We continue to see institutions bringing forward thoughtful, innovative new programs designed to meet student needs and respond to workforce demands. That is exactly the kind of work we want to encourage. But as with any innovation, a bit of lore tends to follow closely behind.
This week’s installment comes up more often than you might think. “You must have at least one full-time faculty member in place to submit a new program prospectus.”
It sounds reasonable. It feels safe. But it’s not quite right.
Where This Lore Comes From
This belief likely stems from a longstanding emphasis on faculty sufficiency and program quality. Institutions rightly understand that qualified faculty are central to delivering strong academic programs.
In many cases, having full-time faculty is the norm, so it becomes easy to assume it is also a requirement, especially when preparing something as important as a new program prospectus. But assumptions, no matter how well-intentioned, can lead to unnecessary barriers to innovation.
What the Law Actually Says
SACSCOC policy requires that a new program demonstrate at least one faculty member employed by the institution who is qualified in the discipline. However, and this is the critical distinction, the individual does not have to be a full-time faculty member. The faculty member may be full-time, part-time, adjunct, volunteer, zero-time appointment, or jointly appointed with another institution.
The key is not employment status. The key is control and qualification. The institution must demonstrate that the faculty member is qualified in the discipline and is under the institution’s control, meaning the institution is responsible for hiring, evaluating, and, if necessary, dismissing that individual.
Law vs. Lore
❌ Lore: A new program must include at least one full-time faculty member.
✅ Law: A new program must include at least one qualified faculty member for each credential that it offers; full-time is not required.
❌ Lore: Employment status determines compliance.
✅ Law: Qualification and institutional control determine compliance.
Why This Matters
This distinction is not just technical; it is foundational to supporting innovation. Requiring a full-time hire at the outset could delay program development, limit institutional flexibility, and discourage partnerships or shared expertise models.
By focusing on qualification and oversight, the policy allows institutions to pilot programs thoughtfully, leverage industry experts, not to replace faculty, but to supplement their role as the institution’s content expert(s), and build programs that align more directly with workforce needs.
At the same time, this is not a loosening of standards. Institutions are still fully accountable for ensuring instructional quality and faculty oversight.
The Pruitt Perspective
We should never confuse structure with substance. What matters most is not whether a faculty member is full-time. What matters is whether they are qualified, supported, and accountable within the institution’s academic framework.
If we are serious about meeting workforce needs and expanding opportunities for students, we must allow institutions the flexibility to design programs that align with their mission and context.
But flexibility is not a substitute for rigor. Every program must demonstrate that students are taught by individuals who are fully qualified in their disciplines and meaningfully integrated into the institution’s academic oversight processes. Qualified is an evolving concept as well. We must remember that new degrees in areas such as AI require a different type of qualification than the historical definition.
At the end of the day, this is about students. They deserve programs built on expertise, accountability, and quality, not assumptions about job titles.