Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Litigation and Legal Matters. The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Although the outcomes of the legal claims and proceedings against the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, based on currently available information, management believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Also, based on currently available information, management is of the opinion that the exposure to future material losses from existing legal proceedings is not reasonably possible, or that future material losses in excess of the amounts accrued are not reasonably possible. Certain Kaplan subsidiaries are subject to two unsealed cases filed by former employees that include, among other allegations, claims under the False Claims Act relating to eligibility for Title IV funding. The U.S. Government declined to intervene in all cases, and, as previously reported, court decisions either dismissed the cases in their entirety or narrowed the scope of their allegations. The two cases are captioned: United States of America ex rel. Carlos Urquilla-Diaz et al. v. Kaplan University et al. (unsealed March 25, 2008) and United States of America ex rel. Charles Jajdelski v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp. et al. (unsealed January 6, 2009). In August 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a series of rulings in the Diaz case, which included three separate complaints: Diaz, Wilcox and Gillespie. The court dismissed the Wilcox complaint in its entirety; dismissed all False Claims Act allegations in the Diaz complaint, leaving only an individual employment claim; and dismissed in part the Gillespie complaint, thereby limiting the scope and time frame of its False Claims Act allegations regarding compliance with the U.S. Federal Rehabilitation Act. In October 2012, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company as to the sole remaining employment claim in the Diaz complaint. In July 2013, the court likewise entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all remaining claims in the Gillespie complaint. Diaz and Gillespie each appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Court. Arguments on both appeals were heard in February 2015. In March 2015, the court issued a decision affirming the lower court's dismissal of all of Gillespie's claims and three of the four Diaz claims but reversing and remanding on one remaining claim alleging that incentive compensation for admissions representatives was improperly based on enrollment counts. Kaplan filed an answer to Diaz's amended complaint in September 2015 and a renewed motion to dismiss, and a hearing was held in December 2015. In March 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and discovery is ongoing in the case. In February 2016, Gillespie filed a new motion with the District Court alleging that the Court improperly refused to consider a motion to vacate while the case was on appeal; Kaplan filed an opposition to this motion that was denied by the Court. ED Program Reviews. ED has undertaken program reviews at various KHE locations. Currently, there are five open program reviews, four of which are at campuses that were formerly a part of the KHE Campuses business, including the ED’s final reports on the program reviews at KHE’s Broomall, PA, and Pittsburgh, PA, locations. Kaplan retains responsibility for any financial obligation resulting from the ED program reviews at the KHE Campuses business. On February 23, 2015, the ED began a review of Kaplan University. The review will assess Kaplan’s administration of its Title IV, HEA programs and will initially focus on the 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015 award years. On December 17, 2015, Kaplan University received a notice from the ED that it had been placed on provisional certification status until September 30, 2018, in connection with the open and ongoing ED program review. The ED has not notified Kaplan University of any negative findings. However, at this time, Kaplan cannot predict the outcome of this review, when it will be completed or any liability or other limitations that the ED may place on Kaplan University as a result of this review. During the period of provisional certification, Kaplan University must obtain prior ED approval to open a new location, add an educational program, acquire another school or make any other significant change. In March and April 2015, the ED conducted a program review of the nationally accredited San Antonio (Ingram) and Hammond (Indiana) KHE campuses. These campuses were subsequently a part of the sale of the nationally accredited campuses to a vocational school company. Kaplan retains liability for any deficiency findings relating to pre-sale conduct. On July 20, 2016, the vocational school company received the Preliminary Program Review Report for the two reviews from the ED. The Report highlighted a number of required policy changes and requires the vocational school company to conduct a full review of student files over a two year period to help the Department determine if the school properly reported enrollment status for certain students to the National Student Loan Data System. Failure to properly report status could result in students receiving funds for which they were not entitled. Kaplan will work with the vocational school company on these reviews; however, until they are completed, Kaplan cannot predict the final outcome or potential liability associated with these reviews. The Company does not expect the open program reviews to have a material impact on KHE; however, the results of open program reviews and their impact on Kaplan’s operations are uncertain. Accreditation Review. In the second quarter of 2016, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), Kaplan University's accreditor, conducted an on-site review as part of Kaplan University's regularly scheduled reaffirmation of accreditation. In August 2016, the HLC reaffirmed the Kaplan University accreditation for a ten-year term through the 2025-2026 academic year.

CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and Legal Matters. The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Although the outcomes of the legal claims and proceedings against the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, based on currently available information, management believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Also, based on currently available information, management is of the opinion that the exposure to future material losses from existing legal proceedings is not reasonably possible, or that future material losses in excess of the amounts accrued are not reasonably possible.

Certain Kaplan subsidiaries are subject to two unsealed cases filed by former employees that include, among other allegations, claims under the False Claims Act relating to eligibility for Title IV funding. The U.S. Government declined to intervene in all cases, and, as previously reported, court decisions either dismissed the cases in their entirety or narrowed the scope of their allegations. The two cases are captioned: United States of America ex rel. Carlos Urquilla-Diaz et al. v. Kaplan University et al. (unsealed March 25, 2008) and United States of America ex rel. Charles Jajdelski v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp. et al. (unsealed January 6, 2009).

In August 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a series of rulings in the Diaz case, which included three separate complaints: Diaz, Wilcox and Gillespie. The court dismissed the Wilcox complaint in its entirety; dismissed all False Claims Act allegations in the Diaz complaint, leaving only an individual employment claim; and dismissed in part the Gillespie complaint, thereby limiting the scope and time frame of its False Claims Act allegations regarding compliance with the U.S. Federal Rehabilitation Act. In October 2012, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company as to the sole remaining employment claim in the Diaz complaint. In July 2013, the court likewise entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all remaining claims in the Gillespie complaint. Diaz and Gillespie each appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Court. Arguments on both appeals were heard in February 2015. In March 2015, the court issued a decision affirming the lower court's dismissal of all of Gillespie's claims and three of the four Diaz claims but reversing and remanding on one remaining claim alleging that incentive compensation for admissions representatives was improperly based on enrollment counts. Kaplan filed an answer to Diaz's amended complaint in September 2015 and a renewed motion to dismiss, and a hearing was held in December 2015. In March 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and discovery is ongoing in the case. In February 2016, Gillespie filed a new motion with the District Court alleging that the Court improperly refused to consider a motion to vacate while the case was on appeal; Kaplan filed an opposition to this motion that was denied by the Court.

ED Program Reviews. ED has undertaken program reviews at various KHE locations. Currently, there are five open program reviews, four of which are at campuses that were formerly a part of the KHE Campuses business, including the ED’s final reports on the program reviews at KHE’s Broomall, PA, and Pittsburgh, PA, locations. Kaplan retains responsibility for any financial obligation resulting from the ED program reviews at the KHE Campuses business.

On February 23, 2015, the ED began a review of Kaplan University. The review will assess Kaplan’s administration of its Title IV, HEA programs and will initially focus on the 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015 award years. On December 17, 2015, Kaplan University received a notice from the ED that it had been placed on provisional certification status until September 30, 2018, in connection with the open and ongoing ED program review. The ED has not notified Kaplan University of any negative findings. However, at this time, Kaplan cannot predict the outcome of this review, when it will be completed or any liability or other limitations that the ED may place on Kaplan University as a result of this review. During the period of provisional certification, Kaplan University must obtain prior ED approval to open a new location, add an educational program, acquire another school or make any other significant change.

In March and April 2015, the ED conducted a program review of the nationally accredited San Antonio (Ingram) and Hammond (Indiana) KHE campuses. These campuses were subsequently a part of the sale of the nationally accredited campuses to a vocational school company. Kaplan retains liability for any deficiency findings relating to pre-sale conduct. On July 20, 2016, the vocational school company received the Preliminary Program Review Report for the two reviews from the ED. The Report highlighted a number of required policy changes and requires the vocational school company to conduct a full review of student files over a two year period to help the Department determine if the school properly reported enrollment status for certain students to the National Student Loan Data System. Failure to properly report status could result in students receiving funds for which they were not entitled. Kaplan will work with the vocational school company on these reviews; however, until they are completed, Kaplan cannot predict the final outcome or potential liability associated with these reviews.

The Company does not expect the open program reviews to have a material impact on KHE; however, the results of open program reviews and their impact on Kaplan’s operations are uncertain.

Accreditation Review. In the second quarter of 2016, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), Kaplan University's accreditor, conducted an on-site review as part of Kaplan University's regularly scheduled reaffirmation of accreditation. In August 2016, the HLC reaffirmed the Kaplan University accreditation for a ten-year term through the 2025-2026 academic year.