As you have heard, at least I hope you have, SACSCOC is going through a lot of change. We have made many policy changes in my first six months with more on the way. A key feature for the new SACSCOC is how to boldly enhance innovation. We have work to do on that certainly, but there was already room for that, so I would like to address creativity and innovation this week. “It Depends” is an answer that frustrates people and I get it, but if used to benefit and enhance innovation and creativity.

Still, every so often, a familiar assertion resurfaces in conversations across our membership:

“SACSCOC accreditation stifles an institution’s creativity and innovation.”

And just like that, another layer of accreditation lore takes hold. Let’s set the record straight.

What the Law Actually Says

Nothing in the Principles of Accreditation restricts an institution’s ability to be creative or innovative. In fact, the opposite is true.

Our current standards are intentionally principles‑based. They establish what institutions must demonstrate, not how they must demonstrate it. That flexibility is one of the strongest protections of institutional mission and identity.

I often remind committee members that they are engaging in some of the best free professional development available. Traveling on site visits allows reviewers to see firsthand that there is more than one way to “skin a cat.” Nothing is or should be a cookie‑cutter. I get this is why “it depends” is such a disliked phrase reagarding SACSCOC, but it should be a strength. Yes, we have work to do and we are working toward even greater consistency, but “it depends” can be something that can and should be used to the institutions (and more importantly students) benefit.

Across our membership, institutions of all types, large and small, rural and urban, research‑focused and open‑access, may demonstrate compliance in creative and innovative ways that reflect their missions and serve their students.

Where the Lore Comes From

The misconception often arises when institutions assume there is only one acceptable way to comply with a standard. To be fair, some of our processes, particularly the Substantive Change process, have been seen as long and cumbersome, and I think that adds to the lore. We are working on that and have made progress, but more to do.

When examples from peer campuses or committee feedback are mistaken for prescriptions, flexibility can feel like restriction. That misunderstanding is what fuels the lore.

Committee visits and the multi-tier accreditation process tell a different story. Institutions meet the same standards using a wide range of strategies, technologies, structures, and pedagogies — each grounded in mission and evidence of effectiveness.

Law vs. Lore

✅ Law: SACSCOC standards provide institutions with flexibility to demonstrate compliance in mission‑aligned, innovative ways.

❌ Lore: Accreditation requires rigid, one‑size‑fits‑all approaches.

✅ Law: Institutions retain autonomy to design creative programs and approaches, so long as they demonstrate effectiveness and integrity.

❌ Lore: Innovation is limited because compliance is formulaic.

The Pruitt Perspective

One of the most rewarding aspects of accreditation work is seeing innovation in action across our membership. Accreditation should not flatten creativity; it should elevate it.

When institutions are trusted to tell their stories and supported by principles‑based standards, innovation thrives within a framework of quality and accountability. It has been interesting in our surveys to see a desire for less professional judgement and more specificity. There is a trade-off to this. More specificity leads potentially leads to less creativity or innovation regarding implementation of the Principles. I completely understand the need for consistency. As I have said publicly, when the new Principles are approved, we must stress new training for ALL reviewers to ensure everyone is on the same page. We do see that our iterative process for reaffirmation review with multiple rounds of feedback tends to equalize perspectives, but I also know that fear of how your committee sees implementation remains. However, I also think the incredible opportunity we can provide is the ability to enhance and support innovative approaches to meeting the standards.

One of the issues I included in the First 100 Day Plan are some specific strategies to enhance, promote, and incentivize innovation. This will only work if we embrace innovation, rather than compliance, as a goal of accreditation. I came to SACSCOC not to engage in compliance exercises, but to show the incredible opportunity postsecondary education offers the almost 7 million students of our members.

So the next time someone suggests that accreditation stifles innovation or you make a joke about “it depends”, you might just ask:  Is that law or lore?