Accreditation and Curriculum Development: Accrediting Agency Role, Stakeholders and New Program Requirements (SACSCOC Example)

Assignment: Accreditation and curriculum development in educational leadership

Identify the accrediting agency that is relevant to your professional practice (select a national or regional accreditation agency for your site) and in a 3- to 4-page paper respond to the questions below:

• What is the agency’s role in the curriculum or program development process at your work site?
• Identify and discuss the stakeholders who manage or lead curriculum or program development at your work site.
• Locate two resources (online documents or website) that contribute to your understanding of the accrediting agency’s requirements for a new program proposal.
• Briefly describe the requirements to demonstrate your understanding of the process.
• Why is it helpful to understand the requirements in your current, or future, educational leadership role?

In a 3- to 4-page paper, use the module readings to discuss the role of faculty, staff, and administrators in the curriculum development process. Next, discuss the role of accreditation in the development of new degree programs and curriculum. What are the benefits to accreditation? What are the challenges of accreditation?

Original example for study purposes (about 1,500 words; the two parts can be submitted separately). The work site, Riverbend Community College, is fictional. Replace it with your own institution and accreditor, and add your module readings where marked.

Part 1: The Accrediting Agency at My Work Site

Introduction

Riverbend Community College is a public two-year college in the Southeast that offers associate degrees, certificates and workforce training. Its institutional accreditor is The Commission on Colleges and Universities, formerly the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). The Commission accredits degree-granting institutions in the southern states and, since the U.S. Department of Education removed regional boundaries for accreditors in 2019, it has described its role as national (Weissman, 2026). Some of its programs also hold specialized accreditation, such as nursing through the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, but this paper focuses on the institutional accreditor because it oversees every new degree program.

The Agency’s Role in Curriculum and Program Development

The Commission does not write Riverbend’s curriculum, but it shapes how curriculum is developed in three ways. First, its Principles of Accreditation set standards that every program must meet, including that the institution places primary responsibility for the content, quality and effectiveness of the curriculum with its faculty (Standard 10.4) and that programs are coherent, with student learning outcomes that are assessed and used for improvement (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges [SACSCOC], 2018). Second, its substantive change policy requires the college to notify the Commission of, or obtain approval for, significant changes, such as a new program that departs significantly from existing offerings, before the change begins; Standard 14.2 makes compliance with this policy an accreditation requirement (SACSCOC, 2018). Third, the Commission reviews programs during reaffirmation, so any program the college creates must be sustainable and assessed over time. In practice, accreditation acts as a quality framework that every program proposal must fit.

Stakeholders Who Lead Curriculum and Program Development

Several stakeholders lead program development at Riverbend:

• Faculty and program coordinators design the curriculum, write course descriptions and learning outcomes and select assessments. They are the content experts and, under the accreditor’s standards, hold primary responsibility for the curriculum.
• Department chairs and deans review proposals for quality, staffing and fit with the division’s plans.
• The curriculum committee, made up mainly of faculty with representatives from advising, the library and the registrar, approves new courses and programs.
• The vice president for academic affairs and the president evaluate mission alignment, budget and enrollment projections, and the president signs substantive change submissions.
• The accreditation liaison, usually in the office of institutional effectiveness, determines whether a change requires notification or approval and prepares the submission.
• The board of trustees and the state system office approve new degrees for public colleges.
• External stakeholders, such as employer advisory committees, provide labor market evidence and help keep programs relevant.

Two Resources on New Program Requirements

Resource 1: The Commission’s Substantive Change web page and the revised Substantive Change Policy and Procedures (Commission on Colleges and Universities, 2026). This resource explains that some changes require notification and others require approval, provides the submission deadlines and links to the policy. For example, changes that require Board of Trustees review at its June meeting are due by March 1, and changes for the December meeting are due by September 1. The FAQ also warns that institutions may market a program with the required disclaimer but may not admit or enroll students until the change has been approved.

Resource 2: The substantive change prospectus requirements, which colleges such as William & Mary publish to guide their faculty (SACSCOC, 2016). This document lists what a prospectus for a new program must contain.

The Requirements for a New Program Proposal

If Riverbend proposed a new Associate of Applied Science in Cybersecurity that differs significantly from its existing programs, the accreditation liaison would first determine that a prospectus is needed and set a timeline that fits the Commission’s deadlines and the college’s start date. The prospectus would include the following (SACSCOC, 2016):

1. An abstract describing the program, its start date, location, projected enrollment, target audience and delivery method.
2. Evidence of need and mission fit, including labor market data, and evidence that faculty were involved in planning and approval, plus any required state approvals.
3. The curriculum: course descriptions, a projected course schedule, program goals and student learning outcomes, how outcomes will be assessed, admission and graduation requirements and compliance with the credit hour policy.
4. Faculty qualifications, documented on a faculty roster form, and the impact on faculty workload.
5. Library and learning resources, student support services and physical resources, such as a cybersecurity lab.
6. Financial support, including a business plan and budget with projected revenues and expenses.
7. A plan for evaluation and assessment and how the program will be included in institution-wide review.

Students could not be enrolled until the Commission approved the change, so careful planning of the timeline is essential.

Why Understanding These Requirements Helps an Educational Leader

Understanding accreditation requirements helps me as a [current or future role, e.g., program director] in several ways. It allows me to plan realistic timelines so that a program is not advertised or launched before approval, which could put the institution’s accreditation and students’ financial aid at risk. It helps me guide faculty to build learning outcomes, assessments and resource plans into a proposal from the start rather than scrambling at the end. It also helps me speak the language of quality assurance with senior administrators and board members, and it reminds me that accreditation standards reflect good practice: programs should meet real needs, be taught by qualified faculty and be continuously improved.

Part 2: Roles in Curriculum Development and the Role of Accreditation

Faculty, Staff and Administrators in Curriculum Development

Curriculum development is a shared responsibility. Faculty are at the center because they have disciplinary expertise and teach the courses. They identify what students need to know and be able to do, write learning outcomes, design courses and assessments and use assessment results to revise the curriculum [cite module reading]. Accreditors reinforce this role by requiring that faculty have primary responsibility for curriculum (SACSCOC, 2018).

Staff make the curriculum workable. Instructional designers help faculty align outcomes, activities and assessments, especially for online courses. Librarians make sure resources are available. Advisors and registrars help build degree maps and transfer pathways and catch scheduling problems, and institutional research staff provide data on enrollment, completion and labor market demand. Student services staff help make sure students can succeed in the program.

Administrators provide vision, resources and governance. Deans and vice presidents connect curriculum to the strategic plan, approve budgets and staffing, and make difficult decisions about which programs to add or close. Presidents and boards approve new degrees and ensure compliance with state and accreditation rules. Effective administrators also create a culture of shared governance in which faculty voices are respected [cite module reading].

The Role of Accreditation in New Degree Programs and Curriculum

Accreditation serves as an external check on quality. When an institution develops a new degree, accreditation standards require it to demonstrate need, align the program with its mission, define and assess learning outcomes and show that it has the faculty, finances and resources to sustain the program. For significant changes, the institution must notify or obtain approval from its accreditor before students enroll (Commission on Colleges and Universities, 2026). After implementation, programs are reviewed during reaffirmation, which pushes institutions to use assessment data for continuous improvement.

Benefits of Accreditation

• Access to federal financial aid: students can receive federal aid only at institutions accredited by a recognized agency.
• Quality assurance and public trust: accreditation signals to students, families and employers that programs meet established standards.
• Transfer of credit and graduate admission: credits and degrees from accredited institutions are more widely accepted.
• Continuous improvement: the self-study and assessment process encourages institutions to examine data and improve programs.
• Licensure and employment: many professions require a degree from an accredited institution or program.

Challenges of Accreditation

• Time and cost: preparing prospectuses, self-studies and reports requires significant faculty and staff time.
• Slower innovation: deadlines and approval cycles can delay new programs that respond to fast-changing workforce needs.
• Compliance culture: faculty may see accreditation as paperwork rather than improvement, which can lead to box-checking.
• A changing landscape: accreditation is undergoing major change. In 2025, six public university systems formed a new accreditor, the Commission for Public Higher Education, which is not yet recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and plans to seek recognition in late 2027, and some states have passed laws allowing or requiring public colleges to switch accreditors (McLean, 2026). Leaders must follow these developments because changing accreditors affects planning, policies and program approvals.

Conclusion

Accreditation and curriculum development are closely linked. Faculty lead the design of curriculum, staff make it workable and administrators provide resources and governance, while the accreditor provides standards and approval processes that protect students and the public. Understanding these roles and requirements allows educational leaders to develop new programs that are high quality, approved on time and sustainable.

References

Commission on Colleges and Universities. (2026). Substantive change. https://commissioncu.org/for-institutions/substantive-change/

McLean, D. (2026, April 30). State lawmakers eye accreditation policy changes as new agency forms. Higher Ed Dive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/commission-public-higher-education-state-laws/818856/

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2016). Appendix B: The substantive change prospectus. https://www.wm.edu/offices/iae/documents/sacscoc/SACSCOC%20Required%20Components%20of%20the%20Prospectus.pdf

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2018). The principles of accreditation: Foundations for quality enhancement. [Check for the most current edition on the Commission’s website.]

Weissman, S. (2026, June 12). SACSCOC changes name. Inside Higher Ed. (Republished by CAPPS, June 15, 2026.) https://cappsonline.org/sacscoc-changes-name/

More model assignments posted today

• SCS 224 journal: Haiti clean water study
• SCS 224 journal: gang violence research
• SCS 224 journal: uncontacted tribes of Brazil
• Supply chain risk PowerPoint
• Neurocognitive psychiatric evaluation
• Cloud, quantum and compliance cost proposal
• Concurrent access and data integrity
• Philosophical assumptions of science discussion