Tag: CEG

Realities, Rumours and Days of Reckoning

Another week another private equity investment in pathways, but there’s no sign of the consolidation that would seem to make most sense in a sector beset by competitive pressures globally, rising costs of acquisition and restless partners.  Nonetheless, a few months of underlying movement with pathways closing or being won might suggest universities are beginning to look at their options in a more assertive manner.  This blog takes a quick run through the latest news and discuss a couple of emerging rumours*.

This week’s sale of Oxford International Education Group’s (OIEG) sale was a curate’s egg.  On the one hand there was the strategic backdrop of Nord Anglia buying the schools and colleges (via THI’s purchase of OIEG) to get a solid presence in the UK.  But the rump of the business leaves an assortment of English language offerings with a pathway business that has seen relatively slow growth in partnerships.

For many years there was a notion that pathway businesses and English language businesses had some sales, marketing and enrollment synergy but recent developments suggest other thinking.  The sale of Study Group’s Embassy language schools to EC came in November 2018 ahead of Ardian taking its majority stake in Study Group in February 2019.  Then in June 2019 English language provider EC sold its higher education arm to Study Group in a “strategic move” which EC suggested supported its “core strength” of full immersion English language provision.

THI does however make a lot of the synergy between Oxford International’s relatively new OI Digital Institute (OIDI), launched in 2020, as an online learning platform that sits neatly with Corndel and Learnship in their portfolio.  As far as I can see those brands offer diploma and language learning courses and OIDI has a range of English language courses, test preparation and non-credit bearing pre-Masters and PhD offerings.  It will be interesting to see how these line up against the credibility of CEG’s seven online degree partners, Study Group’s developing strategy with Insendi and Kaplan’s success at the universities of Liverpool and Essex.

The founders and management of OIEG have remained invested as part of the deal with THI but move from having a private investor with a minority stake (Bowmark) to one with a ‘controlling interest’ (THI).  A lot will be riding on the digital offering but also the capability of the English language business to recover from the drubbing the sector has received in recent years.  A rising exchange rate against the Euro deterring language students, the loss of European Union students to UK universities and the resurgence of the US as a student destination may give some headwinds.

Rumours

Most well-founded rumour is probably that CEG are teaching out at Coventry University and will be replaced.  There is no announcement but there seems no way of applying for a course at CEG’s OnCampus operation in Coventry starting in Autumn 2021.  The recent addition of Aston University and the University of Southampton to the CEG stable must have been welcome additions but it is difficult to see that they will quickly match the numbers at Coventry which were over 700 in 2018 according to a QAA report.

If one were to speculate there might be reasons to think that Study Group can leverage their relationship from the Coventry London Campus to win the prize of a pathway at the main campus.  But there have also been suggestions that Oxford International have a fighting chance given their CEO’s contacts with the university – including a contract stint working on international development.  There’s also the glowing recommendation from an Assistant Professor John Fowler of the university about the engagement with OIEG on the development of online, pre-university programmes.        

Less well baked but understandable in today’s feverish environment is the suggestion that INTO’s relationship with Oregon State University is under review.  The INTO team at the university seems well regarded and it may just be that a new President is running the rule over everything.  The fact that the President was previously President and Chancellor of Shorelight partner Louisiana State University (LSU) may add some spice but it’s worth remembering the Insider HigherEd piece which noted a target of 850 for the LSU pathway with only 136 enrolled students after three years.

There is no secret that INTO’s pathway joint ventures in the US suffered the loss of Marshall University in 2020 and Washington State University earlier this year, with reports suggesting that Colorado State University will also be closing.  Looking at the numbers for OSU indicates that the pathway center has had a very tough year with Fall 2020 enrollment declining 58.7% year on year from 809 to 334.  It may be tough to judge performance under current conditions but total enrollments at the pathway have been falling since a peak of over 1400 in 2014 so the trend is well established.  

Days of Reckoning

It is easy to forget how quickly the tides of fortune can change in the world of international student mobility.  The Australian charge to double digit enrollment growth appears to have foundered on a clumsy Government response to the pandemic and they may be out of the reckoning until 2023 unless there is a rapid turnaround.  A burst of interest in the UK has been partially challenged by the travel restrictions of the past year but the continuing extension of post-study work options will deliver opportunities and the data from UCAS suggests that Chinese numbers are particularly robust.  The post-Biden bubble in the US has seen rising interest from overseas but there are still problems in the tensions with China and the practical issues of getting visas.  In Canada there seems to be a growing interest in pathway programmes at lower ranked institutions and the threat from a resurgent US is looming.

For pathway providers, as for higher education more generally, the pandemic has thrown the need for high quality digital courses into sharp focus but without any certainty that students will want to engage in that medium when they can travel again.  For most universities the realities of high fixed costs in their geographical location mitigate against a wholesale shift away from trying to recruit students to attend in person.  It is just possible that the global student mobility world will return to something approaching the “old normal” rather than there being a “new normal” but with the added options of models incorporating digital and even, so some would suggest, virtual reality.

*Note

I am happy to accept authoritative responses, comments or corrections to any of the points made and will represent them in amendments to this blog.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

The Dwindling Party* – More Pathway Closures in the US

Pathways providers are cock-a-hoop about the UK this year but there’s a slightly embarrassed silence about continuing closures in the US.  A quick spin through the websites tells us that INTO looks to be shuttering one of its early partners and Study Group has trimmed another from its stable.  And there are plenty of discussions about where the axe might fall next (with one contender noted below).

INTO’s portal for students claims 13 US partners but according to the corporate website there are “12..in the US”.  It’s not entirely clear which university was intended to be mysterious number 13, but a click on the number leads to just 11 partner logos shown.  The missing partner is Marshall University in Huntington, WV.

The Marshall deal was signed in November 2012 with the first students entering the pathway in August 2013.  It was the heady days of expansion in the US and the opening came the same year that Leeds Equity took a 25% stake in the INTO University Partnerships business for £66m ($105.8m). With Shorelight Education launched shortly afterwards there was a lot of private money betting that US expansion would guarantee international student growth for a long time to come.

But Marshall’s non-resident alien population and the strength of the INTO pathway have declined sharply in recent years.  Institutional data showing early fall statistics shows a fall of 37.6% enrolled at INTO Marshall and 38.7% in the university overall (which implies that direct recruitment was falling faster).    

Table One: Marshall University International Student Enrollments

With respect to Study Group, I reported on closure of three US Centers back in September but since that time yet another has disappeared from the list of logos on the website: Oglethorpe University.  A visit to the University’s website confirms that the last intake was September 2019, and that the International Study Center won’t exist after May 2020.  The partnership was announced in 2017 with President Lawrence Schall, stating, “As part of our globalization strategy, choosing the right pathway partner was important.”

Reasons for the closure are not easy to discern, as the Oglethorpe Fact book suggests significant improvement of international numbers year-on-year for 2019 entry.  The number of countries for represented for first-timers had also increased slightly.  Maybe the future did not look bright enough.     

Table 2: Oglethorpe University International Enrollments

  Fall 2018 Enrollment Fall 2019 Enrollment
First time, full time international 16 41
Full time traditional undergraduate profile 97 122

While walking through the pathway websites I also came across Cambridge Education Group suggesting that a pathway with Illinois Institute of Technology, first announced in early 2018, is still ‘coming soon’.  When I clicked on the link for Illinois Institute of Technology Direct Entry I found an error page.  Careless at best if this is an important relationship but perhaps indicative of more deep-rooted reconsideration.  As always, I am happy to clarify this if I receive an authoritative correction and explanation.

It seems likely that the US will suffer even more retrenchment in international student enrollments over the coming year.  The resurgence of the UK will almost certainly affect the US more than other locations, with the recently reported 93% increase in student visas from India just the early part of the surge to take advantage of enhanced post study work visas.  Of course, the implications of coronavirus have yet to play out fully and that may mean that all bets are off. 

*The Dwindling Party is a book by Edward Gorey where pop-up illustrations and verses divulge how, one by one, six members of the MacFizzet family, disappear during a visit to Hickyacket Hall, leaving behind only young Neville, who expects “it was all for the best.”  It’s an interesting metaphor.

Image by Mediamodifier from Pixabay 

BIG QUESTIONS FOR PRIVATE PROVIDERS

The past few months have seen Ardian purchase Study Group, Navitas on course to be taken private and, most recently, news of EC’s North American Higher Education division moving to Study Group.  Between 2010 and 2014 the pathway market was characterized by over a billion dollars of private investment and a dash for growth in university partnerships.  But as global competition, technological disruption and changing demographics bite there are closures, sales and realignment.

As the market becomes more challenging investors have some strategic decisions to make. Recent developments and news coverage gives some grounds for speculation on what that might mean.

Cambridge Education Group/Bridgepoint Capital

In 2013 Bridgepoint Capital paid ‘an enterprise value of UK £185m’ (around $241m) for CEG.  One commentator suggested, “The pathways sector has delivered remarkable growth and profitability over recent years. Strategically the space is exciting..”.  It seems possible that the future will be about excitement in other parts of the portfolio. 

CEG recently confirmed the closure of its ONCampus individual pathway centers at Rochester, Rhode Island, CSU Monterey Bay and the University of North Texas.  The relaunch of ONCampus Boston in fall 2019 and direct recruitment at Illinois Institute of Technology keeps a toehold in US HE.  But with no further ONCampus developments in the UK since 2016 it looks like it has called time on pathways linked to individual universities.    

But the Group has other options and is investing in the CATS College brand (colleges for 14-18 year olds) with the first China centers opening in March 2019.  The two centers are in Shanghai and will provide a path for students to join CATS UK Colleges and other CEG options in the UK.  In the UK the company’s digital delivery arm has also been growing and added Cass Business School and the University of Hull as partners in 2018. 

It seems plausible that CEG is focusing on driving the CATS business and building a growth story around digital while putting pathways into a holding pattern.  

INTO University Partnerships/Leeds Equity Partners

In 2013 Leeds Equity £66m purchase of a 25% stake in INTO valued the business at around £266m.  Six years later the Sunday Times has ‘cautiously, put a £170m price on the operation’ (entry 876, Sunday Times Rich List 2019. Public filings show that in 2018/19 a preference dividend of £15m was paid for the first time, presumably to Leeds. 

INTO added the medium sized, public, Illinois State University and smaller, private institution, Hofstra to its US portfolio in 2018.  But data from Oregon State and Colorado State reflects the tightening of the US market and the possibility that new partnerships may erode the enrollments of existing partners.  INTO hasn’t opened a new UK partner since 2016 and average enrollments at mature partnerships (five years or more) and wholly owned centers shows that overall recruitment in the UK is no greater than 2014/15 levels.      

The company’s joint-venture model was a key differentiators in the early days but has been substantially replicated by a US competitor.  INTO is focused on pathways but has the potential to build business as a recruiter of non-pathway international students for existing or new partners.  If Leeds Equity are looking to move on this could be the moment where the business recapitalizes to buy out their 25% share and perhaps get some headroom to invest in new business opportunities.

Shorelight

Shorelight was six years old in January 2019 and is the only major pathway provider with no interests outside the US.  The portfolio grew in the last twelve months with the additions of  Cleveland State University (March 2019) and Mercer University (October 2018).  Eighteen university partners mean that there are a lot of seats to fill at a tough time for the US market.  

With the squeeze on international enrollment growth in the US, Shorelight probably needs to dominate pathway recruitment to deliver the results expected by partners.  The growth in pathway options and degrees delivered in English around the world has made it a buyers’ market for students and recruitment agents. Any outperformance in recruitment is likely to come at a price and provoke a competitive response. 

Declining markets, increasing costs and over-supply are not easy problems to solve and it may be time to look for new options to spread costs and risks.  Given Shorelight’s recruitment infrastructure and evidence of success with some good universities in the US it could be productive to pitch for a high-quality university in the UK, Europe or Australia.  A big name that doesn’t want to be part of the Kaplan, Study Group, Navitas or INTO portfolio might find a dedicated partner worth a conversation.         

Study Group/Ardian

The purchase of Study Group by Ardian positioned the investor with the ambition to make ‘strategic acquisitions’, and a belief that pathway growth would continue to be ‘double digit’.  It is difficult to see that organic growth in the US will be the main driver of the latter prediction.  But taking on EC’s operations in the US appears to signal an intention to continue to build market share. 

Other recent Study Group signings have been with sub-degree colleges in Canada providing a route to degree level study, post-study work and possibly citizenship.  It may be a smart way of infiltrating a market where universities have seemed relatively resistant to the lure of pathways. In 2017, 41% of international students at post-secondary level, including a 67% increase in those from India, studied in colleges.

Study Group’s business is diversified geographically and has high-school/college options as well as pathways.  The UK/Europe pathway business looks stable and recently announced a new partner in Aberdeen.  In the US the Managing Director has just left and it may be a good moment for strategic review in the context of market conditions. 

Image by Anemone123 from Pixabay

US University Pathways – Build It And They Will Come?

In 2014 Karen Khemka, a partner with the Parthenon Group, said “The U.S. third-party/outsourced pathway market is less than half the size of the Australian market despite having a higher education system that is 10 times the size.We anticipate that growth will be constrained only by the pace at which private providers can develop the market.” (Inside Higher Education, Bridge or Back Door? 30 April, 2014).  With reports recently indicating that two leading providers in the US, Study Group and INTO, are for sale it’s a good moment to see what has happened.

Khemka’s statement came towards the tail end of a period when more than a billion dollars was invested in private pathway providers with the potential for pathway development in the US a strong incentive.  But the next billion-dollar question facing potential investors may be whether US pathways were really a field of dreams where you could, to borrow loosely from the film, ‘build it and they will come’.  Or has attention to the supply side of the equation ignored the challenges of changing patterns of demand around the world?

To size the growth in capacity in the US I took the NAFSA publication Landscape of Third-Party Pathway Partnerships in the United States (NAFSA, 2017) as a starting point. The publication identified eight providers who were partnering with 45 institutions on 1 April 2016. The criteria was that these partnerships had to be ‘contractual agreements between universities and third-party entities to provide English language courses along with academic credit.’

I revisited each of the third-party entities listed to determine what relationships they have added. It is reasonable to say that the wording of some media statements and the content of web-sites is, either by accident or design, unclear about the exact nature of the relationship or offering. However, Table 1 summarises my understanding of new partnerships that meet the original criteria and notes the dates they were announced.

Table 1 – New US Pathways of Eight Providers Announced 2016 to 2018

* Source: Landscape of Third-Party Pathway Partnerships in the United States (NAFSA, 2017)
**I can find no public announcement of the Shorelight partnership with Utah but it is reflected on the web-site of each organisation

Table 2 shows arrangements listed on the providers’ websites but which I have omitted. I am happy to accept any authoritative corrections in my understanding of the nature of the partnerships or courses provided and to add any partners I have missed.  I have not gone beyond the original group of providers although a number of additional providers, such as EC Higher Education, have also developed pathway courses in recent years.

Table 2 – Partnerships listed on provider websites but not meeting criteria

The eight providers have added 21 new partnerships to the 45 shown in the original study – a growth of 47%. This suggests that the private providers have set about growing their businesses in the US with a good deal of vigour and some degree of success. At the time of Khemka’s quote in 2014 Shorelight was a new player but they have moved on to secure the most partnerships just four years later.

That growth in pathway capacity comes at a time when the global balance between supply and demand is in a state of flux and the future is somewhat less certain. The expanding availability of degrees taught in English and the ambitious targets of both traditional recruiting countries and emerging destinations has radically changed the competitive environment. While much of the world is adding rocket fuel to its recruiting engines the US looks to have loaded its unleaded petrol engine with diesel.

In the US a decline in non-degree new enrolments in 2015/16 was followed a year later by both graduate and undergraduate new enrolments declining. And non-degree enrolments continued to fall in 2016/17 which may be a leading edge indicator of further decline. The IEE Fall 2017 International Student Enrollment Hot Topics Survey says ‘Responding institutions report a 6.9 percent decline of international students enrolling for the first time at a U.S. institution, continuing the declines first seen in Fall 2016.’ (IEE, November 2017)

Table 3 – US New International Student Enrollment, 2006/07-2016/17
Source: Institute of International Education (2017). Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iee.org/opendoors

Like many sectors higher education is being obliged to rethink the fundamentals of supply and demand as demographics, competition and disruptive technologies undermine the old certainties.  It is a challenging moment to be launching new initiatives and building capacity based on past performance.

NOTES AND CORRECTIONS

This post was updated on 24 September 2017 to include Lynn University as a Study Group partner announced in May 2017.  Other related statistics have been updated.  At the time of announcement it was billed as ‘is set to open in January’ – presumably 2018.  As of the date of this correction the partner is billed on the Study Group site as ‘Launching Soon’.

PATHWAY, DEAD END OR TIME FOR A U-TURN?

August 2018 will be the fifth anniversary of Shorelight’s first partner, Bath Spa University in the UK, being announced with suggestions that the university would ‘see its overseas intake swell to around 2,000 students over the next four years.’. The four years would run from 2015/16 to 2018/19.

It seemed a good moment to look at the pathway market and what happens when relationships don’t  work out.  This is partly because we may be entering a period where the pathway sector has matured and circumstances make it ripe for realignment.  The stakes are high on all sides and the factors are particularly relevant to the UK and US where growth in pathways has been rapid and international student recruitment has been under substantial pressure.

As finances tighten university management is under more scrutiny and is likely to demand more in terms of targets and delivery from partners.  The consequences of a failing pathway are becoming increasingly difficult to hide as direct recruitment gets harder.  Providers have their own problems with unprecedented global pressures and ubiquitous competition.  Some may be reaching a point where optimising their portfolio is more important than simply adding or maintaining capacity.

In the UK a number of institutions have been following the University of Sheffield to see how the switch from one major private provider to another might work.  Loyalties are under pressure as university leaders who signed the deal move on and some pathway providers look to change hands after the glut of private equity investment from 2010 to 2014.  Pressure to perform has never been greater.

So, when a pathway becomes a dead-end there is every incentive for one or other party to make a U-turn.  Or, as Warren Buffett is quoted as saying, “Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be a more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.”  And it doesn’t really matter if it’s a long-term contract (where remedies for under-performance are usually written in) or time for a tender after five years.

IT HASN’T ALWAYS ENDED WELL IN THE PAST
There is, of course, precedent and although closures can be hard to trace I have listed below those that I have uncovered in my research.  New partnerships are usually heralded with a fanfare and people smiling as they shake hands on a deal done. Unsurprisingly, a veil is drawn over partnerships that end and those that are public are usually dressed in anodyne media responses.

For both universities and providers that is unfortunate.  Considering and addressing failure is a good way of learning and often more informative than the bright, shiny case studies which are so popular as sales tools.  In my time with two leading universities with private providers and as COO and CEO with two providers I saw many factors that can make or break a partnership.  These are worth sharing.

I make no comment on the reasons for the ending of the relationships noted (but have referenced reports where available). Neither do I claim that this list is exhaustive and I would be interested in any other examples.  For organisations contemplating partnerships an open and honest discussion with those who have tried and moved on is probably worth as much as hours of expensive contract development.

Study Group
i) Stirling University (Opened 2007- Closed 2013) Source: QAA

INTO
i) University of East Anglia London (2010-2014) Source: THE)                                                                         ii) University of Stirling London (Opened 2014 – Closed 2015?)                                                                                     iii) St George’s University (Opened 2012 – closed 2017 Source: St George’s University Annual Report

Oxford International
i) Canterbury Christchurch (Opened 2015 – closed 2017?)

Kaplan
i) University of Utah (Opened 2010 – Closed?) ii)University of Sheffield (Opened 2006 – Closed 2015)

Navitas
i) Western Kentucky University (Opened 2010 – Closed 2016)
ii) Edinburgh Napier (Opened 2011 – due to close 2018)

PRIVATE PATHWAYS MAY NOT BE ACCESSIBLE OR GUARANTEE SUCCESS
UK universities with the greatest decline in overall international enrolments in the past five years often have no pathway partner or are relatively late to the party. Several of the non-aligned universities here have been actively seeking providers but there is, inevitably, caution from providers about taking on institutions that do not have underlying strength.

It remains to be seen whether some of the new partnerships can materially alter the trajectory of underperforming universities.  Sector sources suggest that Oxford International and the University of Bedfordshire are parting company and the provider is not currently listing this university on its website.

Table 1 – UK Universities With Greatest Decline In International Enrolments 2012/13 to 2016/17

Source: HESA (enrolments), QAA and University/Company websites

And that brings me full circle to Bath Spa and Shorelight. HESA data (supported by the University’s Annual Report narrative) showed strong growth in international recruitment from 2012/13 to 2014/15. In the first full year of the partnership with Shorelight (2015/16) there was a weakening of growth which was followed by declining international enrolments in 2016/17.  There is some way to go for the university to reach the anticipated 2,000 by 2018/19.

Table 2 – Bath Spa University International Enrolments 2012-13 to 2016/17

Source: HESA

Perhaps more troubling is that in December 2017 the THE reported that ‘figures available on (sic) Companies House show that Bath Spa Global – an international pathway college venture set up in 2014 in partnership with US firm Shorelight Education – has lost about £1.4 million in the three years to July 2016, while its parent company Bath Spa U has lost about £736,000 over the same period.’. The 2016/17 Financial Statement from Bath Spa showed international student income and numbers declining year on year and noted that the joint venture partnership, Bath Spa Global, ‘remains fragile’.  At the time of writing I can find no mention of Bath Spa University on Shorelight’s web-site and no current reference to Shorelight on the University’s site.