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?