Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Litigation, Legal and Other Matters. The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to complaints and administrative proceedings and are defendants in various civil lawsuits that have arisen in the ordinary course of their businesses, including contract disputes; actions alleging negligence, libel, defamation, invasion of privacy; trademark, copyright and patent infringement; U.S. False Claims Act (False Claims Act) violations; violations of employment laws and applicable wage and hour laws; and statutory or common law claims involving current and former students and employees. 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. However, based on currently available information, management believes it is reasonably possible that future losses from existing and threatened legal, regulatory and other proceedings in excess of the amounts recorded could reach approximately $45 million. On February 6, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses, from July 2006 onward, alleging antitrust claims against Kaplan and West Publishing Corporation, BAR/BRI’s former owner. On April 10, 2008, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, a decision that was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 7, 2011. The Ninth Circuit also referred the matter to a mediator for the purpose of exploring a settlement. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties reached a comprehensive agreement to settle the matter. The settlement was approved by the District Court in September 2013. In the fourth quarter of 2017, the Ninth Circuit remanded to the District Court, which, once again, set attorneys’ fees on January 11, 2018. Distribution of settlement funds was made in December 2018 and the claims administration process has been completed. During 2014, certain Kaplan subsidiaries were subject to 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 remaining case is captioned United States of America ex rel. Carlos Urquilla-Diaz et al. v. Kaplan University et al. (unsealed March 25, 2008). On August 17, 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. On October 31, 2012, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company as to the sole remaining employment claim in the Diaz complaint. On July 16, 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 Circuit. Arguments on both appeals were heard on February 3, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the appellate court issued a decision affirming the lower court’s dismissal of all of Gillespie’s claims. The appellate court also dismissed three of the four Diaz claims, but reversed and remanded on Diaz’s claim that incentive compensation for admissions representatives was improperly based solely on enrollment counts. Kaplan filed an answer to Diaz’s amended complaint on September 11, 2015. Kaplan filed a motion to dismiss Diaz’s claims, and a hearing was held on December 17, 2015. On March 24, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Discovery in the case closed in January 2017. Kaplan filed a motion for summary judgment on February 21, 2017. Summary judgment was granted in full and entered on July 13, 2017. Diaz filed a notice of appeal in September 2017 and filed his initial brief. Kaplan filed a response brief in the third quarter of 2018. The matter is not likely to be decided until mid-2019. On October 19, 2018, a lawsuit was filed against KHE and other unrelated parties in El Paso, TX, County District Court alleging liability for default on a real property lease by Education Corporation of America. On November 19, 2018, this matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. KHE’s responsive pleading was filed in January 2019. On September 3, 2015, Kaplan sold to ECA substantially all of the assets of KHE nationally accredited on-ground Title IV eligible schools (KHE Campuses). The transaction included the transfer of certain real estate leases that were guaranteed by Kaplan. As part of the transaction, Kaplan retained liability for, among other things, obligations arising under certain lease guarantees. ECA is currently in receivership and has terminated all of its higher education operations other than the New England College of Business (NECB). The receiver has repudiated all of ECA’s real estate leases not connected to NECB. Although ECA is required to indemnify Kaplan for any amounts Kaplan must pay due to ECA’s failure to fulfill its obligations under real estate leases guaranteed by Kaplan, ECA’s financial situation and the existence of secured and unsecured creditors make it unlikely that Kaplan will recover from ECA. In the second half of 2018, the Company recorded an estimated $17.5 million in losses on guarantor lease obligations in connection with this transaction in other non-operating expense. On March 28, 2016, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Erin Fries, a physical therapist formerly employed by Residential, against Residential Home Health, LLC, Residential Home Health Illinois, LLC, and David Curtis. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois minimum wage law. The complaint seeks damages, attorney’s fees and costs. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. In August 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Health cited Celtic Healthcare of Westmoreland, LLC for being out of compliance with four conditions of the Medicare Conditions of Participation between August 7, 2017, and September 6, 2017. Celtic Healthcare of Westmoreland, LLC d/b/a Allegheny Health Network Healthcare@Home Home Health (AHN H@H Home Health) is a wholly owned subsidiary of a joint venture between West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. and Celtic Healthcare, Inc. In light of this 31-day period of non-compliance, the Department of Health issued a provisional license for AHN H@H Home Health. Following a re-survey investigation by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, on January 12, 2018, the Department of Health removed the provisional license assigned to AHN H@H Home Health and restored its unrestricted license. The Pennsylvania Department of Health will alert the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) about this matter. CMS has the authority to impose civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day or per instance for non-compliance. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), a department of the U.K. government responsible for the collection of taxes, has raised assessments against the Kaplan U.K. Pathways business for Value Added Tax (VAT) relating to 2017 and earlier years, which have been paid by Kaplan. In September 2017, in a case captioned Kaplan International Colleges UK Limited v. The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Kaplan challenged these assessments. The Company believes it has met all requirements under U.K. VAT law and expects to recover the £15.4 million receivable related to the assessments and subsequent payments that have been paid. Following a hearing held in January 2019, before the First Tier Tax Tribunal, all issues related to EU law in the case were referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. If the Company does not prevail in this case, a pre-tax charge of £15.4 million will be recorded to operating expense in the Company’s statement of operations. In March 2018, HMRC issued new VAT guidance indicating a change of policy in relation to certain aspects of a cost sharing exemption that could impact the U.K. Pathways business adversely if this guidance were to become law. As of December 31, 2018, this guidance had not yet been incorporated into U.K. law. If Kaplan is not successful in preserving a valid exemption under U.K. VAT law, the U.K. Pathways business would incur additional VAT expense in the future. In a separate matter, there is presently a legal case awaiting judgment at the Supreme Court in the U.K. that may impact U.K. Pathways’ ability to receive the benefit of an exemption from charging its students VAT on tuition fees. The case may reverse or amend existing law and guidance that permits private providers to qualify as a “college of a university” and therefore, receive the benefit of an exemption from charging its students VAT on tuition fees. If the case restricts which businesses are capable of constituting “colleges of a university” and entitled to exemption, KI Pathways Colleges’ financial results may be adversely impacted if they are not able to meet any new requirements. KHE Regulatory Environment. KHE no longer owns or operates KU or any other institution participating in student financial aid programs that have been created under Title IV of the U.S. Federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (Higher Education Act), as amended (Title IV). KHE is a service provider to Purdue Global and other Title IV participating institutions. As a service provider under the U.S. Department of Education (ED) regulations, KHE is required to comply with certain laws and regulations, including applicable statutory provisions of Title IV. KHE also provides financial aid services to Purdue Global, and as such, meets the definition of a “third-party servicer” contained in the Title IV regulations. By virtue of being a third-party servicer, KHE is also subject to applicable statutory provisions of Title IV and ED regulations that, among other things, require KHE to be jointly and severally liable with Purdue Global to the ED for any violation by Purdue Global of any Title IV statute or ED regulation or requirement. Pursuant to ED requirements, Purdue is responsible for any liability arising from the operation of the institution; however, pursuant to the agreement to transfer KU, KHE agreed to indemnify Purdue for certain pre-closing liabilities. ED Program Reviews. The ED has undertaken program reviews at various KHE locations. On February 23, 2015, the ED began a program review assessing KU’s administration of its Title IV and Higher Education Act programs during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 award years. In 2018, Kaplan contributed the institutional assets and operations of KU to Purdue Global, and the university became Purdue Global, under the ownership and control of Purdue University. However, Kaplan retains liability for any financial obligations the ED might impose under this program review and that are the result of actions taken during the time that Kaplan owned the institution. On September 28, 2018, the ED issued a Preliminary Program Report (Preliminary Report). This Preliminary Report is not final, and the ED may change the findings in the final report. None of the initial findings in the Preliminary Report carries material financial liability. Although the program review technically covers only the 2013–2015 award years, the ED included a review of the treatment of student financial aid refunds for students who withdrew from a program prior to completion in 2017–2018. KHE cannot predict the outcome of this review, when it will be completed, whether any final findings of non-compliance with financial aid program or other requirements will impact KHE’s operations, or what liability or other limitations the ED might place on KHE or Purdue Global as a result of this review. There are also two open program reviews at campuses that were part of the KHE Campuses business prior to its sale in 2015 to ECA. The ED’s final reports on the program reviews at former KHE Broomall, PA, and Pittsburgh, PA, locations are pending. KHE retains responsibility for any financial obligations resulting from these program 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.

CONTINGENCIES

Litigation, Legal and Other Matters. The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to complaints and administrative proceedings and are defendants in various civil lawsuits that have arisen in the ordinary course of their businesses, including contract disputes; actions alleging negligence, libel, defamation, invasion of privacy; trademark, copyright and patent infringement; U.S. False Claims Act (False Claims Act) violations; violations of employment laws and applicable wage and hour laws; and statutory or common law claims involving current and former students and employees. 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. However, based on currently available information, management believes it is reasonably possible that future losses from existing and threatened legal, regulatory and other proceedings in excess of the amounts recorded could reach approximately $45 million.

On February 6, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses, from July 2006 onward, alleging antitrust claims against Kaplan and West Publishing Corporation, BAR/BRI’s former owner. On April 10, 2008, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, a decision that was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 7, 2011. The Ninth Circuit also referred the matter to a mediator for the purpose of exploring a settlement. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties reached a comprehensive agreement to settle the matter. The settlement was approved by the District Court in September 2013. In the fourth quarter of 2017, the Ninth Circuit remanded to the District Court, which, once again, set attorneys’ fees on January 11, 2018. Distribution of settlement funds was made in December 2018 and the claims administration process has been completed.

During 2014, certain Kaplan subsidiaries were subject to 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 remaining case is captioned United States of America ex rel. Carlos Urquilla-Diaz et al. v. Kaplan University et al. (unsealed March 25, 2008). On August 17, 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. On October 31, 2012, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company as to the sole remaining employment claim in the Diaz complaint. On July 16, 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 Circuit. Arguments on both appeals were heard on February 3, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the appellate court issued a decision affirming the lower court’s dismissal of all of Gillespie’s claims. The appellate court also dismissed three of the four Diaz claims, but reversed and remanded on Diaz’s claim that incentive compensation for admissions representatives was improperly based solely on enrollment counts. Kaplan filed an answer to Diaz’s amended complaint on September 11, 2015. Kaplan filed a motion to dismiss Diaz’s claims, and a hearing was held on December 17, 2015. On March 24, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Discovery in the case closed in January 2017. Kaplan filed a motion for summary judgment on February 21, 2017. Summary judgment was granted in full and entered on July 13, 2017. Diaz filed a notice of appeal in September 2017 and filed his initial brief. Kaplan filed a response brief in the third quarter of 2018. The matter is not likely to be decided until mid-2019.

On October 19, 2018, a lawsuit was filed against KHE and other unrelated parties in El Paso, TX, County District Court alleging liability for default on a real property lease by Education Corporation of America. On November 19, 2018, this matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. KHE’s responsive pleading was filed in January 2019. On September 3, 2015, Kaplan sold to ECA substantially all of the assets of KHE nationally accredited on-ground Title IV eligible schools (KHE Campuses). The transaction included the transfer of certain real estate leases that were guaranteed by Kaplan. As part of the transaction, Kaplan retained liability for, among other things, obligations arising under certain lease guarantees. ECA is currently in receivership and has terminated all of its higher education operations other than the New England College of Business (NECB). The receiver has repudiated all of ECA’s real estate leases not connected to NECB. Although ECA is required to indemnify Kaplan for any amounts Kaplan must pay due to ECA’s failure to fulfill its obligations under real estate leases guaranteed by Kaplan, ECA’s financial situation and the existence of secured and unsecured creditors make it unlikely that Kaplan will recover from ECA. In the second half of 2018, the Company recorded an estimated $17.5 million in losses on guarantor lease obligations in connection with this transaction in other non-operating expense.

On March 28, 2016, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Erin Fries, a physical therapist formerly employed by Residential, against Residential Home Health, LLC, Residential Home Health Illinois, LLC, and David Curtis. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois minimum wage law. The complaint seeks damages, attorney’s fees and costs. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. In August 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Health cited Celtic Healthcare of Westmoreland, LLC for being out of compliance with four conditions of the Medicare Conditions of Participation between August 7, 2017, and September 6, 2017. Celtic Healthcare of Westmoreland, LLC d/b/a Allegheny Health Network Healthcare@Home Home Health (AHN H@H Home Health) is a wholly owned subsidiary of a joint venture between West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. and Celtic Healthcare, Inc. In light of this 31-day period of non-compliance, the Department of Health issued a provisional license for AHN H@H Home Health. Following a re-survey investigation by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, on January 12, 2018, the Department of Health removed the provisional license assigned to AHN H@H Home Health and restored its unrestricted license. The Pennsylvania Department of Health will alert the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) about this matter. CMS has the authority to impose civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day or per instance for non-compliance. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), a department of the U.K. government responsible for the collection of taxes, has raised assessments against the Kaplan U.K. Pathways business for Value Added Tax (VAT) relating to 2017 and earlier years, which have been paid by Kaplan. In September 2017, in a case captioned Kaplan International Colleges UK Limited v. The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Kaplan challenged these assessments. The Company believes it has met all requirements under U.K. VAT law and expects to recover the £15.4 million receivable related to the assessments and subsequent payments that have been paid. Following a hearing held in January 2019, before the First Tier Tax Tribunal, all issues related to EU law in the case were referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. If the Company does not prevail in this case, a pre-tax charge of £15.4 million will be recorded to operating expense in the Company’s statement of operations.

In March 2018, HMRC issued new VAT guidance indicating a change of policy in relation to certain aspects of a cost sharing exemption that could impact the U.K. Pathways business adversely if this guidance were to become law. As of December 31, 2018, this guidance had not yet been incorporated into U.K. law. If Kaplan is not successful in preserving a valid exemption under U.K. VAT law, the U.K. Pathways business would incur additional VAT expense in the future. In a separate matter, there is presently a legal case awaiting judgment at the Supreme Court in the U.K. that may impact U.K. Pathways’ ability to receive the benefit of an exemption from charging its students VAT on tuition fees. The case may reverse or amend existing law and guidance that permits private providers to qualify as a “college of a university” and therefore, receive the benefit of an exemption from charging its students VAT on tuition fees. If the case restricts which businesses are capable of constituting “colleges of a university” and entitled to exemption, KI Pathways Colleges’ financial results may be adversely impacted if they are not able to meet any new requirements.

KHE Regulatory Environment. KHE no longer owns or operates KU or any other institution participating in student financial aid programs that have been created under Title IV of the U.S. Federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (Higher Education Act), as amended (Title IV). KHE is a service provider to Purdue Global and other Title IV participating institutions. As a service provider under the U.S. Department of Education (ED) regulations, KHE is required to comply with certain laws and regulations, including applicable statutory provisions of Title IV. KHE also provides financial aid services to Purdue Global, and as such, meets the definition of a “third-party servicer” contained in the Title IV regulations. By virtue of being a third-party servicer, KHE is also subject to applicable statutory provisions of Title IV and ED regulations that, among other things, require KHE to be jointly and severally liable with Purdue Global to the ED for any violation by Purdue Global of any Title IV statute or ED regulation or requirement. Pursuant to ED requirements, Purdue is responsible for any liability arising from the operation of the institution; however, pursuant to the agreement to transfer KU, KHE agreed to indemnify Purdue for certain pre-closing liabilities.

ED Program Reviews. The ED has undertaken program reviews at various KHE locations.

On February 23, 2015, the ED began a program review assessing KU’s administration of its Title IV and Higher Education Act programs during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 award years. In 2018, Kaplan contributed the institutional assets and operations of KU to Purdue Global, and the university became Purdue Global, under the ownership and control of Purdue University. However, Kaplan retains liability for any financial obligations the ED might impose under this program review and that are the result of actions taken during the time that Kaplan owned the institution. On September 28, 2018, the ED issued a Preliminary Program Report (Preliminary Report). This Preliminary Report is not final, and the ED may change the findings in the final report. None of the initial findings in the Preliminary Report carries material financial liability. Although the program review technically covers only the 2013–2015 award years, the ED included a review of the treatment of student financial aid refunds for students who withdrew from a program prior to completion in 2017–2018. KHE cannot predict the outcome of this review, when it will be completed, whether any final findings of non-compliance with financial aid program or other requirements will impact KHE’s operations, or what liability or other limitations the ED might place on KHE or Purdue Global as a result of this review.

There are also two open program reviews at campuses that were part of the KHE Campuses business prior to its sale in 2015 to ECA. The ED’s final reports on the program reviews at former KHE Broomall, PA, and Pittsburgh, PA, locations are pending. KHE retains responsibility for any financial obligations resulting from these program 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.