September 26, 2021

ECPI University Acquires College of Nursing in Orlando – Offers a 1 year Accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing


ECPI University is proud to announce its acquisition of Remington College of Nursing, located just outside Orlando’s city center in Lake Mary, Florida. With it, ECPI University is now able to offer an Accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) which allows students to graduate in just one year.

Lake Mary, FL (PRWEB) March 09, 2016

ECPI University is proud to announce its acquisition of Remington College of Nursing, located just outside Orlando’s city center in Lake Mary, Florida. With it, ECPI University is now able to offer anAccelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) which allows students to graduate in just one year.

“This is one of the very few programs in the country that allow recent college graduates to prepare for a nursing career in such a short time,” says Orlando Campus President Mike Fontaine. “It’s a tremendous opportunity for someone to enter the nursing profession without disrupting their lives and having to attend college for several years.”

To enroll in this program, prospective students need to have earned a bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited college or university. Any major is accepted – business, history, one of the sciences, etc. In certain cases, some prerequisite class may be required prior to enrollment.

“We believe this program is going to be a great benefit to the healthcare profession as a whole,” says Fontaine. “Baby boomers are aging and demand for healthcare is on the rise. With greater strains on the healthcare system, doctors are looking to nurses to perform higher-level responsibilities. In turn, those nurses must first acquire higher-level skills.”

This trend in evidenced by a campaign underway by the American Nurses Association which has set a goal that 80 percent of all nurses hold a BSN by 2020. Nationally, employment of registered nurses is expected to grow by 16 percent between 2014 and 2024, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

ECPI University’s College of Nursing is one of the largest in the Mid-Atlantic. The Orlando campus will mirror ECPI University’s tradition of academic excellence and history of valued partnerships with leading healthcare providers. Faculty and staff at the University look forward to working with the campus’ impressive list of clinical partners which include:

  • Orlando Regional Medical Center
  • Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children
  • Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Babies
  • South Seminole Hospital
  • Dr. P. Phillips Hospital
  • UF Health Cancer Center – Orlando Health
  • Health Central Hospital
  • Nemours Children’s Hospital, Orlando
  • Central Florida Regional Hospital
  • Florida Hospital Fish Memorial
  • Bert Fish Medical Center
  • Central Florida Behavioral Hospital
  • Florida Department of Health in Seminole County
  • Florida Department of Health in Lake County

For more information about this program, please contact ECPI University Orlando Campus President Mike Fontaine at 407.562.9100 or MFontaine(at)ecpi(dot)edu. For media inquiries, please contact ECPI University Director of Communications David Brandt at 757.213.3613 or dbrandt(at)ecpi(dot)edu.

About ECPI University

ECPI University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award associate, baccalaureate, and master degrees and diploma programs. With campuses in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, ECPI, a private university established in 1966, offers convenient classes during the day, evening, and online; graduate employment services are provided. Continuing education certification classes and testing are also available.

Throughout all campuses and online, its fields of study include: HEALTH SCIENCES: Master of Science in Nursing, Nursing (RN to BSN), BS to BSN, Nursing (RN), Practical Nursing, Healthcare Administration, Health Information Management, Physical Therapist Assistant, Massage Therapy, Dental Assisting, Medical Assisting, Radiography, Sonography, Surgical Technology; TECHNOLOGY: Network Security, Information Systems, Software Development, Cloud Computing, Web Development, Database Programming, Electronics Engineering Technology, Mechatronics/Advanced Manufacturing, Mechanical Engineering Technology, Medical Imaging Equipment Technology; BUSINESS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: Master of Business Administration (MBA), Accounting, Business Administration, IT Management, Hospitality Management, Criminal Justice, Homeland Security; CULINARY: Culinary Arts, Culinary Nutrition, Food Service Management, Baking and Pastry Arts. (Program field availability varies by campus.) For more information, visit

GOP budget would block key Obama higher ed regulations


Take your higher education regulations and shove them, Obama administration.

Republicans in the House of Representatives didn’t use exactly those words in the 2016 spending bill for the Department of Education they released Tuesday, but the message they delivered couldn’t have been much clearer.

The bill drafted by Republican leaders of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees spending for education, health and labor programs would bar the Education Department from using any of its appropriated funds to carry out existing regulations related to “gainful employment” for graduates of vocational programs, state authorization, teacher preparation, and the credit hour, and to implement President Obama’s envisioned system to rate colleges and universities.

Essentially, it would block virtually all efforts by the Obama administration to hold colleges more accountable for how they use federal funds, which Republican lawmakers (and many college officials) have opposed as overreaching, misdirected and unlikely to work. Republicans have opposed most of the initiatives previously, but now that they control both houses of Congress, they are in a better position to actually block some of them — or at least force President Obama to horse-trade for some of them in negotiations over the spending measures.

Full Article Inside Higher Ed:

2014 Annual EDU Advertising & Marketing Survey for Schools, Lead Providers, Call Centers & Agency’s You MUST participate to receive results!

2014 EDU advertising surveyIt’s that time, ForProfitEDU Industry Group’s 4th annual survey, in conjunction with Edufficient, one of the fasting growing EDU-specific Performance Marketing Agencies.

This survey has become a standard for the industry, bringing together Schools, Lead Providers & Agencies, helping to create an updated master list of industry service providers.

Link to survey:

Hundreds of screened participants help make this a valuable tool for all those who participate.

  • All participants are reviewed for accuracy & relevance to the industry.


  • You must complete 75% of the survey questions to qualify and receive results!


  • All requests for survey results from non-participants will be denied!

Service providers contact information must be accurate to qualify. Remember, schools will receive your contact information so they can contact you, so please double check for accuracy.

All School contact information (school name, your name, phone & email) is private and will not be distributed. Only vendor info will be made available.

Link to survey:

From the financial community Updated Sector Thoughts as Gainful Employment Saga Continues

william blair 2

Updated Sector Thoughts as Gainful Employment Saga Continues

Viewpoint: The second set of negotiations for “Gainful Employment 2.0” resulted in no
consensus, as expected, but rather a contentious few days between advocates with little
common ground followed by a decision to extend the rule-making sessions into December,
with the Department of Education agreeing to provide data and support for its proposed
student loan default and repayment metrics in the meantime. We believe that most
investors have begun and will continue to ignore the tail risk the rule presents to private
sector schools in light of the significant regulatory risk that is already embedded in the
stocks, the extended duration of the gainful employment negotiations (four years and
counting, with no potential program closures until 2019 or later), the increasing likelihood
of a successful legal or regulatory challenge from the private sector schools that would
block some or all pieces of the final rule, the numerous positive changes already made in
the sector to improve student return on investment and school regulatory profiles, and the
recent strength in fundamentals and associated recovery in the stocks

Where Do Things Stand With Gainful Employment?
The Higher Education Act (the governing document for postsecondary schools that access
the government’s Title IV student loan program) states that for-profit college (both
certificate and degree) programs and nondegree (certificate) programs at nonprofit
colleges must prepare students for “gainful employment.” In 2009, a few key staffers
(who are no longer involved in the process) at the Department of Education (Ed) saw big
enrollment and profit growth and anecdotal evidence of student abuse at for-profit
colleges and decided that something needed to be done. In a bit of an end-around attack,
they reinterpreted the simple phrase “gainful employment” into a set of rules that created
complex student loan debt-to-income and repayment thresholds for for-profit college
students, which, if not met, could result in a loss of access to Title IV loans (which
accounts for about 80% of the sector’s revenue).

In a perfect storm for the sector, the introduction of potentially game-changing regulation
coincided with peak U.S. unemployment (and the end of an increase in college
applications associated with these job losses); the lapping of significant Pell grant and
Title IV loan limit

expansions from 2007 to 2009; the tail-end of a dramatic spike in forprofit
school capacity, programs, and tuitions along with an influx of private equity
dollars into the sector; and the beginning of a national conversation questioning the value
of a college degree as student loan debt surged near $1 trillion.
With the threat of largely unquantifiable legislation and the associated change in the
playing field, the enterprise value for the 15 publicly traded companies in the sector
dropped from $46 billion in the first quarter of 2010 to $8 billion in late 2012 as new
enrollment declined and total enrollment and profitability followed (enrollment is down
roughly 30% from peak levels and operating margins are down from the mid-20s to the
low double digits). Not until early this year did the sector show signs of a recovery, with
starts inflecting toward positive (and turning positive for a third of the schools) on price
reductions and a tailwind from a bit more regulatory clarity, and an investor recognition
that the schools were adapting business models and the 30% of the market capitalization
that lay in net cash was safe. The stocks have outperformed the market by 60% this year.

In the four years since gainful employment rule-making was introduced, Ed negotiated a set of harsh debt-to-income and
repayment draft rules in 2010, introduced a much softer final rule in 2011, released supporting data in 2012 that saw most of
the schools pass the tests with flying colors on surprisingly strong debt-to-income metrics, and then later in 2012 saw a
private sector college lawsuit strike the rule down on a federal judge’s view that Ed’s proposed repayment metric was
Ed went back to the drawing board and began another round of negotiated rule-making in fall 2013. Ed’s most recent
proposal, as in 2010, was a set of harsh debt-to-income and loan repayment standards. A (likely softened) final rule is
expected to be released late in 2014 with the rules going into effect in 2015. At-risk programs could be eliminated in 2019 and
Is There Risk for the Stocks?
Unlike in 2010 and 2011, when education stocks hung on every move from the Department of Education and legislative
opponent Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and 10% moves on policy speculation were a frequent event, over the past year, the
stocks have become immune to policy noise, good or bad. We note that attendance from both the buy- and sell-side at the
latest round of negotiations was a fraction of that seen in previous rounds. In many ways, the stocks have been left for dead
and remain uninvestable in the eyes of many long-only investors who were burned by the sector in past years. In that context,
we remain long-biased on the space, and note that:
1. New enrollment is gradually improving, with a third of the stocks in the space growing starts, a third in the down
single-digit range, and the rest getting “less worse.”
2. Most schools in the space have increased the value proposition of their degrees through brand-building efforts,
stronger retention and graduation, improved job placement rates, price cuts, enrollment restrictions like mandatory
orientation, low-ROI program elimination, and even money-back policies on first classes.
3. Public colleges have increased prices in real terms in excess of 5% annually over the past decade, and the increases
have continued despite declining enrollment, offering for-profit schools a bit of a price umbrella.
4. Most schools in the space have moved out (either partly or entirely) of the lead aggregator channel, which has
sometimes produced low quality student inquiries and at times resulted in high dropout rates (churn).
5. Retention increases at the schools have been largely masked by the graduation “bubble,” a result of the large incoming
classes of students in the 2008 to 2010 period reaching the end of their tenure at the schools, but these retention
gains should eventually allow total enrollment to grow well in excess of new enrollment and produce strong
incremental margins even on moderate top-line growth.
6. “Halo” schools like Grand Canyon University (LOPE $44.15; Outperform), which offers a traditional ground campus
and Division 1 athletic programs, and Capella University (CPLA $64.30; Outperform), one of the highest-quality online
degrees in the country (as recognized by its accreditor), are repairing the sector’s image among both policy-makers
and investors.
7. Many schools in the space have cut significant cost out of the business, but the magnitude of the cost cuts has varied
widely, leading us to believe there is significant further cost-cutting potential and margin leverage ahead for many
8. The potential range of negative regulatory outcomes has narrowed significantly, with the focus on gainful
employment and 90/10 (a legislative effort to exclude military funding dollars from the 10% of nonfederal money
required by this ratio) resulting in a much more manageable set of outcomes than the wide range of a few years ago
(with proposed marketing spending or even operating margin caps).
9. The sector trades at just over six times EBITDA, a significant discount in a market where inexpensive stocks are
increasingly hard to come by.

But we note that from an operator’s perspective, gainful employment still presents substantial risk—in its most punitive form,
the proposed rules could result in the closure of more than 10% of for-profit programs and likely costly changes even to
passing programs. While we believe most management teams remain in a holding pattern and are not making any operational
changes in the near term, we believe the rulemaking

Link to full report:

Timo Connor, CFA

William Blair & Company, L.L.C.

U.S. Department of Education held the first gainful employment negotiated rulemaking session

dept of educationYesterday, the U.S. Department of Education held the first gainful employment negotiated rule-making session.  Here are some highlights from the proceedings.

  • The morning portion was filled with procedural discussions and yada yada…  The panel rejected three additional representatives to the committee, including:  Florida Coastal School of Law,  U.S. Chamber of Commerce,  Bridgepoint Education.
  • Barmak Nassirian, representing public four-year institutions on behalf of AASCU raised the idea of gainful employment being an upfront requirement giving the Department the ultimate authority to decide what programs should exist at what institutions based on a review of factors, such as market needs, pay sufficiently above the minimum wage to justify the cost, etc.
  • Brian Jones, the general counsel at Strayer University and negotiator on behalf of publicly-held institutions explained the new program approval process and the role of accreditors in response to Nassirian’s proposal.
  • Ray Testa, from Empire Education Group, questioned whether there is a need to define gainful employment since it has been around for a long period of time.
  • Belle Wheelan, the president of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, raised a similiar issue when talking about being unable to control the economy or availability of jobs.
  • Testa raised concern on an institution’s inability to limit borrowing by students. In the previous GE regulation, the Department recognized this problem and allowed for amounts to be limited to tuition and fees in the calculation. That cap was deleted in the new proposal put forward by the Department.
  • The community college negotiator also raised concerns with students over borrowing for living expenses and not for education expenses – a common theme.
  • Marc Jerome from Monroe College explained why the debt-to-earnings ratios don’t work, in part, because of the retroactive nature of the calculation. Changes an institution makes today to reduce debt won’t help the student who has already completed; since debt is all that matters, programs may fail the calculation even though institutions have reduced debt for current students.
  • Nassirian suggested that when institutions have programs in the zone (not passing but not failing) institutions should be required to take action such as, post a letter of credit, not pay dividends or freeze executive compensation.
  • Nassirian turned the discussion to marketing and advertising and suggested targeting institutions that spend more on those activities than on education/instruction.

Testa raised several issues directed at the retrenching of the Department in this version of the regulation as compared to the previous one. He challenged the use of the eight percent standard for the annual debt-to-earnings ratio; the exclusion of non-Title IV students and the reduction in cohort size from 30 to 10, among other things.

Media coverage
The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed and Politico were all in attendance for various portions of the session, we will circulate their coverage tomorrow in the APSCU morning media clips, as well as tomorrow’s update. Bloomberg, PoliticoNPR and Inside Higher Ed all published preview stories this morning.

APSCU content
APSCU continues to push messages and content that supports the press statements we made on September 5 and August 30. In advance of today’s session, we provided a list of questions to the negotiators for our institutions. Many of the issues were raised in this afternoon’s opening discussions.


Feedback on lead scoring, surprising to some…


lead scoring

lead scoring

Results from the 2013 educational advertising survey on the topic of lead scoring will surprise some.  With the vast majority of respondents finding little value in lead scoring is it a sign of a shift in perceived value or lack of education and awareness?  Lead scoring came in to the industry with momentum as schools believe in reducing the waste in their marketing spend and are looking for ways to improve results.  However, it seems as if the industry’s sentiment has lost some of its momentum.  With improvement in technology and knowledge base continues from the agency side and technology firms, many feel that lead scoring has lost some value.

What are your thoughts?

Education Department Rules on For-Profit Schools Created With Investor’s Help

Steve Eisman, senior portfolio manager of the FrontPoint Financial Services Fund, speaks at the 16th annual Sohn Investment Conference in New York May 25.

A proposed regulation from the Education Department threatens to devastate for-profit career or trade schools, but one thing is even more controversial than the regulation — how it was crafted.

Education Department officials were encouraged and advised about the content of the regulation by a man who stood to make millions if it were issued.

“Wall Street investors were manipulating the regulatory process and Department of Education officials were letting them,” charged Melanie Sloan of a liberal-leaning ethics watchdog called Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Sloan has sued the Department of Education over the matter and called on the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate. An inspector general is also investigating whether officials shared sensitive information with officers of a hedge fund that stood to gain from it.

“It is an entirely new thing to actually try and manipulate the regulation in order to change the stock price and make a lot of money,” she said.

But critics say that is no excuse to work with a hedge fund manager who stood to gain from the regulation whose content he was trying to guide.

Interesting how our current government is making headlines touting anti corruption and more regulations yet they work hand in hand with one of the most notorious manipulators in the business, we wonder how much he is giving to their campaign…

Read more @ fox:


Related Links
Obama Crackdown on For-Profit Colleges Faces Stiff Resistance

Edu Stocks continue to fluctuate

Good news is the Republicans took the House, bad news Dems held the Senate.  EDU stocks continue to fluctuate due to uncertainty and fear.   Many arguments on both sides of the fence as to what will happen in 2011…  Happy to hear a lot more discussion and understanding about the positives the for profits bring to education.  About the outreach they provide to those ignored most by traditional academia.