When Accreditation Requirements Shift, Student Success Commitments Should Remain

For more than two decades, the Quality Enhancement Plan has provided colleges and universities accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges with a structured opportunity to invest in student learning and student success. Under Standard 7.2, institutions were expected to select a topic through their comprehensive planning processes, secure broad campus support, commit sufficient resources, and establish a plan for assessing outcomes. The QEP was therefore more than a required document. At its best, it represented a focused institutional commitment to meaningful improvement (SACSCOC, 2024). That requirement is now under review.

In September 2025, the SACSCOC Executive Council initiated a formal study of Standard 7.2 and suspended the requirement that institutions develop and implement a QEP during the study period. The review is occurring alongside a broader examination of the Principles of Accreditation that began October 1, 2025. The SACSCOC membership is expected to vote on proposed revisions during the College Delegate Assembly meeting in December 2026 (SACSCOC, 2026).

Institutions whose reaffirmation or Fifth-Year reviews fall within the study period will not be held accountable for the QEP requirement during the affected review cycle. Depending on their review cohort, institutions may choose not to submit a QEP, continue an existing QEP, or submit an optional plan for feedback without receiving a compliance determination. Institutions that discontinue an affected QEP will be held harmless in a subsequent Fifth-Year review (SACSCOC study-period guidance).

The long-term status of the QEP Impact Report has not yet been determined. SACSCOC currently anticipates a decision in either December 2026 or June 2027, following the outcome of the Principles Review (SACSCOC, 2026).

For institutional leaders, these developments create an important strategic question: If a QEP is no longer required during an institution’s review cycle, what should happen to the people, resources, and institutional attention that had been devoted to it? The answer should not be to retreat from student success. It should be to invest more intentionally in it.

From Compliance to Institutional Strategy

At its best, the QEP was never simply an accreditation exercise. It asked institutions to identify a consequential student learning or student success priority and develop a focused, resourced, and assessable response. Those remain sound principles even while the external requirement is suspended.

The study period gives affected institutional leaders greater discretion over how they use resources previously associated with QEP development and implementation. That flexibility also increases institutional responsibility. Decisions should remain grounded in evidence, aligned with institutional priorities, and connected to measurable student outcomes.

Rather than beginning with the question, “What do we have to do for accreditation?” leaders can ask more consequential questions:

• Where are students encountering the greatest barriers to academic progress?
  
  
• Which investments can reach students across courses, disciplines, locations, and modalities?
  
  
• How can one initiative advance learning, career preparation, and belonging?
  
  
• What evidence will demonstrate whether the investment is improving students’ experiences and outcomes?

This is an opportunity to move from a compliance-centered mindset to a strategy-centered one.

Evaluating Student Success Investments

Not every student success initiative is equally positioned to produce sustained institutional value. As leaders reconsider QEP plans or related allocations, several criteria can guide their decisions.

• First, the investment should respond to an identified student need. Institutional data can reveal where students experience academic difficulty, where existing support is underutilized, and which populations encounter persistent barriers to participation.
  
  
• Second, the initiative should be available when students need it. Support constrained by location, operating hours, staffing capacity, or limited course coverage may not reach all students who could benefit from it.
  
  
• Third, the investment should strengthen more than one dimension of the student experience. Academic progress, career preparation, affordability, and belonging are often treated as separate priorities within institutional structures, but students experience them simultaneously.

Finally, the initiative should be assessable. Institutions should identify intended outcomes, establish meaningful indicators, and use the resulting evidence to improve implementation. The suspension of an accreditation requirement does not diminish the importance of accountability. Greater institutional discretion makes careful assessment even more important.

Peer Tutoring as an Integrated Strategy

Peer tutoring offers one example of an investment capable of advancing several institutional priorities. Research has associated well-designed peer tutoring with improvements in student learning and academic performance, although outcomes depend on program structure, context, and implementation (Arco-Tirado et al., 2020; Topping, 1996).

The benefits are not limited to students receiving support. Peer tutors can strengthen their own knowledge by explaining concepts, responding to questions, and adapting their instruction to the needs of other learners. A critical review of peer teaching in higher education found particular benefits for the development of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, motivation, and learner autonomy (Stigmar, 2016).

Serving as a peer tutor also places students in a role that requires responsibility, preparation, relationship building, and professional judgment. Research on peer tutors has connected the experience with leadership development and opportunities to practice transferable communication and problem-solving skills (Van Dam et al., 2021).

When peer tutoring is structured as meaningful paid work, it can connect academic support with experiential learning and student employment. Tutors reinforce their learning, earn income, develop career-relevant competencies, and build relationships with other students. In this way, peer tutoring can help students learn, earn, and belong.

This integrated value is especially relevant as colleges and universities look for investments that can serve academic affairs, student success, career readiness, and institutional belonging. A carefully designed peer tutoring strategy can expand access to academic support while creating a substantive educational and professional experience for the students providing it.

A Moment for Intentional Reinvestment

Some institutions may decide to continue their QEPs because the plans remain valuable and aligned with institutional priorities. Others may revise their plans or redirect resources toward different student success strategies. SACSCOC guidance permits affected institutions to continue an optional QEP and, in certain review cohorts, receive informational feedback even though the plan will not be evaluated for compliance. Institutions choosing not to continue will not face a compliance penalty for exercising that option during the study period (SACSCOC study-period guidance).

There is no single correct institutional response. What matters is that leaders make the decision intentionally, with careful attention to institutional context, student needs, and available evidence.

The suspension of Standard 7.2 creates flexibility, but it should not create a vacuum. Resources previously connected to a QEP can remain catalysts for institutional improvement when they are directed toward evidence-informed, scalable, and assessable strategies.

For institutions evaluating how to reinvest QEP-related resources, Knack offers a managed peer tutoring model designed to expand access to academic support while creating paid, career-building opportunities for students. It is one way institutions can transform a change in accreditation requirements into a renewed commitment to helping students learn, earn, and belong.