February 5, 2012

What are the most important issues facing private equity firms interested investing in the for-profit education industry

The following comes from the forprofit EDU group on linkedin.  If your not a member yet join using the link above.

I think it is finding those firms who understand the current postsecondary climate and have a plan for addressing the various concerns the sector faces as a whole.

More specifically, there are some serious issues with retention and completion initiatives across all postsecondary institutions.

Regarding the for-profit sector, the DOE is going to attempt to legislate stricter regulations if student loan default rates maintain current levels. There is a move afoot by the DOE to include a ‘gainful employment’ rule, which would force for-profits to adhere to a standard tying degrees earned to a result in employment that would ensure student loan payback. There is enough of a conundrum with retention issues and the DOE’s heavy handedness of the for-profits could be disastrous.

With regard to the public sector, the problems are just as serious. With tax revenues dropping, there are faculty layoffs and furloughs, courses being dropped, and students being turned away from schools. But alas, the Obama bucks will save the day! We’ve all heard about the American Graduate Initiative, where Obama and his administration are seeking to fund $12 billion to Community Colleges to graduate 5 million students over the next 10 years.

By the way, for-profits are noticeably absent from the mix, although they do a better job at graduating students. Is it possible the government is now trying to do away with for-profits by socializing education further?

So, I think there are opportunities that private equity firms should look for in the above relative to retention and degree completion. Too many students are heading back to school that are ill equipped and under-prepared in many ways. There are some firms out there addressing these issues. The key issue is to find those who have a pulse on the problem and who are in development of real solutions.

Happy holidays!

Paul

Bruce, over the last year I have had consultations with over 35 PE firms, some with indepth knowledge of the EDU industry most with no more than a big fund & surface industry information. I would say many PE firms should spend more time and bring in more experienced people to help them really learn about the EDU market, it’s been around for over 100 years and it changes rapidly. I also believe that many firms who are flushed with funds swing too fast with the wind and the flavors of the month, and do not take the time to plan a detailed strategy for the sector rather than just buying something to be in the game. I think that clearly some get it and are building profitable long term enterprises within segments of the sector but most move a little too fast. In addition I agree with what “the Doc” had said at the BMO conference about what scares him about the EDU industry being inexperienced & inadequate management being thrusted in power as the result of the frenzy in EDU and making headline type mistakes which may sour the milk for the rest of us.

 Hello Bruce: In my role as a broker for career colleges, I deal with PE firms every day. Many want to enter the Ed space. I think it is critical that they employ, pre-purchase or shortly after, an experienced operator of career colleges. I actually find that most PE firms are trying to be well informed and want their investment to be sound and successful. They have a healthy respect for default and 90-10 challenges facing the for-profit sector.

On the other hand, most want to exit the space in 5 years of so, thus they don’t have a tremendous amount of time to develop the company over a long period of time. An experienced operator will help them avoid making a critical mistake in the name of quick profits. It is that raised profit that will be important when they take their investment to market in the future, thus allowing them to “hit a home run.”

Also, more “home runs” experienced in the sector will shine the spotlight on the industry, and the numerous detractors will use the extraordinary profits and gains as a weapon against current operators. Sad, but true. The detractors (ex. Maxine Waters, et al) won’t let the facts get in the way of their pursuit.

The facts support continued support of the for-profit sector.

  

Hello Bruce,

Great question, thanks for posting.

I have consulted with several private equity groups that made an investment in the for-profit higher education industry. First, private equity groups with experience in for-profit education investment tend to do a better job with the following: 1. Selecting the right investment; 2. Conducting due diligence; 3. Hiring the right management team and 4.Understanding what questions to ask before, during and after the deal has closed. A private equity group that comes up short in its appreciation for the complexity and nuance of for-profit education may end up in a “money pit” (especially if it gets any combination of 1-4 wrong). That said I agree with Bruce and think we should expect stricter regulations from the US-DOE. Specifically, the 12-safe harbors are in potential trouble from the DOE’s Negotiated Rulemaking committees.

The profit motive in higher education can work quite effectively if managed with tight internal controls. For instance, the manner in which benchmarks and goals are established, communicated and managed makes a world of difference. Get this part right and you succeed or fail on your merits. Get it wrong and you create (as I mentioned above) your own money pit, or worse. I have concluded that private equity groups investing in for-profit higher education should be prepared for a more hands-on approach to understanding the business and monitoring its management team.
One critical issue facing new investment in for-profit education is the market itself. Shifting demographics over the next decade indicate a reduction in qualified students with the ability to pay and an enormous growth in academically and financially challenged students. The ability to deliver on alternative scheduling, delivery models and even alternative pedagogical models may distinguish those with the greatest market share. Increasing societal diversity, academic remediation, job placement and alignment between educational cost and salaried result (by program) are issues that will continue to rise and present challenges for new and existing institutions and investors.
Best of luck!

Join the group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1786509&trk=anet_ug_hm&goback=%2Eanh_1786509

The Society of Certified Adjunct Faculty Educators (SoCAFE), is looking to partner with for-profit schools

Our organization, The Society of Certified Adjunct Faculty Educators (SoCAFE), is looking to partner with for-profit schools to deliver our online certification program for current or prospective college teachers. We also have a stand alone course (Core Competencies of College Teaching) that we offer. Please contact us to explore.

Apollo Group, Inc. Resolves University of Phoenix False Claims Act Case Agreement Provides for $67.5 Million Payment, Plus Attorneys Fees

 PHOENIX–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Dec. 14, 2009– Apollo Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: APOL) (the “Company”) today announced that it has entered into an agreement with the United States of America, acting through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California and the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education, and with two private plaintiffs to resolve the False Claims Act lawsuit filed in 2003 against subsidiary University of Phoenix, United States of America ex rel. Mary Hendow and Julie Albertson v. University of Phoenix. Although a party to the agreement, the U.S. Department of Justice at no time intervened in the lawsuit, which was pursued by the two private plaintiffs as a qui tam action on behalf of the government. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company will pay $67.5 million to the United States. A separate agreement provides for the payment by the Company of $11 million in attorneys fees to the plaintiffs, as required by the False Claims Act. “This agreement not only brings closure to a long-running dispute and enables the Company to avoid the uncertainty and further expense associated with protracted litigation, it opens the door for a more constructive partnership with our lead regulator, the U.S. Department of Education,” said Charles B. Edelstein, co-chief executive officer of Apollo Group. “Apollo Group is committed to rigorous regulatory and compliance systems to serve and protect the academic innovations for which we are known,” added Gregory Cappelli, co-chief executive officer of Apollo Group and chairman of Apollo Global, Inc. “Resolution enables us to focus on our core mission of providing access to quality higher education opportunities for students who have been historically underserved by the conventional system of higher education – and at a time when such access is more critical than ever.” The agreement makes clear that the Company does not acknowledge, admit or concede any liability, wrongdoing, noncompliance or violation as a result of the settlement. Moreover, the Company is confident it will not face any further civil or administrative exposure relating to its compliance with the Higher Education Act provision relating to incentive compensation for the period of March 1997 through the present as a result of the various releases and related agreements it has obtained from the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Justice and the plaintiffs. “While we believe that the compensation practices and programs of University of Phoenix have always complied fully with applicable federal laws and regulations, the regulations at issue in this case were unclear and inconsistent and, even after they were clarified by Safe Harbor provisions, involved complex judgments and interpretations,” said P. Robert Moya, executive vice president, general counsel and secretary of Apollo Group. “Settlement on these terms eliminates the risks inherent in taking any case to trial and, ultimately, is in the best interests of our students, employees and shareholders.” “On behalf of the plaintiffs, we are pleased that the parties have been able to reach an agreement on terms that protect the interests of the government and the taxpayers,” said Robert J. Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “The case raised several challenging issues, many of them novel, which made settlement of the case appropriate.”

About the Litigation Under the False Claims Act, plaintiffs – or relators – sue as “partial assignees” of the government’s claims for alleged injuries to the government. The False Claims Act lawsuit against University of Phoenix was filed by two private plaintiffs in March 2003 in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The suit alleged University of Phoenix violated a federal statute and regulation stating that while recruiters may be compensated based in part on the number of students they enroll, it cannot be the sole factor for determining their compensation. After review of the lawsuit’s allegations and consultation with the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to join in the litigation. In fact, in a brief submitted to the Ninth Circuit in connection with the case, the Justice Department expressed “the government’s strong support for the important work of proprietary institutions of higher education, like University of Phoenix, that are providing much-needed educational opportunities to people looking to advance their careers and to earn a better living for themselves and their families.” In September 2003, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, followed by a Second Amended Complaint in March 2004. The Court twice dismissed this case, ultimately with prejudice, before it was reinstated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2006. About Apollo Group, Inc.

Apollo Group, Inc. is one of the world’s largest private education providers and has been in the education business for more than 35 years. The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the high school, undergraduate, graduate and doctoral levels through its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix; Institute for Professional Development; College for Financial Planning; Western International University; Meritus University; Insight Schools and Apollo Global. The Company’s programs and services are provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout the world (data as of August 31, 2009).

For more information about Apollo Group and its subsidiaries, call 800-990-APOL or visit the Company’s website at www.apollogrp.edu . Forward-Looking Statement Statements in this press release that are not statement of historical fact are forward-looking statements, and are subject to the Safe Harbor provisions created by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are based on current information and expectations and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in such statements due to various factors. For a discussion of the various factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected, please refer to the risk factors and other disclosures contained in Apollo Group’s previously filed Forms 10-K, Forms 10-Q and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Source: Apollo Group, Inc.

Apollo Group, Inc. Investor Relations Contacts: Allyson Pooley, 312-660-2025 allyson.pooley@apollogrp.edu  Jeremy Davis, 312-660-2071 jeremy.davis@apollogrp.edu  Media Contact: Sara Jones, 818-326-1871 sara.jones@apollogrp.edu

BrightStar Education Group Acquires Valley Medical College; Oregon Acquisition Expands BrightStar’s School Network to Five Locations in Two States

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 10, 2009

CONTACT
Jim Haga, CEO of BrightStar Education Group (303) 507-0662
jhaga@brighstareducation.com

Salem, Oregon, December 10, 2009 – BrightStar Education Group today announced its acquisition of Valley Medical College, a premier career-oriented postsecondary school providing training in the fields of allied health and practical nursing. The acquisition expands the BrightStar Education network to five locations in two states. BrightStar Education already serves more than 2,800 students attending schools in Central and Northern California.

Operating in Salem, Oregon, Valley Medical College is the only career postsecondary school in the state’s capital city, with more than 100 students currently enrolled. The acquisition marks BrightStar Education’s first foray into the state of Oregon.

“Valley Medical College has an exceptional reputation for providing quality career education,” said Jim Haga, CEO of BrightStar Education Group. “We are committed to further enhancing career training opportunities for students in the Willamette Valley by bringing additional financial, technological and educational resources to Valley Medical.”

Valley Medical has been licensed as a Private Career School by the Oregon State Board of Education since 1995. Valley Medical is accredited by the Accrediting Council for Education and Training (ACCET) to award certificate programs. The acquisition is subject to regulatory approvals.

About BrightStar Education Group
With this acquisition, BrightStar Education Group includes five campus-based schools in two states. BrightStar Schools offer career-oriented certificate and associate degree programs designed to provide students with the skills necessary to qualify them for entry level employment in the fields of healthcare, business, technology, and culinary. BrightStar’s four California schools operate under the Institute of Technology name and are located in Clovis (Fresno area), Modesto, Roseville (Sacramento area), and Redding, California. BrightStar’s strategy includes organic growth through additional curricula and new campuses, the cross-utilization of curricula among separate schools, and the implementation of initiatives to standardize, replicate, and leverage successful internal processes. BrightStar’s strategy also includes strategic investments and acquisitions.

Visit BrightStar Education online at www.brightstareducation.com

###

ForProfitEDU.com Launches First Annual Lead Generation Benchmarking Survey members of higher education community are invited to participate

PRESS RELEASE/MEDIA ALERT

ForProfitEDU.com Launches First Annual Lead Generation Benchmarking Survey Online Members of the higher education community are invited to participate in benchmarking study to identify current trends and best practices in lead marketing

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 – New York, NY – ForProfitEDU.com announced today the launch of the First Annual Lead Generation Benchmarking survey for the Higher Education sector, sponsored by Sparkroom. The survey, which is open to individuals that are directly involved with marketing in higher education, will examine where schools are focusing their online marketing efforts, what tools and tactics are most effective, and what challenges exist in this area. All survey participants may register to receive a free report with the results of the survey upon completion. According to BMO Capital Markets Equity Research, sales and marketing expenses run above 25% of revenues for the majority of companies in the for-profit education space, with a growing proportion of that spend happening in online marketing. Despite this, there are very few objective resources that marketers in the education market can reference to get a better handle on the use of online marketing in the sector.

This survey will offer a clear set of benchmarks, while identifying current trends and best practices for marketing professionals. The survey takes approximately 5 minutes to complete, and can be accessed online at https://surveys.itracks.com/survey/AHELMBS 

 It will be open to respondents until December 16, 2009 and a report on the results will be made available to participants in January.

About ForProfitEDU.com

ForProfitEDU.com is a leading website resource for all those who work within, around or are interested in the For-Profit EDU industry. The site offers networking, research, consulting, news updates and commentary from members of the For-Profit EDU community. Contributors include those from the school side, as well as those that work at related services firms including the investment community (investors, analysts, venture firms & PE firms), marketing & advertising professionals, educators & curriculum development, career services & other related service providers. ForProfitEDU also provides research and consulting services to schools & other service firms within the industry. Areas of expertise include Advertising, Lead generation, Marketing Strategy & Execution, Admissions, M&A, Raising capital, Market research and Partnering to create & grow online schools.

About Sparkroom

Sparkroom delivers innovative solutions to direct marketers, including its comprehensive Lead Performance Management software and services. Sparkroom Lead Deliver and Lead IQ deliver a hosted business intelligence platform to give direct response marketers the tools and expertise needed to measure, manage and optimize their lead acquisition spending across every direct response channel. Sparkroom’s software, which it hosts and delivers to its customers on-demand, enables customers to capture, store and analyze information generated by their lead buying activities and to gain critical business insights into the performance and efficiency of marketing and sales initiatives and other business processes. Founded in early 2007, Sparkroom is privately-held, with funding from private investors and Matrix Partners. For more information, visit www.sparkroom.com .

Media Contacts pr@sparkroom.com

For-Profit Ed: NegReg Draft Rules Tough on Several Key Issues

Yesterday after the close, the Department of Education (DOE) delivered a draft of the Negotiated Rulemaking (NegReg) regulations that align with a negative scenario:

1) Tying Title IV eligibility to a “gainful employment” metrics including cost of program , loan debt, and income after graduation. (apparantly to be applied to vocational programs only)

2) Getting rid of all 12 incentive compensation safe harbors . 

ED’s proposals for gainful employment standard will determine the appropriate levels of debt allowable for each vocational program/degree offering and thus may effectively result in tuition caps 

Eliminating all 12 safe harbors could restrict a school’s ability to utilize 3rd party call centers for qualification & hot transfer and potentially diminish internet generated starts, thus stalling enrollment growth. 

Still much speculation and uncertainty…

208