This comment respectfully urges the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) to modernize its regulatory approach to non-degree, non-credit, skills-based training providers. Specifically, we request consideration for a regulatory exemption under § 23.1-226 of the Code of Virginia, or, alternatively, the development of a streamlined registration and oversight process for providers operating under a low-risk, market-based model.

Why Traditional Postsecondary Oversight is Misaligned with Modern Training Providers

Many skills-based training providers today operate under a business model that differs significantly from traditional academic institutions. Such providers typically:

• Do not accept Title IV or any public funds
• Offer consumer protections, including satisfaction guarantees
• Offer short-term, intensive training (typically 1 week or less)
• Deliver market-driven, rapidly evolving technical content
• Operate entirely on private funding and tuition payments

Because there is no financial risk to the Commonwealth or to taxpayers, and built-in consumer protections are in place, the rationale for regulatory oversight—particularly as it pertains to academic quality or public funding safeguards—is not proportionate or necessary.

We respectfully request that SCHEV acknowledge the distinct nature of this training segment and either exempt such providers from oversight or create a streamlined registration pathway that eliminates unnecessary compliance burdens for both providers and SCHEV.

A Competitive Disadvantage for In-State Providers

1. Out-of-State eLearning Platforms Operate Without Oversight

Online platforms such as Coursera, LinkedIn Learning, and Udemy routinely deliver workforce-relevant, non-credit training to Virginia residents without SCHEV review or approval. Their offerings are nearly identical in content and intent to those of in-state providers—often differing only in delivery format (pre-recorded versus live instruction).

Despite this similarity, only Virginia-based providers must:

• Undergo lengthy and detailed application processes
• Submit extensive curriculum materials
• Pay compliance fees
• Conform to structures designed for degree-granting institutions

This creates a regulatory imbalance and puts Virginia-based providers at a distinct competitive disadvantage—not due to differences in quality or consumer protection, but due to geographic and regulatory happenstance.

What is the meaningful regulatory difference between a pre-recorded, on-demand course and a live, instructor-led course—whether delivered in person or online? From a learner’s perspective, both deliver skill acquisition. From a regulatory perspective, it is inconsistent.

We are not advocating for expanded regulation of national elearning platforms. Rather, we urge SCHEV to apply the same light-touch approach to local providers that offer comparable value and consumer protections.

2. Public Institutions Benefit from Subsidized Competition

Virginia’s public colleges and universities are increasingly offering non-credit, skills-based training. These programs:

• Compete directly with private providers
• Benefit from state funding and federal grants
• Are exempt from many of the regulatory requirements imposed on private providers

Meanwhile, private training providers:

• Receive no public subsidies
• Must comply with a regulatory framework designed for academic institutions
• Face unsubsidized competition from publicly funded entities

This asymmetry disrupts fair competition, inhibits innovation, and limits access to agile, employer-aligned training options for Virginia residents.

Requested Actions

We respectfully request that SCHEV adopt one of the following two regulatory approaches:

Option 1: Regulatory Exemption

For providers that:

• Offer non-credit, non-licensure programs
• Accept no public or Title IV funding
• Deliver short-term, skills-based workforce training
• Provide consumer protections (e.g., money-back guarantees)

Option 2: Streamlined Registration

A simplified, low-burden process that includes:

• Basic program disclosure
• Student record retention requirements
• Complaint-based enforcement mechanisms
• Evidence of workforce alignment or private-sector demand

Conclusion

The current regulatory model was built to serve traditional academic and publicly funded vocational institutions. It does not reflect the realities of modern, private, market-driven skills training organizations.

When providers:

• Do not accept public funds
• Offer consumer protections
• Deliver short-term, employment-focused content

…a proportionate, risk-based approach to regulation is both reasonable and necessary.

As Virginia continues to position itself as a national leader in workforce development and economic competitiveness, we believe the Commonwealth must adopt a proportionate, risk-based regulatory model that:

• Encourages innovation
• Supports employer-aligned upskilling
• Levels the playing field for in-state providers
• Protects learners without unnecessary red tape

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with SCHEV staff and to provide additional insights or information upon request.