On behalf of the University of Fairfax (UF), I am pleased to submit comments in support of most of the suggested changes to Title 8 of the Virginia Administrative Code. As an interested party, I would like to bring the following items to you for consideration in this regulatory process:

1. Under 8VAC40-31-10, we appreciate the elimination of the definition of “Certificate,” but would appreciate the similar deletion of the definition of “Diploma.” Currently approved and offered Certificate programs may need to change to become Diploma programs without meeting the definition of “Diploma.” Lacking a definition does not exclude an institution’s ability to offer a program but eliminates the expressed requirements to be called one name versus another. Both credentials remain under the definition of “Program of study,” meaning that they will continue to be legitimate offerings within the Commonwealth, albeit lacking expressed definitions.
2. Under 8VAC40-31-30.A, because all catalogs are publicity, advertisements, and promotional materials, they should be included under 8VAC40-31-30.B. In so doing, the entirety of 8VAC40-31-30.A can be similarly stricken, moving all subsequent paragraphs forward (i.e., “B” becomes “A, “C” becomes “B”).
3. Because the definition of “postsecondary education activities” has been stricken in 8VAC40-31-10, the inclusion of the phrase in 8VAC40-31-120.C is unclear. Perhaps all of C (formerly 8VAC40-31-120.E) should be stricken and the onus of all consortia, agreements, and partnerships should rest on the current institution which is Certified by the Council?
4. The information remaining after the revisions to 8VAC40-31-130 are misnamed. The requirement for a site visit is in 8VAC40-31-170.F; therefore it is duplicative and unnecessary in this section. The remaining content about Provisional Certification should be the new title of 8VAC40-31-130 or could move into 8VAC40-31-170.
5. Under 8VAC40-31-140, we implore the Council to strike the entirety of Section A and Section B. “Generally accepted minimums” for degree length, residency requirements, and general education are contrary to the public welfare provisions established by other States in the Union. When other States have no minimum requirements (or have lessened their requirements below these thresholds) and are participants in an interstate reciprocity agreement (pursuant to 8VAC40-31-125), their programs become more competitive than these sections allow Commonwealth-based programs to be. As such, we urge the Council to remove these restrictions from the Regulation.
6. We also urge the Council to consider striking Section C, Section D, and Section E of 8VAC40-31-140, as these sections similarly give bright-line requirements that have no rationale. If the Council agrees, the entirety of 8VAC40-31-140 could be stricken to support Executive Directive 1 (2022) without negatively affecting higher education in the Commonwealth.
7. Changing from “notify” to “seek approval from” in 8VAC40-31-160.N (formerly Q) may inordinately increase the timeline needed to launch new programs. Since institutions already have multiple approvals to seek (accreditors, U.S. Department of Education, labor boards, etc.), it would be best to keep this item as a notification to the Council. If “seek approval from” remains, the Council may need to change the “Notification of Program Modification” form to “Application of Program Modification” (under FORMS 8VAC40-31).
8. The addition of “3. Loss of accreditation” under 8VAC40-31-195 should consider the future scenarios where institutions hold multiple accreditations and relinquish one. The verbiage does not distinguish between a programmatic accreditation and an institutional accreditation, and an institution may close a program and relinquish the programmatic accreditation. With the suggested repeal of 8VAC40-31-193, we urge the Council to consider clarifying this new Regulation. A suggested revision is as follows: “3. Adverse action by an institutional accreditor resulting in a loss of accreditation by that accreditor.”
9. The title of 8VAC40-31-210 should be modified to “Duplication of Effort,” as it is no longer merely about instruction for degree credit.
10. Changing the title of 8VAC40-31-230 to include “and civil enforcement” makes 8VAC40-31-240 duplicative. As such, 8VAC40-31-240 may be stricken. 

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the regulatory work of the Council. It has been our honor and pleasure to work with the Council.

We appreciate your consideration of our suggested modifications and welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with the Council in support of our shared commitment to educational quality and institutional effectiveness.

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.