Pruitt’s Law or Lore

Every so often, I hear a familiar refrain:
“We can’t implement that change yet, we have to wait for SACSCOC to officially accept our notification.”

And just like that, another piece of accreditation lore takes root.

Let’s set the record straight.

What the Law Actually Says

Under SACSCOC policy, some substantive changes require approval prior to implementation, while others require only notification prior to implementation.

Here’s the key difference:

If your change requires notification, you may implement it immediately after submitting your official notification to SACSCOC. You do not need to wait for a formal response acknowledging receipt or acceptance before moving forward.

Your institution is, of course, responsible for ensuring that your submission is complete, accurate, and consistent with SACSCOC policy. But the timing is clear: Notification-based changes may proceed once submitted.

If there’s an issue with the content or completeness of your submission, SACSCOC staff will defer review and request clarification or additional information. That’s not a denial, it’s part of ensuring the record is correct and the process transparent.

In short: You notify, then you implement.

Where the Lore Comes From

The confusion likely stems from our dual pathways: approval vs. notification. Institutions understandably err on the side of caution, assuming that any communication with SACSCOC requires a response before action.

But that’s not how the policy is written. The wait-for-acceptance mindset may feel safe, but it’s unnecessary and in some cases, it can delay beneficial innovations or needed institutional adjustments.

Remember, if a change only requires notification, SACSCOC’s review is retrospective, not prospective. The Commission expects timely and accurate notice but does not hold implementation hostage to an acknowledgment response.

Law vs. Lore

✅ Law: For substantive changes requiring notification, institutions may implement immediately after submitting the official notification to SACSCOC.

❌ Lore: Institutions must wait for SACSCOC to issue an official response before implementing a notification-based substantive change.

The Pruitt Perspective

Accreditation is meant to ensure quality, not create paralysis. SACSCOC’s substantive change process exists to promote accountability and transparency, not to slow institutional progress.

When institutions understand the difference between approval and notification, they not only stay compliant; they stay agile.

Our shared goal is an accreditation system that supports responsible innovation. So the next time someone says, “We can’t move until SACSCOC responds,” you might just smile and ask:

Is that law or lore?

Every once in a while, a well-intended effort to expand opportunity ends up tangled in the fine print. Across our region, community colleges and universities are working together to create smoother transfer pathways for students in traditionally non-transfer degrees, like the Associate in Applied Science (AAS).

That’s good news. These pathways open the door for students who start in technical or applied program fields like welding, advanced manufacturing, or health sciences to continue toward a bachelor’s degree. But there’s a catch: when universities send their standard Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for these transfer programs, they often include the same language used for general education transfer, requiring that all courses be taught by faculty holding a master’s degree.

Here’s where we need to pause and separate law from lore.

What the Law Actually Says

SACSCOC’s Principles of Accreditation are clear: institutions must justify and document the qualifications of their faculty members. The Principles don’t prescribe a specific degree for every context. Instead, they require institutions to ensure that each faculty member is qualified to teach the courses assigned through education, experience, or a combination of both.

The Principle most often cited is:

“The institution justifies and documents the qualifications of its faculty members.”

That’s it. There’s no rule that every instructor teaching a course for transfer credit must hold a master’s degree. Instead, the expectation is that the institution awarding the credit has a defensible process that aligns with its mission, curriculum, and policies.

Where the Lore Comes From

When a university applies its general education transfer standards to a technical program, the MOU language can unintentionally create barriers for community colleges. In fields like welding or mechatronics, it’s rare, if not impossible, to find instructors with a master’s degree. Yet many of these instructors are industry experts with decades of experience, certifications, and teaching excellence.

Here’s the nuance: while SACSCOC expects institutions to maintain academic rigor, it also recognizes that qualifications look different across disciplines. A welding instructor’s professional background may demonstrate far greater subject-matter expertise than a formal academic degree ever could.

Unfortunately, when universities require a blanket “master’s degree or higher” for all courses in a transfer pathway, they’re not responding to SACSCOC policy they’re reacting to lore.

What This Means in Practice

As institutions collaborate to expand transfer opportunities for students in applied programs, clarity and communication are essential.

• General education courses that transfer as traditional academic credit should meet the same faculty credential expectations applied across the university.
• Technical courses, however, often fall under applied or professional standards. In these cases, documented industry experience, recognized credentials, or professional licensure can serve as the qualifying evidence of expertise.

The key is documentation and consistency, not conformity.

Universities and community colleges share a common goal: supporting student success and maintaining academic integrity. Achieving that doesn’t require rewriting accreditation law, it requires understanding it.

Law vs. Lore

✅ Law: Institutions must justify and document that faculty teaching courses for transfer credit are qualified by education or experience, consistent with their mission and policies.

❌ Lore: All instructors teaching courses that transfer to a university must hold a master’s degree.

The Pruitt Perspective

Expanding transfer opportunities for students in applied programs represents progress and it’s something worth celebrating. But as we build these bridges, we must also ensure the planks fit the path. I used the example of welding for ease, but the same applies in more complicated programs such as an Associates in Arts and Sciences (AAS) in programs like business leadership, healthcare management, or computer and network technology. These discipline areas have more common content overlap with more traditional transfer pathway associate degree programs. For these programs, faculty from both institutions may need to meet regularly to make intentional decisions about program alignment and credential requirements for specific courses within the program. Broad statements, either way, do not communicate the value of thoughtful faculty conversations to assure student learning and preparedness to take more advanced coursework.

Rigid credential expectations, applied without context, can unintentionally close doors for students and institutions alike. Accreditation should protect quality, not create unnecessary barriers.

The real question isn’t whether an instructor has a master’s degree. It’s whether that instructor has the knowledge, skill, and experience to teach the material effectively and help students succeed at the next level.

At SACSCOC, we stand behind that principle: uphold rigor, honor expertise, and never let misunderstanding masquerade as law.

Let’s keep clearing away the lore so innovation and opportunity can do what they’re meant to do: help more students keep moving forward.

Every few months, I hear the same refrain echoing through higher education circles: “SACSCOC won’t let us accept those transfer credits.”

Let’s stop right there. Because once again, we’re confusing law with lore.

What the Law Actually Says

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) does not dictate which credits an institution must accept. Read that again.

SACSCOC’s Principles of Accreditation require that institutions have clear, published, and consistently applied policies for evaluating and awarding transfer credit. But those policies are yours, crafted, approved, and implemented by your institution.

Here’s the actual language from the Principles:
Standard 10.8 says: “The institution publishes policies for evaluating, awarding and accepting credit not originating from the institution. The institution ensures (a) the academic quality of any credit or coursework recorded on its transcript, (b) an approval process with oversight 24by persons academically qualified to make the necessary judgments, and (c) the credit awarded is comparable to a designated credit experience and is consistent with the institution’s mission.” (Evaluating and Awarding External Academic Credits)

Further, you can read more information in our Board’s Position Paper on Transfer of Academic Credit here, https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2019/08/transfer-credit.pdf.

In practice, that means SACSCOC expects your institution to:

• Have a policy, not improvise case by case.
• Apply it consistently so students are treated equitably.
• Publish it transparently so students and sending institutions can understand your rules of the road.

But the decision to accept a credit, or not, is entirely up to you. That’s not an accreditation regulation; that’s institutional autonomy in action.

“SACSCOC protects academic integrity, not academic inflexibility.”

Where the Lore Comes From

Over the years, a kind of urban legend has taken hold: “We can’t do that because of SACSCOC.”

In reality, the Commission’s role is not to determine whether a course transfers—it’s to ensure that your process for evaluating transfer credit is fair, documented, and transparent.

Your faculty and academic leadership are the ones who determine equivalency based on your curriculum and standards rather than the accreditor.

So when someone blames “SACSCOC policy” for a transfer denial, it’s worth pausing to ask: Is that really the law or just the lore talking?

Law vs Lore?

✅ Law: Institutions must have and follow a published policy for evaluating and awarding transfer credit.

❌ Lore: SACSCOC decides which transfer credits your institution can or cannot accept.

The Pruitt Perspective

At SACSCOC, our mission is to uphold quality, not to limit opportunity. We believe strong, transparent institutional policies make transfer simpler, fairer, and more student-centered.

The next time someone says, “SACSCOC won’t let us,” take a moment to check the facts. Call or email us, we want to help. Chances are, the Commission isn’t the barrier, it’s just the scapegoat.

Let’s keep clearing away the lore so the law, and the learning, can shine through.

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