We often hear a version of this concern in conversations with institutions: Can SACSCOC stop us from closing a program or an off-campus instructional site? It is an understandable question, particularly in a time when institutions are making difficult, strategic decisions about programs, locations, and long-term sustainability. But like many topics in accreditation, the answer requires us to separate perception from policy.

Where This Lore Comes From

This belief typically stems from the visibility of the Substantive Change process. When institutions are required to submit documentation and receive approval from the SACSCOC Board of Trustees, it can feel as though the accreditor is controlling the decision.

From that vantage point, it is easy to assume that SACSCOC has the authority to approve or deny the closure of a program or site. But that is not the role accreditation plays.

What the Law Actually Says

Let’s start by being crystal clear, closing a program or off-campus instructional site is the sole prerogative of the accredited institution. That authority is grounded in institutional governance, mission, and strategic decision-making.

However, when an institution makes the decision to close, it assumes an obligation to its students. Federal requirements and SACSCOC policy require the institution to submit a teach-out plan that demonstrates how currently enrolled students will be supported through completion.

The SACSCOC Board of Trustees reviews and approves that teach-out plan, not the closure. The focus is not on whether an institution can close a program or site, but on whether it has a clear, feasible, and student-centered plan to ensure that students are not left without reasonable pathways to completion.

Law vs. Lore

❌  Lore: SACSCOC can prohibit an institution from closing a program or off-campus instructional site.

✅  Law: Institutions have full authority to close programs or sites; SACSCOC approves the teach-out plan to ensure students have viable completion options.

❌  Lore: Closure requires SACSCOC permission.

✅  Law: Closure is an institutional decision; SACSCOC’s role is to review and approve how students will be supported through the transition.

Why This Matters

This distinction is critical because it reinforces both institutional autonomy and institutional responsibility. Institutions must have the flexibility to evolve, adjusting programs and locations in response to enrollment trends, workforce needs, and mission priorities. At the same time, students must be protected when those changes occur.

The teach-out plan is where those two priorities meet. It ensures that decisions made at the institutional level are carried out in a way that honors commitments to students.

The Pruitt Perspective

This is about getting the balance right. Institutions should absolutely have the authority to decide what programs they offer and where they offer them. That flexibility is essential if we expect institutions to be responsive, innovative, and aligned with workforce needs. But we cannot separate that authority from responsibility. When a student enrolls, they are making a significant investment of time, money, and trust. That trust does not disappear when a program or site closes.

Our role at SACSCOC is not to stand in the way of institutional decisions. It is to ensure that those decisions are carried out in a way that puts students first. That is why we focus on the teach-out plan. It is not about preventing change, it is about managing change responsibly. Students First, Always is not just a phrase. It is the lens through which we evaluate moments like this.

When closures happen, and they will and often should, the question is not whether they occur. The question is whether we have done everything we can to ensure students are supported through completion with as little disruption as possible. That is where our focus will remain.