Competency-Based Education (CBE) is gaining momentum across colleges and universities seeking ways to recognize learning that is demonstrated, not merely time-based. But with that interest has come a steady stream of questions, assumptions, and well-intended but inaccurate “warnings” about what SACSCOC supposedly permits or prohibits.

As is often the case, the lore is louder than the law. Let’s clear this one up.

What the Law Actually Says

SACSCOC does not prohibit competency-based education. In fact, the Principles of Accreditation are intentionally flexible to support a variety of educational models, including those that measure student achievement of demonstrated competencies rather than seat time. As a practical matter, CBE does require a SubChange to implement but it could be well worth it to your students.

Under the Principles, institutions must ensure:

• Learning outcomes are clearly defined and assessed
• Qualified faculty oversee and validate the learning and assessment process
• Academic integrity, coherence, and rigor are maintained regardless of modality
• Competency achievement is based on documented attainment of knowledge, skill, and ability, not instructional hours

Where the Lore Comes From

CBE confusion often stems from blending unrelated concepts:

• The belief that seat time is an accreditation requirement
• The assumption that nontraditional assessments aren’t valid
• Misinterpretations of federal financial aid rules as SACSCOC policy
• The idea that competency evaluation must look like traditional coursework

Law vs. Lore

❌ Lore: CBE is not allowed unless students spend the same number of instructional hours as in traditional courses.

✅ Law: CBE may replace seat time with validated demonstrations of mastery.

❌ Lore: Competencies cannot be assessed using portfolios, workplace artifacts, or performance tasks.

✅ Law: Alternative assessment methods are allowed when faculty validate their rigor and alignment.

❌ Lore: Students cannot skip content or accelerate because it violates contact-hour requirements.

✅ Law: Students may accelerate once they demonstrate mastery—SACSCOC does not require redundant instruction.

❌ Lore: Industry certifications cannot be converted into credit within CBE models.

✅ Law: They may be mapped to competencies and assessed for credit equivalence.

Examples People Commonly Believe Are “Not Allowed” But Actually Are

• Variable pacing based on mastery
• Faculty evaluation without traditional instruction
• Portfolio assessments and real-world evidence
• Awarding credit for demonstrated competencies gained outside the classroom
• Translating industry certifications into credit

The Pruitt Perspective

Competency-Based Education represents one of the most promising and student-centered approaches in today’s higher education landscape. It has long been a personal interest of mine even to a point that I began a statewide initiative when I was Commissioner of Education in Kentucky. At its heart, CBE affirms something we all know to be true: learning is not confined to a clock, a calendar, or a classroom. It happens in workplaces, in life experiences, in self-paced environments, and through the many pathways today’s students navigate on their way to opportunity.

And here’s the part that too often gets lost in translation: CBE is not a compromise on rigor. In fact, when executed well, it demands more clarity, more intentionality, and more evidence of learning than some traditional models. You cannot “wing it” in CBE. Faculty must articulate what a student should know and be able to do, design assessments that truly measure mastery, and make defensible determinations about student learning. That is the very definition of academic quality.

From the Commission’s perspective, CBE aligns beautifully with the Principles of Accreditation. Our standards are designed to ensure integrity, transparency, and accountability, not to dictate a single pathway for how colleges must teach or how students must learn. If anything, CBE showcases the best of what institutions can do when they embrace innovation grounded in solid academic judgment.

I also want to be clear: SACSCOC supports institutions that pursue CBE thoughtfully, intentionally, and with the same level of faculty leadership and documentation we expect in every academic program. When those elements are in place, CBE is not only permissible — it is powerful. It expands access, honors diverse forms of learning, and accelerates progress for students who already possess the knowledge and skills that academic and career programs aim to develop.

CBE is not a loophole. It’s not a shortcut. It’s a legitimate, rigorous, mission-aligned way to demonstrate that learning has occurred. And for many learners, it’s the difference between dreaming about a degree and actually earning one.

So the next time you hear someone dismiss CBE as “noncompliant,” “too flexible,” or “something SACSCOC won’t allow,” feel free to set the record straight.

Ask them the question at the heart of this series:

Is that law or lore?

Next Up…

In our next Law or Lore installment, we’ll turn our attention to another topic where confusion often speaks louder than the standards themselves: credit for prior learning (CPL).

Questions about whether learning from the workplace, the military, continuing education, or industry certifications “counts” toward a degree have fueled years of lore in our membership and beyond. The truth is far more straightforward and far more student-centered than many assume.

We’ll unpack what the Principles actually require, why faculty judgment sits at the heart of CPL, and how institutions can confidently and compliantly recognize learning that didn’t originate in a traditional classroom.

If your institution is wrestling with CPL policies or trying to build bridges between credit and non-credit learning, next week’s installment will be an important one.