Principles Review

The Principles Review Committee, made up of peer representatives from all levels of our membership, has been diligently working and is now ready to share this initial draft of the SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation Standards with you.

These standards reflect a fundamental commitment to what accreditation should be at its best: a rigorous, transparent, and enabling framework that puts student achievement at the center of every decision.

In developing this new set of standards, the peer Principles Review Committee asked itself a core set of questions at every turn. Does a given requirement genuinely promote student achievement? Does it advance institutional quality and continuous improvement while maintaining the transparency that students, families, and the public deserve? And does it keep our focus where it belongs, that is, on outcomes and results, rather than on processes for their own sake?

Equally important, in their work the Principles Review Committee was guided by a set of values that show where accreditation needs to go to stay relevant and effective in a quickly changing higher education landscape.

First, they aspired to hold the Commission to the gold standard by setting requirements that are not merely adequate but exemplary. They sought to streamline the work of our institutions, reducing administrative burden so that energy and resources can flow toward mission-driven work. They recognized that higher education is not monolithic; therefore, these standards are designed to differentiate meaningfully by institutional mission, honoring the distinct contexts and purposes of different types of institutions.

And finally, the Committee allowed space for institutions to make more internal decisions and, most importantly, to innovate, because the best outcomes often emerge when institutions have the freedom to find their own paths to excellence.

The standards that follow are the product of that disciplined reflection. They are designed not to constrain, but to elevate by holding institutions to a high bar while trusting them as capable, mission-driven partners in the shared work of educating students and advancing student success.

To this end, you will note that some standards that have been required for decades are not included and will no longer be part of the initial accreditation and reaffirmation processes.

This document is a draft, and we want to be clear: it will change. The Principles Review Committee and SACSCOC are committed to refining these standards based on the feedback of our member institutions and stakeholders. Additionally, we recognize that we may need to align our standards with any federal requirements that emerge from the current Negotiated Rulemaking process. As that process unfolds, we will ensure that these standards reflect any resulting regulatory changes.

There is still important work ahead. Among the items we continue to develop are: the organization and grouping of the standards themselves; and the inclusion of a small set of optional standards linked to different institutional missions. The organization of the standards into groupings for this survey was done for convenience, so we could get the standards out for your comment prior to June 1. As a result, the titles and groupings have not been fully discussed or finalized by the Committee.

One area of innovation in these standards is the introduction of attestation for select standards. Attestation is a formal, signed statement by authorized institutional leaders, such as the president or board chair, confirming that the institution meets a specific standard. Rather than requiring a full narrative response or supporting documentation, attestation allows an institution to certify compliance directly, relying on institutional authority and accountability.

Attestation is appropriate for standards where the expectation is well understood, where practice is unlikely to vary significantly across institutions, or where an institution can credibly affirm that no change has occurred since its last review. For example, a standard such as our current 10.2 (Public Information) may lend itself to attestation by the institution’s Chancellor or President.

This approach reflects our confidence in institutional integrity while effectively reducing the reporting burden on institutions. Identifying which standards might need attestation is still future work for the Principles Review Committee.

Members will also note that these standards do not include a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) requirement. This was a deliberate decision, informed directly by survey feedback from our membership. There will be no reference to a QEP, nor will there be a QEP requirement, in the new standards.

Finally, the Principles Review Committee made certain that this set of draft standards aligns with all federal requirements for accreditation and reaffirmation.

Thanks to the Principles Review Committee for their hard work and for the work they continue to undertake on behalf of the membership. We are grateful for the engagement of our members and stakeholders in this process, and we look forward to the conversations that will shape the final version of these standards. These are your standards, and now is the time to engage and shape them.

In developing this new set of standards, the peer Principles Review Committee asked itself a core set of questions at every turn.

• Does this requirement genuinely promote student achievement?
• Does it advance quality and continuous improvement while maintaining transparency?
• Does it improve transparency and accountability while reducing unnecessary burden?
• Does it keep focus on outcomes and results — not process for its own sake?
• Three core values: reduce administrative burden, honor institutional mission diversity, and enable innovation

Institutional Stability

1. Integrity: The institution operates with integrity in all matters.
2. Institutional Mission: The institution has a clearly defined, published educational mission appropriate to its purpose and educational programs offered.
3. Governing Board: The institution has a governing authority (for example, a governing board) that is responsible for the quality, integrity, and financial stability of the institution, and for ensuring that its mission is accomplished. To that end, the institution demonstrates that the governing authority (a) exercises appropriate oversight, including fiduciary duties, (b) hires and evaluates the institution’s CEO, and (c) focuses on approval of policies. Furthermore, (d) the governing authority demonstrates that its first duty is to the institution, (e) protects institutional autonomy from undue influence, and (f) adheres to ethical standards.
4. Chief Executive Officer and Administrative Capacity: The Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO’s) primary responsibility is to lead the institution toward the achievement of the mission and student success. The institution demonstrates that (a) the CEO and administrative leadership team possess the qualifications and authority to effectively execute institutional responsibilities, and (b) the leadership roles and responsibilities of the CEO and governing authority are clearly defined.
5. Institutional Planning and Effectiveness: The institution demonstrates a commitment to continuous improvement through systematic, integrated, and data-informed planning processes to enhance institutional effectiveness. The planning process includes: (a) clearly articulated goals consistent with the institution’s mission and appropriate to the credentials offered, and (b) a process of regular review to determine the institution’s achievement of the goals. Planning and evaluation (c) occurs at strategic and key operational levels, (d) engages appropriate stakeholders, and (e) consistently focuses on institutional sustainability and improvement.
6. Sound Financial Planning and Management: The institution demonstrates that it maintains and annually updates a financial plan covering a minimum of three (3) fiscal years, that is (a) aligned with the mission and strategic priorities, (b) based upon realistic and clearly documented revenue and expenditure assumptions, and (c) reviewed and approved by the governing authority or its designated finance committee. Additionally, (d) the institution demonstrates that it has established appropriate financial controls to ensure accurate and reliable financial operations.
7. Financial Documents: The institution demonstrates financial stability and resources sufficient for operations by providing audited financial statements and appropriate supplementary documentation across multiple years.
8. Oversight of External Funds and Regulatory Compliance: The institution demonstrates that it (a) exercises appropriate financial control and oversight of externally funded and sponsored programs, (b) complies with all applicable federal and state program responsibilities, and (c) is in compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV of the most recent Higher Education Act as amended, including required audits of Title IV and other financial aid programs.
9. Facilities, Technology, and Safety: The institution demonstrates that it (a) provides adequate physical facilities and infrastructure to support its mission, educational programs, support services, and other mission-related activities. Additionally, the institution (b) takes reasonable steps to ensure a healthy, safe, and secure environment for all members of the campus community, and (c) provides information on investigations by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights for violations alleging sexual violence.

Quality Education

10. Undergraduate Curriculum (General Education): The institution’s educational programs include a general education component that addresses foundational knowledge, skills, and competencies that support lifelong learning, informed citizenship, and/or future employment. The general education component (a) is based on a coherent rationale, (b) constitutes a substantial component of required credit hours for the undergraduate degree, and (c) ensures a breadth of knowledge across several disciplines beyond what is required in the major.
11. Program Content: The institution demonstrates that at all credential levels, the institution’s programs of study (a) are compatible with the mission, (b) are based upon fields of study appropriate to higher education, (c) embody a coherent course of study, and (d) provide a logical progression of higher-order thinking.
12. Post-baccalaureate Curriculum: The institution demonstrates that post-baccalaureate professional degree and graduate degree programs are (a) progressively more advanced in academic content than undergraduate programs and (b) structured to include knowledge of the literature central to the discipline, and (c) designed to ensure engagement in research and/or appropriate practice and training.
13. Alignment with Workforce Needs: The institution has a process to review its educational programs and career competencies to support their alignment with industry standards and workforce needs.
14. Definition of Credit Hour and Alternative Approaches: The institution demonstrates that it (a) makes public its definition of a “credit hour” and (b) implements policies for the amount and level of credit awarded for its courses, regardless of format or mode of delivery. Institutions that employ equivalencies to measure educational programs not based on credit hours (e.g., direct assessment programs) will provide an explanation of the equivalencies and include the objectives of the credential offered.
15. Program Length: At all credential levels, the institution demonstrates that its programs are (a) of a length to ensure achievement of the programmatic student learning outcomes and (b) of a length that conforms to commonly accepted standards for the granting of the credential. Additionally, (c) the institution demonstrates that combined degree programs or reduced credit-hour programs are based upon the assessment of clear and evidence-based competencies.
16. Evaluating and Awarding External and Transfer Credit: The institution publishes and implements policies for evaluating and accepting credit not originating from the institution. The institution demonstrates (a) that it has processes designed to support the ease of transfer to and from other institutions, and (b) that it has an approval process with involvement from persons qualified to make necessary judgments, including determining academic quality. Additionally, the institution verifies (c) the academic quality of any credit or coursework recorded on its transcripts; (d) the credit awarded is comparable to a designated credit experience and is consistent with the institution’s mission, and (e) that policies address credit awarded based on prior academic or non-academic learning, experiential learning, competency-based assessments, and other alternative learning approaches.
17. Assessment of Student Learning: The institution demonstrates continuous improvement efforts grounded in direct and indirect measures through a systematic assessment of student learning. This includes (a) establishing program learning outcomes, inclusive of general education, (b) developing methods to collect information on student learning, (c) analyzing the resulting data, and (d) using evidence-based findings to drive ongoing improvements to each academic program to improve student learning.
18. Distance, Correspondence, and Direct Assessment Education: The institution that offers distance, correspondence, or direct assessment education demonstrates (a) the quality and integrity of these offerings, (b) the inclusion of these offerings under all appropriate standards and policies included in the compliance submissions, (c) that the student who registers in a distance or correspondence course is the same student who participates in and receives credit for the course, and (d) that students are notified at the time of registration or enrollment of any projected additional expenses associated with verification of their identity.
19. Institutional Credits for Graduation: The institution demonstrates that at least 25% of the credit hours required for undergraduate credentials and 33% of the credit hours for graduate level credentials are earned through instruction offered by the institution awarding that credential. Institutions making an exception to the credit hours required will provide an explanation.
20. Sufficient Faculty to Deliver Quality Programs: The institution implements policies and procedures to ensure that its educational programs are sufficiently supported by qualified faculty who assure program quality, content currency, and assessment of learning effectiveness.
21. Faculty Qualifications: The institution demonstrates that it implements policies and documents procedures for approval of faculty qualifications that support a high-quality learning experience for students at all credential levels. In instances where an exception to policy was made, the institution provides a clear rationale for the exception, including documenting the decision-making process, and including the alternative credentials or experiences accepted.
22. Freedom of Inquiry: The institution publishes and demonstrates implementation of appropriate policies and procedures for preserving and protecting the principles of free inquiry and intellectual autonomy.

Student Success

23. Student Success and Achievement Outcomes: The institution demonstrates that it identifies student success and achievement measures disaggregated based upon the nature of the students it serves, inclusive of distance, correspondence, and direct assessment programs. The institution (a) selects a key student completion indicator, (b) selects additional measures of student achievement that may include (but are not limited to): progress toward graduation, state licensing examinations, job placement, a post-matriculation financial indicator, completion rates, and course completion; (c) publishes goals and outcomes for each measure, (d) evaluates success in achieving the outcomes, and (e) implements strategies to support student success.
24. Academic and Student Support Services: The institution provides (a) academic and student support services, (b) library, learning information resources and services, (c) information and guidance to assist students in understanding debt, loan repayment, and financial management, and (d) assists students with post-completion transitions consistent with the mission and appropriate to the students it serves.
25. Student Rights and Written Complaints: The institution has broadly disseminated clear, appropriate, and published (a) statements of student rights and responsibilities and (b) procedures for addressing student written complaints. The institution demonstrates that it (c) fairly administers those policies and procedures when resolving student complaints, and (d) maintains a record of student complaints that can be accessed upon request by SACSCOC.
26. Protection of Privacy and Integrity of Student Records: The institution demonstrates that it takes reasonable measures to protect the privacy, security, and integrity of students’ records.
27. Transparency in Admissions and Institutional Representation: The institution publishes (a) admissions policies consistent with its mission, (b) advertising and recruitment materials that accurately represent the institution’s programs and admissions practices and policies. Additionally, the institution demonstrates that (c) independent agents or contractors used for recruiting purposes and for admission activities are governed by the same principles and policies as institutional employees.
28. Publicly Disclosed Materials: The institution provides evidence that academic calendars, grading policies, cost of attendance, refund policies, and academic catalogs are published, accurate, and accessible to meet the needs of prospective, current, and former students.

Compliance with Regulations

29. Accreditation Status: The institution (a) accurately represents its accreditation status and publishes the name, address, telephone number, and website address of SACSCOC in accordance with SACSCOC requirements and federal policy, and (b) ensures that all branch campuses also include the name of the principal institution and makes clear that their accreditation depends on the continued accreditation of the parent campus.
30. Representation to Other Agencies and Reporting Changes: The institution (a) represents itself accurately to all U.S. Department of Education recognized accrediting agencies with which it holds accreditation and (b) informs SACSCOC and other agencies of any change of accreditation status, including the imposition of public sanctions.
31. Policy Compliance and Substantive Change: The institution complies with SACSCOC policy statements that pertain to new or additional institutional obligations that may arise, including Substantive Change requirements that are not part of the standards in the current Principles of Accreditation.

In order to illustrate the changes to the draft Standards and how an example standard reflects the core questions used by the Principles Review Committee as “guiding statements,” please see below this example for Faculty Qualifications (currently listed as #21).

What is new? What is new is a focus on the institution’s policy related to faculty qualifications and credentials.

There is no specific number of graduate hours that faculty should have to teach at the institutional level. Rather, the focus is on what the institution considers necessary in terms of experience, expertise, qualifications, and credentials.

There will be no request for a faculty roster unless the institution is an applicant for membership.

Rather, the focus of the standard is on the exceptions made to institutional policies and/or procedures. A roster of faculty hiring exceptions will be required with Compliance Certifications. You’ll also find new content in the Manual to help institutions through the accreditation processes AND to guide committee members involved in peer review for compliance decisions.

In addition to the familiar manual sections entitled “Rationale”, “Documents”, and “Guiding Questions”, you’ll find new sections entitled “the Bottom Line (a summary interpretation of the standard)”, “Institutional Steps for Compliance”, “Ongoing Good Institutional Practice”, and “Document Retention”, which are all intended to help institutions and evaluators.

Standard 21: Faculty Qualifications (an example)

The institution demonstrates that it implements policies and documents procedures for approval of faculty qualifications that support a high-quality learning experience for students at all credential levels. In instances where an exception to policy was made, the institution provides a clear rationale for the exception, including documentation of the decision-making process, and the alternative credentials or experiences accepted.

Rationale:

This standard addresses a federal requirement (code #) and exists as an important aspect of institutional quality and student success.

The faculty qualifications standard exists because accreditors need assurance that students are being taught by people with demonstrable expertise in their field. The underlying logic rests on a few principles.

Credentials and Beyond:

Credentials are used in higher education as a proxy for competence. A terminal degree or documented professional experience signals that a faculty member has been vetted by another institution, a profession, or an industry and has been judged as possessing sufficient knowledge to teach at a given level.

Credential levels should match course levels. Teaching a doctoral seminar demands a different depth of expertise than teaching an introductory undergraduate course. The standard requires that qualifications scale with the credential being conferred. A master’s degree is typically the floor for teaching undergraduates; a terminal degree is typically expected for graduate instruction. However, it is important to note that credentials are only one aspect of this equation.

A terminal degree is a useful and efficient proxy for competence.  For many fields, particularly those grounded in research or theory, it remains the most reliable indicator of readiness to teach at the college level. But credentials are a signal, not the “thing itself.” The “thing itself” is the depth of knowledge, the quality of judgment, and the ability to promote genuine learning in students. SACSCOC recognizes that these qualities can be present, sometimes in great abundance, in people whose primary training occurred outside a university.

Consider a few common cases:

• A master electrician with 25 years of field experience teaching in an electrical technology program
• A retired federal prosecutor teaching criminal procedure in a paralegal program
• A published novelist without an MFA teaching creative writing
• A cybersecurity professional who has spent a career penetrating enterprise systems, teaching ethical hacking
• A sociologist teaching a course in statistical and data analysis in an information science program
• A licensed architect who has designed significant public buildings, but does not hold a master’s degree, teaching architectural design

In each case, the individual may lack the precise credential that may be expected yet possess a depth of experiential knowledge that no degree program could fully replicate. Their expertise may have been forged under conditions of real consequence, where errors had costs, where judgment was tested, and where mastery was demonstrated through outcomes rather than examinations. In the case of faculty working in emerging fields such as data assurance/analysis, or Artificial Intelligence, institutions may need to provide more information about the alignment of the faculty member’s experience and formal training to the learning outcomes of the courses they teach.

Practice builds knowledge that theory cannot fully anticipate. Many disciplines evolve faster in the field than in the curriculum. A practitioner who has spent decades navigating real-world complexity often understands the current state of a field, including its unsolved problems, its practical tradeoffs, and its emergent tools and methods. Students benefit from access to that kind of grounded, current, applied knowledge.

Professional judgment is itself a form of expertise. Years of practice develop something that is difficult to teach directly: the capacity to read a situation, weigh competing considerations, and act wisely under uncertainty. In professional programs, especially, for example, nursing, business, education, social work, and law, this kind of judgment is precisely what students are trying to develop. A faculty member who has lived it can model it, narrate it, and help students build it in ways that someone trained only academically may not.

Industry credentialing and licensure represent rigorous external evaluation. Professional certifications, board licensures, and industry credentials are not informal. A licensed professional engineer, a board-certified physician, a CPA, a certified financial planner — these individuals have passed rigorous, standardized examinations and are held to ongoing professional accountability.

Demonstrated production and recognition confer authority. In creative and performing arts disciplines, a sustained body of work, such as exhibitions, performances, recordings, and publications, constitutes its own credential. The artist who has shown work internationally, the musician who has performed at a professional level for twenty years, the filmmaker whose work has screened at major festivals, these are examples of individuals who may bring a form of expertise that is recognized and valued by the very field students are entering.

Longevity and depth in a field matter. There is a meaningful difference between someone who has worked in a field for two years and someone who has worked in it for twenty. Extended experience compounds. It exposes a practitioner to a wider range of problems, a longer arc of change in the field, a deeper network of professional relationships, and a more nuanced understanding of what works and why. When institutions evaluate experiential qualifications, depth and duration are legitimate factors.

Accountability for Exceptions:

Institutions sometimes hire practitioners, artists, or subject-matter experts who lack traditional credentials but bring irreplaceable real-world knowledge. The standard doesn’t prohibit this, but it requires that when exceptions are made, they are deliberate, documented, and defensible, not casual or ad hoc.

Consumer Protection:

Students and the public invest significant resources in higher education. They are entitled to instruction from qualified educators, and accreditation is one of the primary mechanisms societies use to enforce that expectation.

The Bottom Line:

The standard essentially requires institutions to answer two questions for each faculty-course pairing: “Is this person qualified to teach this?” and “How do we know?” The entire institutional process is designed to make those answers clear, consistent, and auditable — not just during a site visit, but as part of ongoing practice.

The standard doesn’t require every faculty member to hold the same credential. Instead, it mandates that institutions carefully consider and explicitly document why each faculty member is qualified to teach their subject. Whether that qualification is based on a terminal degree, extensive professional experience, industry licensure, or a combination of these, the institution must be able to explain its reasoning and demonstrate how it arrived at its conclusion.

This is, at its core, a standard about intentionality and accountability. Institutions should not hire by habit or convenience. They should be able to look at any faculty-course pairing and answer clearly: this person is qualified to teach this subject because of these specific, documented qualifications and experiences, and those qualifications should genuinely connect to the knowledge and judgment the course is designed to develop in students.

When experience-gained expertise is the basis for a faculty member’s qualifications, the institution’s documentation should tell a coherent story: the nature and duration of the experience, what knowledge and competencies it developed, how those competencies map to the course content and level, and why the institution’s leadership determined that this preparation meets the standard of quality students deserve.

Institutional Process for Compliance:

1. Written policy development: The institution must have an implemented, formal, board-approved faculty qualifications policy that specifies:

• Minimum credential requirements by course level (100-level, 200-level, graduate, etc.), relevant to the institution’s mission and scope of programs
• Acceptable terminal degrees, alternative credentials, or professional experiences by discipline, The definition of “related field” where applicable
• Criteria for qualifying exceptions (e.g., professional licensure, industry, certifications, years of experience, portfolio evidence)
• An approval process for making exceptions to policy
• The institution will want to share its policy and procedures during reaffirmation, affirmation, or other review processes.

2. Roster of faculty hiring exceptions: The institution maintains a roster of faculty hiring exceptions, which is typically a spreadsheet or database record that documents for exception made: highest degree earned and field; Institution granting the degree or credential; courses currently assigned; alternative credentials, expertise, or experiences and rationale narrative indicating how the experience or alternative credential addresses the learning outcomes of the assigned courses; and why the exception will not impact quality. The institution will want to submit the roster of faculty hiring exceptions for initial accreditation, reaffirmation, or other review actions. This document, together with the policy and procedures, is typically the primary artifact reviewed during an accreditation visit.
3. Approval process: When a candidate lacks the standard credential, the institution must have a structured exception pathway that includes action steps, responsible parties, and a decision tree. For each exception to the institution’s policy that has been made since its initial accreditation or the last reaffirmation, a discussion and evidence about the steps in the approval process that were taken, and a determination regarding whether the institution followed its published procedures will be submitted in the Compliance Certification or other relevant review document.

The justification narrative typically addresses years of professional experience, demonstrated expertise (publications, licenses, awards), relevance to course content (and learning outcomes of the course), and any compensating supervision or mentorship arrangements.

Ongoing Practice:

Faculty qualifications aren’t a one-time check. Institutions might consider:

• Conducting annual internal audits of the faculty rosters against current course assignments
• Reviewing qualifications when faculty take on new courses outside their original assignment
• Updating records when faculty earn new credentials
• Remediating any institutional members whose professional judgment regarding faculty instructional assignments does not align with institutional policy and procedures

Supporting Documentation Retention:

All supporting documents, including transcripts or validated resumes, approval memos, and exception narratives, must be retained and retrievable. Peer review committees will request the paper trail for any flagged or exception cases during the site visit or document review.

Note: Transcripts or work resumes for faculty should be available during on-site reviews (as requested by reviewers), but are not required to be part of the documentation provided as part of the Compliance Certification or a substantive change application/prospectus. However, sufficient information is needed for reviewers to determine whether faculty are appropriately qualified.

Institutions applying for membership must report on all faculty. SACSCOC Affiliate Institutions or units of a SACSCOC-accredited institution seeking separate accreditation from the parent institution may utilize the same procedure as an institution undergoing reaffirmation. If concerns about the qualifications of continuing faculty arise during the reaffirmation review, the Reaffirmation Committee may review the qualifications of all faculty members.

Common Compliance Pitfalls:

Below are some common pitfalls that institutions will want to avoid:

• Assigning faculty to courses outside their documented area of qualification without a formal exception
• Maintaining the faculty roster only at the program level rather than the course level
• Exception approvals that are verbal or informal rather than documented in writing
• Failing to update the roster when course assignments change

Questions to Ask as you Prepare Documents for Accreditation, Reaffirmation, or other Reviews:

• How does the mission of the institution influence the selection and qualifications of faculty? How does the institution determine the competencies of faculty members and justify that their qualifications meet these competencies?
• For institutions applying for membership or certain Subchanges, a complete faculty roster should be included.
• For reaffirmation, only a roster of faculty hiring exceptions should be provided.
• How does the institution document and justify the qualifications for each faculty member?
• Would a reasonable person find this documentation and justification acceptable?
• Does the policy provide adequate guidance for institutional leaders to make good decisions?

Sample Documentation:

Available on site: access to faculty files or portfolios, resumes, or transcripts.

• Institutions applying for membership need to provide a complete roster of all other faculty, including teaching assignments and qualifications, unless they hold SACSCOIC Affiliate Status or are a Unit of a SACSCOC Accredited Institution Seeking Separate Accreditation
• Institutions seeking reaffirmation need to provide a roster of exceptions to hiring policy
• Institutional policies or guidelines governing the expected qualifications of faculty members
• Institutional policies for defining the instructor of record

• • 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, Nicholls 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 University, Provost

• • Scott Hummel, Tusculum University, President

• • David Jordan, Emory University, Associate Vice President

• • Laura Leatherwood, Blue Ridge Community College, President

• • Lisa Long, Stillman College, Interim Provost and VPSS

• • Candi McElheny, Franciscan Missionaries Our Lady University, Assistant Provost for Institutional Effectiveness

• • 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

The Principles Review and Advisory 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.

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.

The Principles Review and Advisory 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