Transcript Division I Case Processing Initial Eligibility and

Andy Cardamone
Stephanie Castera
Shauna Cobb
Juliette Kenny
Agenda
 AMA Online Waiver Submission
 Initial-Eligibility and Progress-Toward-Degree Updates
 Best Practices and Policies and Procedures
 Case Studies
2
AMA Online
 Online waiver portal to file all AMA waivers.
 Launched February 2011.
 Version 2.0 launched April 2012.
 All waivers must be filed via AMA Online.
 Waivers will not be accepted by AMA Online until all
required documentation is uploaded.
3
4
Initial-Eligibility Updates
 Check out the new legislation!
 Waiver directive.
 Case precedent.
 PSA review.
5
Initial-Eligibility Waiver Directive
 Approved by the NCAA Division I Academic Cabinet in
February 2012.
 Includes a data-based analysis of SA’s likelihood of
academic success during first year of enrollment.
 Used in all initial-eligibility waivers processing.
6
Policies and Best Practices
Initial-Eligibility Waivers
 The NCAA Division I Initial-Eligibility Waivers Committee has
the authority to waive initial-eligibility requirements.
 Initial review and decision by NCAA staff.
 Institution can appeal staff’s decision to the appropriate initial-
eligibility subcommittee via AMA Online (within 30 days of
decision).
 Core-Course Subcommittee.
 International-Student Subcommittee.
 GPA/Transcript-Change.
 Education-Impacting Disability Subcommittee.
7
Policies and Best Practices
Initial-Eligibility Waivers (cont.)
Required Documentation.








Completed waiver application via AMA Online.
All ACT/SAT scores.
Letters or statements from the institution and SA.
Evidence of the SA’s academic record.
Evidence of the mitigating circumstances.
SA’s final certification report.
Copies of all high school transcripts.
Academic support plan (if applicable).
 Education-impacting disability cases.
 Cases involving a core-course GPA below 2.3000.
 Staff discretion.
8
Policies and Best Practices
Initial-Eligibility Waivers (cont.)
Misadvisement/Lack of Advisement Documentation.
 Written statements of explanation (e.g., SA, institution,
etc.).
 Documentation demonstrating the misadvisement.
 Institutional recovery plan (if requested by staff).
 High school versus institutional misadvisement.
 Once recruitment begins, advisement shifts to institution.
9
Policies and Best Practices
Initial-Eligibility Waivers (cont.)
Education-Impacting Disability Documentation.
 Most recent medical documentation, including evaluation
and diagnosis.
 Documentation of individual education plan, Section 504
Plan, etc., from SA’s high school.
 Letter from institution’s office of disability services
documenting that SA has been accepted, including
accommodations.
 Academic support plan.
10
Policies and Best Practices
Initial-Eligibility Waivers (cont.)
Best Practices.
 International SAs.
 NCAA Guide to International Academic Standards for
Athletics Eligibility.
 Contact NCAA Eligibility Center.
 Mitigation for category one documents.
 Tracking and early recognition.
 Deficiencies can be rectified or reduced prior to initial fulltime enrollment.
11
Initial-Eligibility Waivers
Case Study - John
 John is from the United Kingdom.
 3.450 core-course GPA.
 1180 SAT score.
 14 core courses.
 Deficient two social science courses.
 Social science not compulsory in United Kingdom.
 John selected a business track.
 How will this case be analyzed?
12
Case Study – John (cont.)
 Is John academically prepared?
 What is the mitigation for the deficiency?
 What other questions should the staff ask?
 Is additional documentation necessary?
13
Case Study - Pam
 Pam is a domestic SA.
 3.680 core-course GPA.
 67 best composite ACT score.
 820 best composite SAT score.
 Pam claims she is not a good test taker. Took test five times.
 Short one and one-half units (one math and one additional).
 Pam completed Algebra in grade nine, which did not count as
a core course. She went on to complete Algebra II and
Calculus with grades of A.
 How will this case be analyzed?
14
Case Study – Pam (cont.)
 Is Pam academically prepared?
 What is the mitigation for the deficiency?
 What other questions should the staff ask?
 Is additional documentation necessary?
15
Case Study - Robert
 Prior to his senior year, Robert had seven core courses.
 Robert enrolled in nine nontraditional courses his senior
year.
 Robert completed two core courses in less than one month,
and all nine courses within six months.
 One course, Sociology, only took two hours to complete.
 Six of the nine courses did not meet initial-eligibility
certification requirements.
16
Case Study – Robert (cont.)
 With the inclusion of all 16 completed courses, Robert
has a 3.000 core-course GPA.
 HOWEVER, Robert’s final certification…
 10 core courses with a 2.070 core-course GPA.
 Robert failed seven core courses in his first three years of
high school.
 Six of the seven failures were repeated in grade 12.
 Robert has a 720 SAT composite score (took test three
times).
 How will this case be analyzed?
17
Case Study – Robert (cont.)
 Is Robert academically prepared?
 What is the mitigation for the deficiency?
 What other questions should the staff ask?
 Is additional documentation necessary?
18
Case Study – Joe
 2.225 core-course GPA.
 Five ACT scores: 50, 42, 78, 52, 48.
 14 core courses (deficient one math and one science).
 Joe had knee surgery January 15 of his senior year and missed a lot
of class. As a result, his grades suffered and he failed two corecourse units.
 Joe’s transcript consists of D and C grades.
 Not one single A (other than swimnastics, not core).
 At least one F in each previous term.
 Institution asserts that “but for” John’s knee surgery, he would have
been a final qualifier.
 How will this case be analyzed?
19
Case Study – Joe (cont.)
 Is Joe academically prepared?
 What is the mitigation for the deficiency?
 What other questions should the staff ask?
 Is additional documentation necessary?
20
Initial-Eligibility Questions?
21
22
Progress-Toward-Degree Directive
 Approved by the Academic Cabinet in June 2012.
 Data-based analysis of SA’s likelihood of graduation within
five years of initial enrollment.
 Used in all progress-toward-degree waiver processing.
23
Policies and Best Practices
Progress-Toward-Degree Waivers
 The NCAA Division I Progress-Toward-Degree Waivers
Committee has the authority to waive progress-towarddegree and two-year transfer requirements.
 Initial review and decision by NCAA staff.
 Institution can appeal staff’s decision to the appropriate
progress-toward-degree subcommittee via AMA Online
(within 30 days of decision).
 Progress-Toward-Degree Subcommittee.
 Two-Year Transfer Subcommittee.
24
Policies and Best Practices
Progress-Toward-Degree Waivers (cont.)
 Complete all required questions within the waiver
application.
 Input a complete grid.
 Number of hours that are degree applicable each term.
 Whether the SA competed each term.
 Official transcripts are required (copies are OK).
 Grades for most recent term completed must be
included.
25
Policies and Best Practices
Progress-Toward-Degree Waivers (cont.)
 Include an academic recovery plan that the SA can
successfully follow, with references to academic support
and any accommodations.
 Include an institutional recovery plan in case of
misadvisement.
 Include documentation to support mitigation (e.g.,
education-impacting disability documentation).
 Submit requests in a timely manner once it is determined
a waiver is necessary.
26
Policies and Best Practices
Progress-Toward-Degree Waivers (cont.)
 Clearly indicate when the waiver is needed (next date of
competition).
 Staff will prioritize the review of waivers based on…
 Date of the next contest.
 Order in which the case was received.
 Date the institution determined a waiver was necessary.
27
Policies and Best Practices
Progress-Toward-Degree Waivers (cont.)
Documentation.
 Mitigation.
 Must be tied to deficiency.
 Misadvisement/Lack of advisement.
 Written statements of explanation (e.g., SA, institution,
etc.).
 Documentation demonstrating the advisement.
 Institutional recovery plan required.
28
Policies and Best Practices
Progress-Toward-Degree Waivers (cont.)
Documentation.
 Transcripts.
 Required from ALL schools.
 Education-impacting disabilities.
 Most recent medical documentation including evaluation
and diagnosis.
 Letter from institution’s office of disability services
documenting that SA has been accepted, including
accommodations.
29
Progress-Toward-Degree Waivers
Case Study - Isabella
Academic
Term
Institution
Full time/
Part time
Two year/
Four year
Credits
attempted
Credits
earned
Credits that apply
to percentage of
degree (at State
University)
Term GPA
Competed
F09
Junior
College
FT
2 year
15
15
15
3.2
Y
S10
Junior
College
FT
2 year
15
15
15
2.6
Y
F10
Junior
College
FT
2 year
15
15
9
2.4
Y
S11
Junior
College
FT
2 year
15
15
11
2.4
Y
F11
Big Time
University
FT
4 year
15
9
6
1.75
Y
S12
State
University
FT
4 year
12
12
12
2.8
N
F12
State
University
FT
4 year
13
81
68
2.5/2.8
Totals
87
30
Case Study – Isabella (cont.)
Academic recovery plan (120-credit program; completed 68).
 Fall 2012
 GEO 231
 GEO 425
 ENG 230
 Elective
 Elective
 Spring 2013
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
2 credits
2 credits
13
 Fall 2013
 HST 334
 HST 400
 ANT 450
 Elective
 SCO 331
 ANT 401
 HUM 430
 GEO 320
 GEO 300
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
15
 Spring 2014
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
12
 SCO 431
 ANT 430
 GEO 320
 Elective
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
12
31
Case Study – Isabella (cont.)
 What is Isabella’s progress-toward-degree deficiency?
 What other questions should the staff ask State University
about Isabella?
 What documentation is required to review this case?
32
Case Study – Isabella (cont.)
 What are Isabella’s progress-toward-degree deficiencies?
 Does not meet percentage of degree (60%). [NCAA Bylaw
14.4.3.2]
 What other questions should the staff ask State University
about Isabella?
 Is there documentation of the financial hardship incident?
 Could Isabella have attended summer school?
 Why were some courses not degree applicable (grades, not
transferable)?
 What has changed for Isabella?
33
Case Study – Isabella (cont.)
 What documentation is needed to review this case?
 Standard documentation (completed online application,
official transcripts, etc.).
 Evaluation of transfer credit.
 Documentation of the incident that caused the financial
hardship.
 Documentation of Isabella’s summer activities
(employment records).
34
Case Study – Isabella (cont.)
 How close is Isabella to meeting the requirements?
 Four credits short of meeting the 60% requirement (needs
72, has 68).
 Overall academic record?
35
Case Study – Isabella (cont.)
 What is the likelihood that Isabella will graduate within
five years of initial enrollment?
 Quality-point analysis – 68 credits x 2.5 = 170;
12 credits x 2.8 = 33.6.

Overall, greater than 50% chance of graduation; 33-50%
chance at State University.
 Academic recovery plan – is it reasonable?
 Will Isabella meet future benchmarks (80%)?
36
Case Study – Isabella (cont.)
 Does the mitigation support the deficiency?
 Does the documentation support the mitigation?


Have verification of father losing job (letter of termination,
unemployment documentation).
Have verification that Isabella has been working all summer
(statement from employer, pay stubs, etc.).
 What has changed for Isabella?



Does father have job?
Is Isabella on athletics aid?
Has Isabella discussed other options for financing education?
37
Case Study – Isabella (cont.)
 Approve.
 Rationale.
 Personal hardship. But for the family’s financial issues, it
seems reasonable to believe Isabella would have attempted
and passed at least four credits during summer school in
order to meet the requirement.
38
Progress-Toward-Degree
Questions?
39
40