Law or Lore

Across the South, and really across the country, one of the most common complaints I hear from educators and institutional leaders is this: Why does SACSCOC limit access to dual enrollment by setting such high requirements on teacher requirements? The answer, it seems, has taken on a life of its own. I’ve heard everything from “18 hours is the law” to “you can’t teach unless you have a full master’s in the discipline.” Both statements sound authoritative, yet both are wrong. What we’re really dealing with here isn’t law. It’s lore.

Where the “18-Hour Rule” Came From

At SACSCOC, the Principles of Accreditation require that for each of its programs, an institution “justifies and documents the qualifications of its faculty members.” A historic rule of thumb was that faculty must have a master’s degree and at least 18 graduate semester hours in the discipline being taught, or the equivalent qualifications through education and experience. At one time, these were requirements, but have not been for close to two decades, but it has stayed as a vestige of that time despite not being a requirement.

What the Standard Really Says

Let’s look at what the standard actually means in practice:

• • Institutions are responsible for determining and justifying faculty qualifications, not SACSCOC.

• • The 18-hour benchmark is a commonly accepted minimum for demonstrating subject-matter preparation, but institutions can (and often do) use other evidence of qualification.

• • Experience matters. Professional expertise, licensure, certifications, or demonstrated achievement in the field can qualify someone to teach certain courses, especially in applied or technical areas.

SACSCOC’s expectation is that the institution has a clear and defensible process for determining qualifications, documents it consistently, and applies it equitably.

Why It Matters for Dual Enrollment

When we apply the faculty qualifications standard to dual enrollment, confusion often grows because these courses sit at the intersection of K–12 and higher education. But dual enrollment courses are college courses. That means the institution awarding the credit bears full responsibility for ensuring faculty qualifications align with its policies and SACSCOC expectations. However, that does not mean every dual enrollment teacher must hold 18 graduate hours in their discipline. If the course is in a career-technical field, or if the institution’s own policy allows alternative pathways based on experience or credentialing, those options remain valid as long as they’re documented and defensible.

Law vs. Lore

Here’s the bottom line:

• • There is no federal or state law that sets an “18-hour rule.”

• • SACSCOC does not impose a universal legal mandate for dual enrollment faculty credentials.

• • The institution defines qualifications, consistent with its mission and policies, and demonstrates how each instructor meets them.

So, the next time someone says, “You can’t teach dual enrollment without 18 graduate hours,” ask: Is that law or lore? The truth is, it’s lore that’s hardened into myth. And myths, even well-intentioned ones, can limit opportunity especially in rural areas where highly qualified educators might not fit a rigid formula but bring tremendous expertise to students ready for college-level work.

Moving Forward

Our goal should be to uphold quality and broaden access. That means working together. K–12 systems, institutions, and accreditors need to understand not just what the standard says, but what it means. SACSCOC’s role is to ensure integrity, not to close doors. We will get better at this with the new Principles and processes, but this provides a starting point. Clarity and flexibility can coexist when institutions document their decisions thoughtfully. At the end of the day, the question isn’t whether a teacher has exactly 18 hours. The real question is: Can this instructor effectively teach college-level content and help students succeed? That’s the standard worth standing on.

The Pruitt Perspective

Too often in education, what begins as good guidance morphs over time into rigid practice. We repeat something so many times that it becomes accepted as law even when it’s not. The “18-hour rule” is one of those cases. It reflects our desire for clarity but also our tendency to let simplicity replace nuance.

My challenge to leaders is this: Don’t settle for lore when law, or better yet understanding, will do. Read the standard. Ask the hard questions. Ensure your institution’s policies serve both quality and opportunity.

If we want more students to experience early college success, then we need more educators empowered to teach it. That won’t happen by clinging to myths. It happens when we hold firm to standards and are flexible in our thinking. This is the very balance that accreditation, at its best, is meant to protect.

Stephen L. Pruitt, Ph.D.

President, SACSCOC