Back to Results

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

As of October 2, 2026

The information on this page describes the accreditation relationship between this institution and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. General information about the Commission and the accreditation process is provided at the end of this document.

General Information

CEO Name
Dr. Donde Ashmos Plowman
Address
527 Andy Holt Tower Knoxville, TN 37996-0184
Country
United States
Institutional Phone
(865) 974-1000
Approved to Offer
Baccalaureate Degree Master's Degree Education Specialist Degree Doctoral Degrees

Visit Website View Available Programs View Student Achievement Data

Accreditation Information

Status
Accredited
Public Sanctions
None
Accreditation Granted
January 1, 2000
Reaffirmation
2025
Distance Education Approval Date
February 12, 1998
Next Reaffirmation
2035
Next Fifth-Year Review
2031
Degree Level
VI i See Approved to Offer above for the complete list.
Control
Public
Full Accreditation History

Accreditation History

06/22/2000 – The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN (accredited by SACSCOC in 1897), merged with The University of Tennessee, Memphis, Memphis, TN (accredited by SACSCOC in 1897), and the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, the University of Tennessee Space Institute, and the University of Tennessee Institute for Public Service. The newly-merged institution retained the name of The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

SACSCOC Staff Member

J. Matthew Melton

(404) 679-4501 Email

In-Progress Reviews

  • 2031 Fifth-Year Interim Report

Most Recent History with SACSCOC

  • 2026 Policy and Procedure Review

Off-campus Instructional Sites (Additional Locations)

Types

  • Approved >=50%: Site is approved to offer any portion of a program. Additional programs may be offered with no further site notification or approval. Only sites offering 50% or more of a program require approval.
  • Approved Branch >=50%: Site is approved as a branch campus to offer any portion of a program. Additional programs may be offered with no further site notification or approval.
  • Notified 25-49%: Less than 50% of a program may be offered at the site. Less than 50% of additional programs may be offered with no further site notification.

Sites offering less than 25% of a program do not require notification or approval.

Status

  • Open: Instruction may be offered at the site consistent with the site type defined above.
  • Closed: Closed sites are not shown. A site is closed when (1) the institution has stopped admitting students to the site and (2) SACSCOC has approved the site teach-out plan. Therefore, instruction may continue at a site under the teach-out plan after the site is closed.
  • Cherokee Farms
    2706 Cherokee Farm Way Knoxville, TN 37920 United States

    Type: Notified 25-49% Status: Open

  • Oak Ridge Enhanced Technology and Training Center (ORETTC)
    3607 Oak Ridge Turnpike Oak Ridge, TN 37830 United States

    Type: Approved >= 50% Status: Open

  • Southern Depot
    306 W. Depot Avenue Knoxville, TN 37917 United States

    Type: Notified 25-49% Status: Open

  • Space Institute
    411 B.H. Goethert Parkway Tullahoma, TN 37388 United States

    Type: Approved >= 50% Status: Open

  • University of Tennessee Medical Center
    2121 Medical Center Way Knoxville, TN 37920 United States

    Type: Notified 25-49% Status: Open

  • University of Tennessee, College of Social Work
    193 Polk Avenue, Suite E Nashville, TN 37210 United States

    Type: Approved >= 50% Status: Open

About SACSCOC and Accreditation

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), the accreditation name of The Commission on Colleges and Universities, is the commission responsible for accrediting degree-granting institutions across the nation and internationally. The SACSCOC Board of Trustees is the representative body of the member institutions also known as the College Delegate Assembly. To gain or maintain accreditation, an institution must comply with SACSCOC policies, procedures, and with all standards contained in the Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement in the professional judgment of peer reviewers. SACSCOC’s institutional accreditation includes all degree levels regardless of location or mode of instruction. The Commission accredits the institution as a whole.

Components of the Review Process

The SACSCOC Board of Trustees conducts several types of institutional reviews: (1) Candidate Committee reviews of applicant institutions seeking candidacy, (2) Accreditation Committee reviews of candidate institutions seeking initial membership, (3) Reaffirmation Committee reviews of member institutions seeking continued accreditation following a comprehensive review, (4) Special Committee reviews of member institutions seeking continued accreditation following evaluation of institutional circumstances that are accreditation related, and (5) Substantive Change Committee reviews of member institutions seeking approval and continued accreditation following the review of a change of a significant modification or expansion to the institution’s nature and scope. Each of the above type of reviews has its own evaluation documents and peer review procedures and can be found on the SACSCOC website at www.sacscoc.org.

The Committees on Compliance and Reports (C&R), standing committees of the SACSCOC Board of Trustees, review reports prepared by evaluation committees and the institutional responses to those reports. A C&R Committee’s recommendation regarding an institution’s accreditation-related matters is forwarded to the Executive Council for review. The Executive Council recommends action to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees, which makes the final decision on reaffirmation and any monitoring activities that it may require of an institution. The SACSCOC Board of Trustees convenes twice a year.

Complaints Against SACSCOC Accredited Institutions

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) recognizes the value of information provided by students, employees, and others in determining whether an institution’s performance is consistent with SACSCOC standards for obtaining or maintaining accreditation. The Commission’s interest also is in ensuring that member institutions maintain appropriate grievance procedures and standards of procedural fairness and that the procedures are applied appropriately and consistently. The procedures for the review of complaints involving member institutions enable SACSCOC to address possible violations of its Principles of Accreditation, its Core Requirements and Standards, SACSCOC policies or procedures, as well as to address possible violations of an institution’s own policies and procedures, if related to the Principles.

Since SACSCOC’s complaint procedures are for the purpose of addressing any significant non-compliance with SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation, policies, or procedures, the procedures are not intended to be used to involve SACSCOC in disputes between individuals and member institutions, or cause SACSCOC to interpose itself as a reviewing authority in individual matters of admission, grades, granting or transferability of credits, application of academic policies, fees or other financial matters, disciplinary matters or other contractual rights and obligations. Nor does SACSCOC seek redress on an individual’s behalf. Under no circumstances does SACSCOC respond to, or take action on, any complaint or any allegation that contains defamatory statements. Further, SACSCOC will not serve as a grievance panel when the outcome of institutional grievance or appeal processes is unsatisfactory to the complainant.

SACSCOC expects individuals to attempt to resolve the issue through all means available to the complainant, including following the institution’s own published grievance procedures, before submitting a complaint to SACSCOC. Therefore, SACSCOC is under no obligation to consider additional information submitted by the complainant subsequent to the receipt of the formal complaint. SACSCOC’s usual practice is not to consider a complaint that is currently in administrative proceedings, including institutional proceedings, or in litigation. However, if there is substantial, credible evidence that indicates systemic problems with an accredited institution, SACSCOC may, at its discretion, choose to proceed with the review.

For the fastest and most secure review by SACSCOC personnel, we strongly encourage you to submit your formal complaint online. You can easily file your concerns by completing the digital “Complaints Against Institutions: Information Sheet and Form” directly through our secure online portal. Please note that to maintain the integrity of the review process, SACSCOC cannot evaluate oral or anonymous complaints, nor can we accept complaints submitted on behalf of another individual or forwarded from another entity. Filing your complaint electronically ensures it is received immediately and streamlines the review process.

Scroll to Top
Main Menu