Principles Review

Purpose

The Principles of Accreditation Revision Committee ensures that the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) maintains standards that are clear, relevant, and responsive to the evolving higher education landscape. The committee provides leadership in reviewing, clarifying, and recommending revisions to the Principles of Accreditation, which serve as the foundation for institutional quality and accountability.

Core Responsibilities

  • Review and Streamline Standards
    • Examine existing standards for clarity, relevance, and consistency.
    • Recommend simplifications to reduce duplication and administrative burden.
    • Ensure standards are written in plain language accessible to a wide range of institutions.
    • Review the CR (Core Requirements) for currency and relevance.
  • Review the Quality Enhancement Plan
    • Consider whether it needs to be modified, enhanced, continued, or eliminated.
  • Secure representation from All Institution Levels
    • Ensure representation and consideration of all member institutional types.
    • Identify challenges unique to different institutions and propose equitable solutions.
    • Take into account the survey of member institutional IALS and Presidents, and other constituent feedback during the review process.
  • Connect Accreditation to Workforce and Student Success
    • Strengthen the link between institutional mission, student achievement, and workforce readiness.
    • Recommend revisions that highlight high-impact practices, student learning outcomes, and career pathways.
  • Support Innovation and Continuous Improvement
    • Evaluate how emerging practices (e.g., digital learning, AI, new credentials) align with the Principles.
    • Ensure standards encourage innovation while maintaining integrity and quality.
    • Evaluate the concept of determining “differentiation by institutional levels” would be more effective.
    • Determine if having all institutional responses to standards due in a compliance report in the 9th year supports continuous improvement and works well for our membership.
  • Determine if the idea of “Accreditation with Distinction” is helpful to members
    • (A different committee will determine the criteria for distinction if recommended by the Principles Review Committee)
  • Stakeholder Engagement and Communication
    • Consider input from member institutions, peer reviewers, state agencies, and other stakeholders.
    • Communicate progress and recommendations clearly to the Board of Trustees and the membership in alignment with the Review Timeline.

Process

The Committee will meet monthly over the course of 14-18 months to revise the Principles based on public and institutional feedback, Stakeholder Committee Feedback, and committee expertise. Twice during the process, the SACSCOC membership will receive an update summarizing the suggested standards, changes to the process, and design of SACSCOC accreditation.

Special Review Committees

1. Stakeholder Review Committee

To ensure the Principles address the unique missions and challenges of all SACSCOC universities and the broader higher education ecosystem, the committee will empanel a Special Review Committee with a targeted focus on:

  • R1 Institutions: Explore how standards can reflect the research mission, global competitiveness, and high-level innovation distinctive to R1 universities.
  • Workforce Alignment: Identify opportunities for stronger integration of workforce needs and applied research, ensuring that accreditation recognizes institutions’ role in preparing graduates for high-skill, high-demand fields.
  • Differentiation: Recommend revisions that acknowledge differences across institutional types, balancing flexibility with consistency in applying the Principles.
  • Recognition of Excellence: Propose pathways for highlighting unique contributions of research-intensive and mission-specific institutions to higher education and society.
  • International Members: Review changes to determine if they serve our international institutions well and suggest changes to more thoroughly engage international member institutions.

The Stakeholder Committee is not expected to attend all meetings but may if so inclined. The members will be provided updates on the work of the Principles Review Committee and will comment on the proposed changes from their unique points of view. They may be asked to present to the committee based on their expertise or findings after reviewing drafts.

2. Financial Review Committee

The financial review committee will be made up of a select number of financial readers, CFOs and auditors familiar with SACSCOC financial standards. They will recommend changes, updates and edits to the Principles and the Resource Manual for improvement related to financial Principles. The Financial Review Committee will provide their report to the Principles Review Committee.

3. Bias Review Committee

State Legislators will be invited from each state where there are four or more member institutions to sit on the Bias Review Committee. This committee will evaluate the committee’s recommended changes to the Principles of Accreditation for potential bias.  

Expected Outcomes and Deliverables

The Principles Review Committee will provide recommendations for a set of revised, streamlined, and future-focused Principles of Accreditation and an updated Resource Manual for the Principles of Accreditation that includes:

  •  Create clear, fair, streamlined, relevant and usable standards,
  • Determine and recommend the next steps for the QEP (which might include modification, elimination, continuation, or a new approach),
  • Create a stronger alignment between accreditation, student achievement, workforce, and national needs,
  • Recommend whether or not to create “Sector Specific” standards in addition to a set of “core” required standards, 
  • Make a recommendation concerning highlighting member excellence across diverse institutional missions through excellence or distinction opportunities,
  • Recommended changes to the Resource Manual to reflect the broader changes recommended by the Principles Review Committee,
  • Provide the Board with recommendations related to the “timeline” for institutions to report on compliance with the revised standards,
  • Determine the need for continuing, modifying, or eliminating “Differential Review,”
  • Advise SACSCOC leadership on implementation timeline for implementation of the new Principles.

Principles Review and Advisory Committee Roster (2025-2026)

  • Maurice Eftink, Co-Chair, University of Mississippi, Associate Provost, retired
  • Devin Stephenson, Co-Chair, Florida Polytechnic University, President
  • Ivan Allen, Central Georgia Community College, President (Special Advisory Committee)
  • Charles Appleby, Senior Advisor to the Coordinating Council for Workforce Development, South Carolina (Special Advisory Committee)
  • Mark Brown, Tuskegee University, President
  • Eli Capilouto, University of Kentucky, President (Special Advisory Committee)
  • Michele Carter, Central Texas College, President
  • Thomas Chillo, Thomas More University, President
  • John Clune, Nichols State, President
  • Cathy Cox, Georgia College, President
  • Laura Foltz, University of Tennessee Martin, Chief Financial Officer (Financial Standards Advisory)
  • David Garza, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, President (Special Advisory Committee)
  • Brent Gregory, East Central Community College, President
  • Kim Hall, South College, Vice Chancellor
  • Malou Harrison, Miami Dade College, Provost
  • Stacia Haynie, Midwestern State University, Provost
  • Delia Heck, Ferrum College, Provost/IE
  • Susan Henderson, Coker College, Provost
  • Scott Hummel, Tusculum University, President
  • David Jordan, Emory University, Associate Vice President
  • Laura Letherwood, Blue Ridge Community College, President
  • Lisa Long, Stillman College, Interim Provost and VPSS
  • Candi McElheny, Franciscan Missionaries Our Lady University, President
  • Jeremy McMillan, Grayson College, President
  • Billy Minch, CPA & Partner at CRI (Financial Standards Advisory)
  • Milton Moreland, Centre College, Provost
  • Charles Munns, Executive Council Member, South Carolina (Special Advisory Committee)
  • Al Panu, University of South Carolina Beaufort, President
  • Brad Reeder, Berry College, Chief Financial Officer (Financial Standards Advisory)
  • Sallie Seldon, The Citadel, Provost/Dean of the College
  • Undria Stalling, Morehouse University, Chief Financial Officer (Financial Standards Advisory)
  • Jay Stubblefield, Lincoln Memorial University, Executive Vice President of AA
  • Debbie Sydow, Richard Bland College, President
  • Leocadia Zak, Agnes Scott College, President