Is SACSCOC Signaling the Future of Accreditation?

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) recently released a draft revision of its Principles of Accreditation, and if adopted, the changes could represent one of the most significant shifts in accreditation philosophy in decades.

On a recent episode of EdUp Accreditation Insights, Laurie Shanderson and I discussed the implications of the proposed standards and what they may reveal about the future direction of institutional accreditation. While the standards remain in draft form and will continue to evolve through public comment and stakeholder feedback, the document offers a clear glimpse into how SACSCOC is rethinking accreditation in a rapidly changing higher education landscape.

A Shift from Process to Outcomes

The most immediate observation from reviewing the draft standards is a philosophical shift away from compliance-focused processes and toward measurable outcomes.

For decades, accreditation reviews have often emphasized whether institutions had appropriate processes in place. Institutions were expected to demonstrate that they conducted assessment, maintained policies, implemented procedures, and followed established practices.

The proposed standards ask a different question:

What results are those processes producing?

Throughout the draft, SACSCOC repeatedly emphasizes student achievement, institutional effectiveness, and evidence of success rather than simply documenting the existence of procedures. This approach aligns directly with the guiding questions used by the Principles Review Committee:

• Does the requirement genuinely promote student achievement?
• Does it advance quality and continuous improvement?
• Does it improve transparency and accountability while reducing unnecessary burden?
• Does it focus on outcomes rather than process for its own sake?

For many institutions, this shift will be welcomed. For others, it may require substantial adjustments in how data are collected, analyzed, and presented.

Workforce Alignment Moves to the Forefront

One of the most notable additions is the explicit focus on workforce relevance.

The proposed standards require institutions to maintain a process for reviewing educational programs and career competencies to support alignment with industry standards and workforce needs.

While many colleges and universities already discuss workforce preparation, the inclusion of a dedicated standard elevates its importance within the accreditation framework.

This raises important questions for institutions:

• How will workforce alignment be defined?
• What evidence will be expected?
• How will institutions with strong liberal arts traditions demonstrate compliance?
• What role should employment outcomes play in evaluating institutional quality?

These questions are particularly important because workforce outcomes are often difficult to measure beyond graduation. While institutions can reasonably track first-destination outcomes, long-term career success becomes increasingly difficult to attribute directly to the educational experience.

Nevertheless, the inclusion of workforce alignment reflects broader national conversations about higher education value, return on investment, and public accountability.

Financial Stability Becomes a Core Quality Issue

Perhaps the most consequential addition is the increased emphasis on financial sustainability.

Under the draft standards, institutions would be required to maintain and annually update a financial plan covering at least three fiscal years. The plan must be aligned with institutional mission and strategic priorities and reviewed by the governing board or its finance committee.

This represents a meaningful evolution in accreditation oversight.

Historically, accreditors have relied heavily on audited financial statements and historical financial performance. Critics have argued that such approaches often identify problems only after institutions are already in serious distress.

The proposed standards move the conversation from retrospective reporting toward forward-looking planning.

Recent institutional closures have intensified questions about whether accreditors should do more to identify financial vulnerabilities before they become crises. By requiring institutions to demonstrate future financial planning, SACSCOC appears to be responding directly to those concerns.

Whether this approach ultimately prevents future closures or helps to ensure ethical closure timeline/notification remains to be seen. However, it undeniably places greater emphasis on institutional sustainability as an essential component of educational quality.

The End of the QEP?

The most talked-about change may be what is missing.

The draft standards contain no Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) requirement. SACSCOC explicitly notes that this omission was intentional and based on feedback from member institutions. The Commission further states that there will be no reference to a QEP requirement in the new standards.

For many institutions, the QEP has been both a hallmark and a challenge of the reaffirmation process.

Supporters have viewed the QEP as an opportunity for institutional innovation and student-focused improvement. Critics have argued that the process often became overly expensive, labor-intensive, and disconnected from ongoing institutional priorities.

The removal of the QEP signals SACSCOC’s broader effort to reduce administrative burden while maintaining accountability for student outcomes.

Trust, Attestation, and Institutional Responsibility

Another noteworthy innovation is the introduction of attestation for selected standards.

Rather than requiring extensive narratives and documentation for every requirement, certain standards may be satisfied through formal certification by institutional leaders. The Commission describes attestation as a signed statement from authorized officials confirming compliance with a standard where expectations are well understood and institutional practices are unlikely to vary substantially.

This approach reflects an important underlying principle embedded throughout the draft standards: trust.

SACSCOC appears to be signaling that accreditation should focus institutional energy on areas where evidence and analysis add value, while reducing reporting requirements in areas where compliance can reasonably be affirmed through institutional accountability.

If implemented effectively, attestation could significantly reduce reporting burdens while preserving institutional responsibility and integrity.

A More Flexible and Mission-Driven Framework

The draft standards also reflect a broader effort to recognize institutional diversity.

The Principles Review Committee specifically identified honoring different institutional missions as a core value guiding its work. The committee continues to explore whether mission-specific or sector-specific standards should supplement the core accreditation requirements.

This recognition is important because higher education institutions increasingly serve different populations, pursue different goals, and operate in different environments.

A one-size-fits-all approach to accreditation may no longer be sufficient.

The proposed standards attempt to balance accountability with flexibility by maintaining common expectations while creating greater room for institutions to pursue mission-driven innovation.

What Happens Next?

The standards released by SACSCOC are only a draft.

The Principles Review Committee will continue meeting over the next several months, incorporating public comments, stakeholder feedback, and evolving federal requirements. The Commission has also indicated that the standards may need further revisions based on outcomes from the federal negotiated rulemaking process currently underway.

Importantly, SACSCOC has made clear that these standards belong to the membership. Public comments are being actively solicited, and institutions have an opportunity to help shape the final version.

As someone who has served as a SACSCOC Accreditation Liaison for more than a decade, I view these proposed changes as more than a routine revision. They represent a serious effort to reconsider fundamental questions about what accreditation should measure, how institutions should demonstrate quality, and how accreditation can remain relevant in a rapidly changing higher education environment.

Final Thoughts

Whether every proposed change survives the review process is almost beside the point.

The draft standards reveal where accreditation is heading.

The themes are unmistakable:

• Greater emphasis on outcomes.
• Increased attention to workforce relevance.
• Stronger expectations for financial sustainability.
• Reduced administrative burden.
• More institutional flexibility.
• Greater reliance on trust and accountability.

The coming months will determine how these ideas evolve. But one thing is already clear: accreditation is entering a new chapter.

The question is not whether change is coming. The question is how institutions will respond.