Bridgepoint

<h1 class="asset-name" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</h1><h1 class="asset-name" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">inside the wire</h1><div>The hires announced included others with deep experience in education policy, as well as more controversial picks.The addition of Rob Eitel, who was named senior counselor to the secretary Wednesday, was the subject of media scrutiny last month after it was reported that he had taken a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/business/education-for-profit-robert-eitel.html?r=0" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none;">leave of absence</a> from for-profit college chain Bridgepoint Education Inc. to serve as a special assistant to DeVos. Eitel had been the chief compliance officer at Bridgepoint, which would be affected by the department's approach to regulations such as borrower defense and gainful employment.</div><h1 class="asset-name" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></h1><h1 class="asset-name" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Deborah Pryce. Bridgepoint has paid large sums for Washington lobbyists in recent years, as its reputation has declined. It has paid the big national law firm Holland & Knight LLP $320,000 per year for the past three years, and $150,000 the year before that, to lobby on the gainful employment rule, Pell grants, and other higher education issues. Included on the Bridgepoint lobbying team are Holland lawyers Paul Bock, who was chief of staff for Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) from 1997 to 2009, and Rich Gold, who once worked for Senator Llloyd Bentsen and worked in the Clinton administration EPA. Bridgepoint also paid the ominously-named firm Fierce Government Relations $240,000 over the past year to lobby in Washington. Kirk Blalock is one of eight lobbyists listed on Fierce’s federal disclosure form. Most are Republican former government staffers, and Blalock’s resume is especially impressive. He was Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director, White House Office of Public Liaison in the George W. Bush Administration. According to his bio, Blalock “was Bush’s lead staff liaison to the U.S. business community…. Previous to his Presidential appointment, Kirk served in several key positions, including: Director of External Affairs, Philip Morris Companies Inc.; Special Assistant to Chairman Haley Barbour, Republican National Committee; and Special Assistant to U.S. Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander. Kirk served as the National Chairman for Young Professionals for John McCain during the 2008 Presidential election.”  Another lobbying firm, CCN Group, got $120,000 to lobby for Bridgepoint in the same period, and the most notable of the eight CCCN lobbyists assigned to the account is former U.S. Representative Deborah Pryce (R), who represented Ohio’s 15th district from 1993 to 2009 and was, from 2003 to 2005, House Conference Chair, making her, according to her bio, “the highest-ranking Republican woman in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives.”ConclusionSome of the people described in this report, such as the corporate litigators who have defended multiple predatory colleges in court against claims of fraud, and the connected lobbyists who have worked in Washington to fight against Obama Administration rules to protect students, have been actively using their considerable skills to form a protective infrastructure that has allowed bad for-profit colleges to act with impunity. Others have simply agreed to be used as window dressing, signaling with their own reputations to policymakers and potential students alike that troubled institutions are actually fine, affordable places to train for careers.  Either way, these individuals have chosen to enrich or advance themselves at tremendous cost to both students and taxpayers.Nothing, it appears, can stop esteemed lawyers, lobbyists, and other prominent people from defending and endorsing predatory actors — the lure of the money is just too strong for too many.  It’s easy for people to tell themselves stories about the rights of companies to have their day in court or to present their case in public, the opportunity to act as conciliators and reformers by working out differences between regulators and industry, the genuine respect and admiration they have for the powerful CEOs and investors in this industry.Certainly, not all claims against even the worst schools are meritorious, and government reform efforts can benefit from the input of industry members.But there is no good excuse for the ways that individuals have made themselves powerful, sustained validators for higher education companies that have for years deceived, abused, and ruined the financial futures of countless Americans — and continue to do so to this day — and that have aggressively opposed all meaningful accountability measures.The only appropriate solution is strong enforcement by the Department of Education and other government agencies, and strong engagement by students and other citizens, to press against powerful industry validators and ensure effective measures to channel taxpayer money only to those schools that are genuinely helping people to train for better futures. We must make the case that sending billions annually to deceptive and poorly-performing for-profit college companies is not in America’s national interest.This report also appears on <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">Huffington Post</a>. About the writerDavid Halperin is a Washington, DC, lawyer. He engages in advocacy on public policy issues, including higher education, environmental protection, open government, and money in politics, and he advises organizations on strategy, policy, communications, and legal matters.Halperin was previously: founding director of Campus Progress and senior vice president at the Center for American Progress; senior policy advisor for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign; founding executive director of the American Constitution Society; White House speechwriter and special assistant for national security affairs to President Bill Clinton; co-founder of the Internet company Progressive Networks (now called RealNetworks); and counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee.Halperin writes at <a class="c6" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.republicreport.org/&sa=D&ust=1466462132814000&usg=AFQjCNGw48xjbDpIk35h4GjhPRGGLZSeJA" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">RepublicReport.org</a> and <a class="c6" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/&sa=D&ust=1466462132815000&usg=AFQjCNFQc0VbU4B8qPtkiIKULUHlebscGw" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">Huffington Post</a>, and his articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Nation, The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, and many other publications. He published the 2014 ebook, <a class="c6" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/Stealing-Americas-Future-Profit-Taxpayers-ebook/dp/B00JAJGIIK&sa=D&ust=1466462132817000&usg=AFQjCNEdxuAYil5Zz-ysOHGW986MCZ3LQQ" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">Stealing America’s Future</a>: How For-Profit Colleges Scam Taxpayers and Ruin Students’ Lives. He graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School.</h1><h1 class="asset-name" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</h1>Steve Forbes. Last year, the former GOP presidential

contender signed a deal with Bridgepoint Education under which

Bridgepoint would pay Forbes Media at least $45 million over twelve

years to name Bridgepoint’s Ashford University business school the

Forbes School of Business and license Forbes content. Following this

deal, would Forbes magazine be prepared to report honestly on

Bridgepoint, which has been under investigation by the attorneys general

of Californa, Iowa, New York, and North Carolina, and which Senator Tom

Harkin (D-IA) called “a scam, an absolute scam”?==

While the Parent Trigger law first came to be in California, the idea has been propagated by two controversial right-wing organizations: the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council" title="American Legislative Exchange Council" style=" text-decoration: none; background: none;">American Legislative Exchange Council</a> and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute" title="Heartland Institute" style=" text-decoration: none; background: none;">Heartland Institute</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/StudentsFirst#cite_note-PRW1-8" style=" text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a> As CMD has reported, Parent Trigger laws have been backed by groups pushing the privatization of public schools. The pro-privatization <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute" title="Heartland Institute" style=" text-decoration: none; background: none;">Heartland Institute</a> took up the idea in 2010, with <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://heartland.org/policy-documents/parent-trigger-model-transforming-education" style=" text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: url() 100% 50% no-repeat;">their version of the bill</a> going much further in giving parents the authority to trigger a school's restructuring regardless of whether it is "failing" or not, and calling for the inclusion of a "school voucher" option. The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC" title="ALEC" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; background: none;">ALEC</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Education_Task_Force" title="Education Task Force" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; background: none;">Education Task Force</a> approved ALEC's model "Parent Trigger Act" also in 2010 after Heartland brought them the idea.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/StudentsFirst#cite_note-PRW1-8" style=" text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a> ALEC's education task force at the time was chaired by for-proift education firm, Connections Academy. Other members on the task force include tech companies, testing companies and for-profit higher-education "diploma mills" like Bridgepoint Education and Corinthian Education<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/StudentsFirst#cite_note-PRW1-8" style=" text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a>

==

Bridgepoint Education (Ashford University, University of the Rockies)

<ul>

<li>California attorney general investigation of Bridgepoint</li>

</ul>

“The goal is ‘to evaluate whether Bridgepoint has violated California law by making false or misleading statements to Californians during telephone calls, including telemarketing calls, and through other sales and marketing efforts,’ the court filing said.”

<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/24/local/la-me-0725-online-probe-20130725">http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/24/local/la-me-0725-online-probe-20130725</a> (07-24-13)

<ul>

<li>North Carolina attorney general investigation of Bridgepoint</li>

</ul>

Bridgepoint SEC 8-K, 10-03-11: “On September 30, 2011, Ashford University received from the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina (“Attorney General”) an Investigative Demand relating to the Attorney General’s investigation of whether the university’s business practices complied with North Carolina consumer protection law.  Pursuant to the Investigative Demand, the Attorney General has requested from Ashford University documents and detailed information for the time period January 1, 2008, to present.  The university is evaluating the Investigative Demand and intends to comply with the Attorney General’s request.”

<a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532311000022/form8-kx10311.htm">http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532311000022/form8-kx10311.htm</a>

<ul>

<li>New York attorney general investigation of Bridgepoint</li>

</ul>

Bridgepoint SEC 8-k, 05-19-11:

“On May 18, 2011, we received from the Attorney General of the State of New York (“Attorney General”) a Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Subpoena”) relating to the Attorney General’s investigation of whether we and our academic institutions have complied with certain New York state consumer protection, securities and finance laws.  Pursuant to the Subpoena, the Attorney General has requested from us and our academic institutions documents and detailed information for the time period March 17, 2005, to present.  We are evaluating the Subpoena and intend to comply with the Attorney General’s request.”

<a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532311000003/form8-kxny.htm">http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532311000003/form8-kxny.htm</a>

<ul>

<li>Massachusetts attorney general investigation of Bridgepoint</li>

</ul>

Bridgepoint SEC 8-k, 07-25-14:

“On July 21, 2014, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. (the “Company”) and Ashford University received from the Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts (“Attorney General”) a Civil Investigative Demand relating to the Attorney General’s investigation of for-profit educational institutions and whether the university’s business practices complied with Massachusetts consumer protection laws.  Pursuant to the Investigative Demand, the Attorney General has requested from the Company and Ashford University Massachusetts student information and complaints for the time period January 1, 2006, to present.  The Company and the university are evaluating the Investigative Demand and intend to comply with the Attorney General’s request.”

<a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532314000045/form8-kxitem801.htm">http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532314000045/form8-kxitem801.htm</a>

<ul>

<li>Iowa attorney general settlement with Bridgepoint, announced May 16, 2014</li>

</ul>

May 16, 2014: Iowa AG Tom Miller announced settlement of investigation, providing $7.25 million in restitution for Ashford University’s 5000 Iowa students. The agreement bars deceptive advertising and coercive recruiting and creates an independent overseer, former US Associate Attorney General Thomas J Perrilli.

Settlement agreement, May 16, 2014:

<a href="http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/latest_news/releases/may_2014/Ashford_AVC.pdf">http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/latest_news/releases/may_2014/Ashford_AVC.pdf</a>

Press statement from AG Miller, May 16, 2014:

<a href="http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/latest_news/releases/may_2014/AU_BE.html">http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/latest_news/releases/may_2014/AU_BE.html</a>

Bridgepoint 8-K, May 16, 2014:

<a href="http://bridgepoint.q4cdn.com/a0c4824b-5556-4d77-8398-f4b4c5cc7f79.pdf?noexit=true">http://bridgepoint.q4cdn.com/a0c4824b-5556-4d77-8398-f4b4c5cc7f79.pdf?noexit=true</a>

<ul>

<li>SEC investigation of Bridgepoint</li>

</ul>

Bridgepoint SEC 8-k, 07-25-14:

“On July 22, 2014, the Company received from the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) a subpoena relating to certain of the Company’s accounting practices, including revenue recognition, receivables and other matters relating to the Company’s previously disclosed intention to restate its financial statements for fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and revise its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012, and the prior revision of the Company’s financial statements for fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.  Pursuant to the subpoena, the SEC has requested from the Company documents and detailed information for the time period January 1, 2009, to present.  The Company is evaluating the subpoena and intends to fully cooperate in the investigation.”

See also: <a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532314000034/form8-kxitems402and701.htm">http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532314000034/form8-kxitems402and701.htm</a>

<ul>

<li>Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigation of Bridgepoint</li>

</ul>

Bridgepoint SEC 8-k, 08-14-15:

“On August 10, 2015, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. (the “Company”) and Ashford University received from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) Civil Investigative Demands related to the CFPB’s investigation to determine whether for-profit post-secondary-education companies or other unnamed persons have engaged in or are engaging in unlawful acts or practices related to the advertising, marketing or origination of private student loans. At June 30, 2015, the Company had $9.1 million of net outstanding loans made from its institutions to their students. The Company and Ashford University expect to provide documents, testimony and other information to the CFPB, and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.”

<a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532315000055/form8-kxcfbpcidsaugust2015.htm">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532315000055/form8-kxcfbpcidsaugust2015.htm</a>

<ul>

<li>Department of Education actions re Bridgepoint</li>

</ul>

Bridgepoint Education SEC 10-Q, 11-05-15:

“Both Ashford University and University of the Rockies have been notified by the Department that the Department does not believe that our institutions fully responded to the [gainful employment] disclosures required and that this is an indication of a serious lack of administrative capability, and that as a result the Department will not make any decisions regarding the addition of any new programs and locations until the reporting requirements are met. We are currently working with the Department to address their concerns with respect to the reporting of our institutions under the Gainful Employment regulations. The Department has informed us that failure to fully comply in all Gainful Employment data reporting requirements will result in the referral of the errant institution to the Department’s Administrative Actions and Appeals Service Group for consideration of an administrative action against that institution.”

<a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532315000066/bpi093015form10-q.htm">http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532315000066/bpi093015form10-q.htm</a>

Bridgepoint Education SEC 8-K, 12-16-15:

“On December 10, 2015, Ashford University, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bridgepoint Education, Inc., (“the Company”) received a request for information from the Multi-Regional and Foreign School Participation Division of the Federal Student Aid office of the Department of Education (the “ED FSA”) for: (i) advertising and marketing materials provided to prospective students regarding the transferability of certain credit; (ii) documents produced in response to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) August 10, 2015 Civil Investigative Demand related to the CFPB’s investigation to determine whether for-profit post-secondary-education companies or other unnamed persons have engaged in or are engaging in unlawful acts or practices related to the advertising, marketing or origination of private student loans; (iii) certain documents produced in response to subpoenas and interrogatories issued by the California Attorney General; and (iv) records created between 2009 and 2012 related to the disbursement of certain Title IV funds. The ED FSA is investigating representations made by Ashford University to potential and enrolled students, and has asked the Company and Ashford University to assist in its assessment of Ashford University’s compliance with the prohibition on substantial misrepresentations. The Company and Ashford University intend to provide ED FSA with its full cooperation with a view toward demonstrating the compliant nature of its practices. The eventual scope, duration or outcome of the request cannot be predicted at this time.”

<a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532315000073/form8-kxdoedecember2015.htm">http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1305323/000130532315000073/form8-kxdoedecember2015.htm</a>

Canyon College

===

<h1 class="asset-name" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For-Profit Colleges Ready to Rumble Again</h1>

<div class="asset-meta" style="margin: 0.25em 0px 0px; padding: 2px 0px 0.3em; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">by Brandon Conradis on September 10, 2013 11:11 AM </div>

With students enjoying their first weeks on campus and President Obama's call to bring more accountability to colleges still reverberating, for-profit schools are gearing up for what could be <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/obama-administration-profit-colleges/story?id=20200162" target="_blank" style=" outline: none; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">another round of battles</a> over government efforts to tighten regulation of their operations.

The for-profit education industry has been <a href="https://chronicle.com/article/Obama-Singles-Out-For-Profit/141253/" target="_blank" style=" outline: none; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">under fire</a> for the past few years, thanks in part to charges that their students are more likely to graduate with higher levels of debt and fewer prospects of employment than students at nonprofit colleges.

In 2010, the Obama administration attempted <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/scrutiny-again-for-for-profit-colleges-96432.html" target="_blank" style=" outline: none; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">to take the industry to task</a>by proposing a set of new rules that would clamp down on the schools. Among these was a measure that would bar them from the government's financial aid programs -- their main source of profit -- if fewer than 35 percent of their graduates were actively repaying their student loans.

That same year, for-profit colleges ramped up their spending on lobbying to unprecedented levels in an effort to weaken the regulations. After they spent a <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/background.php?cycle=2012&ind=H5300" style=" outline: none; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">record high</a> $10.2 million in 2011, the Department of Education issued a series of softer regs, including a <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/06/03/gainful_employment_rule_to_test_for_profit_colleges/" target="_blank" style=" outline: none; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">multi-year grace period</a> in which for-profit schools would have time to meet the DOE's stricter requirements. Many saw this concession as a victory for the for-profit schools.

Still, the schools fought the 35 percent rule -- the key component of the Obama administration's newly issued regulations -- in court, and in 2012, a federal judge struck it down for being <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/education/judge-strikes-a-for-profit-college-regulation.html" target="_blank" style=" outline: none; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"arbitrary."</a> The industry <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/education-advocacy-declines-steeply.html" style=" outline: none; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">shaved its lobbying expenditures</a> to less than $8 million that year.

Now, a 15-member panel <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/for-profit-colleges-fear-another-attack-95097.html" target="_blank" style=" outline: none; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">has been established</a> by the Department of Education to rewrite those regs.

The for-profit institutions seem ready to slip into war footing again. A <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/induscode.php?id=H5300&year=" style=" outline: none; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">look</a> at the industry's current lobbying totals in 2013 shows that its spending could by year's end match that of last year. Companies like the Apollo Group (which operates, among other institutions, the University of Phoenix) and Corinthian Colleges, both of which are in the for-profit niche, continue to be among the top spenders on lobbying in the education industry as a whole.

The hefty increase in campaign contributions from the industry last year -- <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2012&ind=H5300" style=" outline: none; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">totaling nearly $4.5 million in 2011-2012</a>, up from $2.5 million in the 2010 cycle and $1.6 million in  2007-2008 -- could help, too, as lawmakers often weigh in with regulators to comment on the impact of actions affecting their favored industries. Tops in that department were the Apollo Group, which gave $525,902, and Bridgepoint Education, which gave $472,637, with the majority going to Republican candidates.

<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/09/for-profit-colleges-ready-to-rumble-again.html?utm_source=CRP+Mail+List&utm_campaign=1e96a8d5f8-Newsletter_9_12_20139_12_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9df8578d78-1e96a8d5f8-210710609">http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/09/for-profit-colleges-ready-to-rumble-again.html?utm_source=CRP+Mail+List&utm_campaign=1e96a8d5f8-Newsletter_9_12_20139_12_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9df8578d78-1e96a8d5f8-210710609</a>