Every so often, in a cabinet meeting or hallway conversation about accreditation, someone will say something like, “We probably shouldn’t call SACSCOC unless we absolutely have to.” Sometimes the concern is expressed more bluntly, “If SACSCOC is asking questions, that probably means something is wrong.”

I know this sounds a lot like the Law vs Lore I did a few weeks ago on “Don’t Tell SACSCOC about what we are thinking, we might get in trouble,” but it’s different.  This week, we delve more into the idea that we are out to get institutions and therefore always looking for something they are doing wrong. This is far more lore than it is law.

Where This Lore Comes From

Historically, many institutions interacted with accreditors primarily during moments of high stakes. Key times or events such as reaffirmation reviews or times when the Board issues requirements for monitoring reports, or sanctions.

In those situations, the accreditor’s presence often coincided with institutional stress. Over time, that association created a perception that accreditation agencies only appear when something has gone wrong. There is also the historic issue of unsolicited information or complaints where issues arose in the media or through the complaint process.

It is understandable how that perception developed. But it does not reflect how accreditation is designed to function today or how we believe it should function going forward.

Accreditation is not intended to be a distant authority that appears every ten years to deliver a verdict. It is meant to be an ongoing relationship built around quality assurance, peer engagement, and continuous improvement. At SACSCOC, our goal is to not just operate as a compliance agent, but to also support institutions as they aspire to provide their students the best education possible.

What the Law Actually Says

SACSCOC expects regular and constructive engagement with its member institutions. In fact, some of the most productive interactions between institutions and the Commission occur well before a reaffirmation cycle. Institutions routinely contact SACSCOC for guidance on:

• Substantive change proposals
• Policy clarification
• Innovative program development
• Governance or leadership transitions
• Professional development opportunities
• Emerging questions about compliance with standards

These conversations are not signs of trouble. They are signs of institutions taking accreditation seriously and engaging responsibly with their accrediting body. Accreditation works best when institutions see SACSCOC not as a distant regulator, but as a partner in supporting institutional quality and student success.

A Note about the Unique Role of SACSCOC Vice Presidents

A unique feature regarding SACSCOC accreditation is the role of our Vice Presidents. Like most accreditors, each institution is assigned a VP as a point of contact. What distinguishes SACSCOC is the hands-on approach our VPs take in working with their institutions. They are constantly on the road, providing real time support through advisory visits, speaking engagements, committee visits, and being the “expert” in the room on our processes. VPs do not sit in their offices answering the phone or email, nor do they simply “push paper” from one place to another, they are active partners with the institutions to the extent the institution wants or needs up to the point of making accreditation determinations. As pointed out in an earlier installment, that is done by the Board.

Law vs. Lore

❌ Lore: If SACSCOC is asking questions, something must be wrong.
✅ Law: Most engagement with SACSCOC occurs to support institutions before problems arise, to clarify policies and procedures, and to assist in connecting institutions with peers.

❌ Lore: Institutions should avoid contacting the accreditor unless necessary.
✅ Law: Early conversations provide the opportunity for SACSCOC to help and often prevent misunderstandings later in the process.

❌ Lore: Accreditation exists to catch institutions doing something wrong.
✅ Law: Accreditation exists to ensure institutional quality and help institutions serve students effectively.

Why Early Engagement Matters

When institutions reach out early, whether about a potential substantive change, a new instructional model, or a governance transition, it allows both the institution and the Commission to clarify expectations before significant time or resources are invested. That early engagement often leads to better outcomes for everyone involved. Questions can be addressed before they become concerns, documentation expectations can be clarified, and institutions can move forward with confidence. In other words, a short conversation today can prevent a long explanation tomorrow.

Accreditation Implications

Accreditation should never be a game of “gotcha.” It should be a system designed to reinforce quality while allowing institutions the flexibility to pursue innovation aligned with their missions.

When institutions feel comfortable engaging with their accreditor early and often, several positive things happen:

• Institutions make decisions with greater clarity about accreditation expectations.
• Innovations are discussed and supported rather than delayed or avoided.
• Potential misunderstandings are resolved long before they appear in a review process.

The result is a stronger system of quality assurance, one that supports institutional creativity while maintaining public trust.

The Pruitt Perspective

No institution should wake up in the morning with the goal of simply being compliant.

Compliance is important. It establishes the foundation of quality and accountability that accreditation is meant to ensure. But compliance alone should never be the destination. As I have said in this series before, I detest the idea that we are simply about compliance. At its best, accreditation creates the conditions that allow institutions to pursue something much more important, innovation and excellence in service of students.

Our institutions exist to change lives. They educate the next generation of scientists, teachers, nurses, entrepreneurs, engineers, and community leaders. If our collective ambition is limited to checking boxes, then we have missed the real purpose of higher education.

SACSCOC’s role is to ensure quality while creating the space for institutions to pursue new ideas, new delivery models, and new approaches that improve student success. The institutions we accredit should not simply ask, “Are we compliant?” They should ask, “Are we doing everything we can to serve our students well?” That is a much higher bar.

When institutions engage with SACSCOC early, it allows those conversations to focus not just on compliance, but on how innovation and mission-driven change can happen responsibly and effectively. That kind of dialogue strengthens both institutions and the accreditation process.

Students First, Always means remembering that compliance is not the goal. Student success and institutional excellence are the goal. Compliance simply ensures that we pursue those goals with integrity and quality.

So, the next time someone says the safest path is simply to be compliant, I would offer a different perspective, Compliance is the floor. Excellence for our students should always be the stars we reach for.