Is a high school class that studies mainly current affairs good preparation for college? Shouldn't high school graduates with outstanding academic records, including class valedictorians, National Honor Society members, and National Merit scholars, have no trouble being approved to participate in university sports? Isn't high school graduation based on demonstrated skill and knowledge, as proposed by education reformers such as Ted Sizer, an excellent way to prepare youngsters for universities as well as for life? If you answered yes to these questions, then you disagree with the NCAA, which has thrust its heavy hand into the determination of high school course content and national education standards.
For the past several years the National Collegiate Athletic Association has frustrated high school reformers and excellent students across the country with its arrogant approach to setting eligibility requirements for college athletes. The NCAA's actions present a strange story of good intentions run amok. As a New York Times editorial observed, “The NCAA should be promoting educational innovation, not obstructing it.”
Minnesota state senators, responding to hundreds of complaints from educators and parents, conducted a legislative hearing last November to question officials of the NCAA about its eligibility procedures. The session appears to have been the first such hearing in the nation, although it probably won't be the last. Many educators and parents in the United States have been questioning the NCAA's procedures.
The Big Squeeze
Why did the NCAA adopt its initial eligibility procedures? The NCAA is
a huge, powerful organization with 1997 revenues of more than $240 million,
mainly proceeds from the performances of college athletes on television. The
NCAA is fiercely protective of what essentially is a monopoly on operating
highly lucrative sports programs for the most prominent U.S. universities.
About 10 years ago the NCAA's monopoly was threatened. Members of Congress were deeply disturbed about press accounts stating that former college athletes who had received huge bonuses to sign professional contracts were going to use part of their bonanzas to hire tutors to help them learn to read. These Congress members told the NCAA that if it did not adopt more rigorous standards for university athletes, Congress would step in.
So the university officials who run the NCAA did adopt new standards, especially for entering students. The NCAA insisted that in order to be eligible for university sports, students had to achieve a certain high school grade-point average and a certain score on one of the two major college entrance tests, the SAT or ACT.
Arrogating Power
A few years later the NCAA decided, under pressure from certain high-profile
universities, to abandon its policy of not allowing freshmen to participate
in major sports.
In doing so, NCAA officials rejected the advice of many educators who pointed out that the freshman year was a time of major transition and students should not participate in varsity athletics for at least a semester while settling in to college life. But the pressure to obtain the services of a few “super” athletes was too strong. Influential university officials feared that such hugely valuable assets might bypass their universities entirely, going directly to the pros.
Making freshmen eligible brought increased scrutiny of athletes' high school records. So the NCAA decided it was not enough to require students to earn a certain test score and grade-point average. Henceforth students would also need to take a certain number of high school courses that had gained the NCAA's seal of approval.
The NCAA contracted with the American College Testing Service to create the Initial Eligibility Clearinghouse. The clearinghouse then wrote to every U.S. high school asking for descriptions of all English, social studies, mathematics, and science courses. The clearinghouse would determine which courses were acceptable to the NCAA. In effect the NCAA created its own set of national education standards—which it even refused for a year to share with the nation's high schools.
Legislature Acts
The Minnesota State Senate called hearings about the NCAA after complaints
were lodged by parents of outstanding students and by educators.
At the hearing, the NCAA's director of membership services, Bob Oliver, told the senators that the NCAA intended to raise standards for college athletes, so it created standards for acceptable high school courses. But some of the senators questioned these standards, such as the one that rejects any social studies course that spends more than 25 percent of its time exploring current issues.
State Senator David Ten Eyck of Brainerd recalled that his favorite high school course encouraged students to think, read, and study about current problems. And Senator Larry Pogemiller, chair of the Senate Education Committee, commented: “This standard is bizarre. Can you explain?”
“It's what university experts recommended,” Oliver responded.
“Does it make sense?” Ten Eyck asked. Oliver was silent.
Why Not Colleges?
Turning to another matter, Pogemiller asked: “Why did the NCAA create
course standards for high schools without creating similar standards for college
courses?”
“That's what our board decided,” Oliver responded.
This point is troubling to many people throughout the United States. While the NCAA has demanded that high schools submit lists of courses to it for approval, it has not demanded that its own members—the universities—submit courses for approval.
At the hearing, NCAA officials acknowledged that if a university course leads to a degree, it is an acceptable course for a university athlete. Applying the same standard to high school courses would, in the opinion of many high school authorities, solve the problem. But NCAA officials reject this solution and insist on maintaining a double standard.
David Johnson, chair of the Minnesota Senate NCAA Committee, asked whether the NCAA was accountable to anyone for its decisions.
“We carry out university presidents' decisions,” Oliver answered.
Students Rejected
“Why have NCAA's standards blocked some National Merit scholars, National
Honor Society members, and class valedictorians from participating in sports?”
another senator asked.
“I don't know how to respond,” Oliver said.
“Surreal,” Pogemiller commented.
The issue is, however, very real to thousands of students, such as Leann Johnson of LaCrescent, Minnesota. Johnson described her above-average grades and test scores to the senators. But the NCAA challenged a post-secondary English and math course she took and wouldn't let her accept a scholarship or play softball for Winona State College. Senators shook their heads and urged her to “appeal, and report back.”
|
STUDENT VICTIMS A Detroit News investigation found that thousands of high school graduates have been declared ineligible to participate in college sports by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. These NCAA rejects include class valedictorians and National Honor Society members. Articles have appeared in newspapers all over the nation, including the New York Times, USA Today, Milwaukee Sentinel, Sacramento Bee, Denver Post, and St. Paul Pioneer Press, describing excellent students who had been rejected by the NCAA, often because of one course. The rest of this journal could be filled with the stories of these youngsters. Here are just a few.
|
Educators Disgusted
Gary Armon, a Blue Earth, Minnesota, high school counselor, also attended
the hearing. Armon represents 30 southeastern Minnesota educators who are
disgusted not only with the NCAA but also with the American College Testing
Service. The ACT sometimes accepts a course from one school and rejects the
identical course from another school.
The educators have a large file of letters showing that the ACT often treats students, parents, and educators rudely and takes months to answer questions about whether a course is acceptable. So Armon's group is exploring alternatives to the ACT.
Armon stressed that the counselors will do nothing to hurt students. “But there are lots of places to buy curriculum,” he pointed out, “and the SAT also is a well-respected college entrance test.” The school counselors intend to put their students first by challenging what they see as a huge, arrogant organization.
Although the Minnesota Senate hearing apparently marked the first time any legislators have formally questioned NCAA officials, complaints have surfaced throughout the nation. Last year more than a hundred leading high school reform authorities wrote a letter challenging the NCAA. These authorities included Jonathan Kozol, Ted Sizer, Deborah Meier, Herb Kohl, Asa Hilliard, Jeannie Allen, and four National Teachers of the Year.
Their letter pointed out that “the NCAA's goals may be worthy, but its methods are wretched.” The reformers were concerned not only about the enormous frustration the NCAA produced for families. The NCAA also made it difficult for educators everywhere in the nation to create new, potentially more effective approaches to education.
For example, Esther M. Walling, college counselor at Jefferson High School in Los Angeles, noted that faculty members at her high school had created an interdisciplinary school within a school called Humanitas, “which is entirely college prep with more emphasis on writing across the curriculum.” It links academic courses thematically. The NCAA, however, ruled that the courses were unacceptable preparation for college. Walling wrote letters of protest to the NCAA but it took more than a year for approval. She was not happy.
Other Battles
John Green, a school official from Cherry Creek, Colorado, also is battling
the NCAA. Thirty of some 100 courses the school submitted were rejected by
the NCAA, including courses in advanced computer applications, accounting,
and technical biochemistry.
Suzy Hallock Bannigan, a counselor in Woodstock, Vermont, wrote an eloquent op-ed column for her local newspaper describing the battle her school had with the NCAA. The association rejected a variety of interdisciplinary, tech-prep, and school-to-work courses. That caused parents to criticize and challenge the high school's efforts to improve the school. Hallock Bannigan wrote that “it's time the NCAA had a report card from schools and student athletes all over America who've taken worthy courses.”
A school counselor from Peters Township in Pennsylvania had 22 courses rejected by the NCAA in the past year. This counselor wrote: “I don't need to tell you how much time was spent not only by me but by our teachers submitting information. I have a major problem with the NCAA.”
An innovative rural school developed a curriculum based on the ideas of Ted Sizer. Sizer visited Minnesota New Country School and described it as a “marvelous place.” Graduation is based on demonstration of skill and knowledge rather than accumulation of credits. But the NCAA wrote the school to say that the “self-paced, performance based approach are not acceptable.[sic]” So the school had to battle with the NCAA for more than a year.
|
Cutting to the Core In a case which a USA Today editorial cited in criticizing the NCAA, Bob Rodrigues, the National Council of Social Studies' 1997 Secondary Teacher of the Year, learned that some of his advanced courses had been rejected by the NCAA. That led his principal to write: “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 knows anything at all about curricula and those components of a planned course which qualify it as a core course.” |
Receiving Help
Walling, Hallock Bannigan, and other school counselors around the United States
have convinced the American School Counselors Association to challenge the
NCAA. They aren't alone. Local school board associations in several states
have asked the National School Board Association to question NCAA procedures,
as have several school administrator groups. Recently the ASCD joined the
battle also.
The National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) has helped lead the challenges to the NCAA. It has written many letters to the NCAA questioning its procedures and urging it to get out of the business of reviewing high school courses. Other national organizations are joining NASBE and the American School Counselors in questioning NCAA actions.
Several state attorneys general have begun questioning the NCAA. And U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota has asked for a congressional investigation of the NCAA. Wellstone also is introducing legislation that would prevent the NCAA from frustrating deserving students and high school reformers.
A Few Changes
The NCAA has made a few changes. It stopped demanding that every high school
fill out a lengthy questionnaire when it adds a new English, social studies,
math, or science course. It agreed to talk with parents and high school educators—for
a while it would deal only with university officials. It asked high school
principals to recommend which courses are acceptable under its standards,
although it still reserves the right to overrule principals—and has done so
all over the nation.
But these changes are happening only because hundreds of parents and educators have contacted their professional associations, along with state and national elected representatives.
Meanwhile the NCAA's actions show that it is not enough to push for higher standards. As Bob Pasco, an award-winning Vermont high school counselor, wrote, “The NCAA should encourage rigor. But its standards and actions really promote rigor mortis.” Or, as a USA Today editorial concluded, “Until the NCAA gets out of the business of deciding course content, all high school students will continue to lose out.”
Joe
Nathan, a former public school teacher and administrator, directs the Center
for School Change at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public
Affairs. He is the author of Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity
in American Education (Jossey Bass, 1999).
For more information on this issue, contact the author at jnathan@hhh.umn.edu or 612-626-1834.