Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Litigation and Legal 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, invasion of privacy; trademark, copyright and patent infringement; U.S. False Claims Act (False Claims Act) violations; violations of 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. 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. 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, and is expected to be administered in 2014. On or about January 17, 2008, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania contacted KHE’s Broomall campus and made inquiries about the Surgical Technology program, including the program’s eligibility for Title IV U.S. Federal financial aid, the program’s student loan defaults, licensing and accreditation. Kaplan responded to the information requests and fully cooperated with the inquiry. The ED also conducted a program review at the Broomall campus, and Kaplan likewise cooperated with the program review. On July 22, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced that it had entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement with Kaplan that resolved the U.S. Attorney’s inquiry, provided for the conclusion of the ED’s program review and also settled a previously sealed False Claims Act complaint that had been filed by a former employee of the CHI-Broomall campus. The total amount of all required payments by Broomall under the agreements was $1.6 million. Pursuant to the comprehensive settlement agreement, the U.S. Attorney inquiry has been closed, the False Claims Act complaint (United States of America ex rel. David Goodstein v. Kaplan, Inc. et al.) was dismissed with prejudice and the ED will issue a final program review determination. At this time, Kaplan cannot predict the contents of the pending final program review determination or the ultimate impact the proceedings may have on the Broomall campus or the KHE business generally. During 2013, certain Kaplan subsidiaries were subject to two other 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). 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. As of December 2013, the Diaz and Gillespie rulings were on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Court, where the Company will seek affirmation of the judgments in its favor. On July 7, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the Jajdelski complaint in its entirety and entered a final judgment in favor of Kaplan. On February 13, 2013, the U.S. Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed the dismissal on one allegation under the False Claims Act relating to eligibility for Title IV funding based on claims of false attendance. As of December 2013, this case had been remanded to the District Court, where discovery is expected to take place in 2014 as to the remaining allegation in the complaint. On October 21, 2010, Kaplan Higher Education Corporation received a subpoena from the office of the Florida Attorney General. The subpoena sought information pertaining to the online and on-campus schools operated by KHE in and outside of Florida. KHE has cooperated with the Florida Attorney General and provided the information requested in the subpoena. Although KHE may receive further requests for information from the Florida Attorney General, there has been no such further correspondence to date. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry. On December 21, 2010, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Kaplan Higher Education Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging racial bias by Kaplan in requesting credit scores of job applicants seeking financial positions. In March 2011, the court granted in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On January 28, 2013, the court entered summary judgment in favor of Kaplan Higher Education Corporation and against the EEOC, terminating the case in its entirety. The EEOC appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, and briefing on that appeal was completed in November 2013. On February 7, 2011, Kaplan Higher Education Corporation received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois. The demand primarily sought information pertaining to Kaplan University’s online students who are residents of Illinois. KHE has cooperated with the Illinois Attorney General and provided the requested information. Although KHE may receive further requests for information from the Illinois Attorney General, there has been no such further correspondence to date. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry. On April 30, 2011, Kaplan Higher Education Corporation received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts. The demand primarily sought information pertaining to KHE Campuses’ students who are residents of Massachusetts. KHE has cooperated with the Massachusetts Attorney General and provided the requested information, as well as additional information requested in 2012 and 2013. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry. On July 20, 2011, Kaplan Higher Education Corporation received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Delaware. The demand primarily sought information pertaining to Kaplan University’s online students and KHE Campuses’ students who are residents of Delaware. KHE has cooperated with the Delaware Attorney General and provided the information requested in the subpoena. Although KHE may receive further requests for information from the Delaware Attorney General, there has been no such further correspondence to date. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry. Student Financial Aid. The Company’s education division derives the majority of its revenues from U.S. Federal financial aid received by its students under Title IV programs administered by the ED pursuant to the Higher Education Act, as amended. To maintain eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, a school must comply with extensive statutory and regulatory requirements relating to its financial aid management, educational programs, financial strength, administrative capability, compensation practices, facilities, recruiting practices and various other matters. In addition, the school must be licensed or otherwise legally authorized to offer postsecondary educational programs by the appropriate governmental body in the state or states in which it is physically located or is otherwise subject to state authorization requirements, be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the ED and be certified to participate in the Title IV programs by the ED. Schools are required periodically to apply for renewal of their authorization, accreditation or certification with the applicable state governmental bodies, accrediting agencies and the ED. In accordance with ED regulations, some KHE schools operate individually while others are combined into groups of two or more schools for the purpose of determining compliance with certain Title IV requirements, and each school or school group is assigned its own identification number, known as an OPEID number. As a result, as of the end of 2013, the schools in KHE have a total of 25 OPEID numbers. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Higher Education Act or related regulations could result in the restriction or loss of the ability to participate in Title IV programs and subject the Company to financial penalties and refunds. No assurance can be given that the Kaplan schools, or individual programs within schools, will maintain their Title IV eligibility, accreditation and state authorization in the future or that the ED might not successfully assert that one or more of such schools have previously failed to comply with Title IV requirements. Financial aid and assistance programs are subject to political and governmental budgetary considerations. There is no assurance that such funding will be maintained at current levels. Extensive and complex regulations in the U.S. govern all of the government financial assistance programs in which students participate. For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, approximately $819 million, $882 million and $1,110 million, respectively, of the Company’s education division revenue was derived from financial aid received by students under Title IV programs. Management believes that the Company’s education division schools that participate in Title IV programs are in material compliance with standards set forth in the Higher Education Act and related regulations. ED Program Reviews. The ED has undertaken program reviews at various KHE locations. Currently, there are three pending program reviews, including the ED's final report on the program review at KHE’s Broomall, PA, location. In May 2012, the ED issued a preliminary report containing several findings that required Kaplan University to conduct additional file reviews and submit additional data. In January 2013, Kaplan submitted a response to the ED’s data request. In December 2013, the ED issued its Final Program Review Report determining that Kaplan University was required to repay a nominal sum. 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. The 90/10 Rule. Under regulations referred to as the 90/10 rule, a KHE school would lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs for a period of at least two fiscal years if the institution derives more than 90% of its receipts from Title IV programs, as calculated on a cash basis in accordance with the Higher Education Act and applicable ED regulations, in each of two consecutive fiscal years. An institution with Title IV receipts exceeding 90% for a single fiscal year would be placed on provisional certification and may be subject to other enforcement measures. The 90/10 rule calculations are performed for each OPEID unit. The largest OPEID reporting unit in KHE in terms of revenue is Kaplan University, which accounted for approximately 69% of the Title IV funds received by the division in 2013. In 2013, Kaplan University derived less than 81% of its receipts from the Title IV programs, and other OPEID units derived between 69% and 89% of their receipts from Title IV programs. In 2012, Kaplan University derived less than 80% of its receipts from Title IV programs, and other OPEID units derived between 71% and 88% of their receipts from Title IV programs. A majority of KHE students are enrolled in certificate and associate’s degree programs. Revenue from certificate and associate’s degree programs is composed of a higher percentage of Title IV funds than is the case for revenue from KHE’s bachelor’s and other degree programs. KHE is taking various measures to reduce the percentage of its receipts attributable to Title IV funds, including modifying student payment options; emphasizing direct-pay and employer-paid education programs; encouraging students to carefully evaluate the amount of their Title IV borrowing; eliminating some programs; cash-matching; and developing and offering additional non-Title IV-eligible certificate preparation, professional development and continuing education programs, some of which programs were acquired by certain KHE campuses in 2013 from other Kaplan businesses. Kaplan has taken steps to ensure that revenue from programs acquired by a KHE campus is eligible to be counted in that campus’ 90/10 calculation. However, there can be no guarantee that the ED will not challenge the inclusion of revenue from any recently acquired program in KHE’s 90/10 calculations or will not issue an interpretation of the 90/10 rule that would exclude such revenue from the calculation. Absent the adoption of the changes mentioned above, and if current trends continue, management estimates that in 2014, three of the KHE Campuses’ OPEID units, representing approximately 1.7% of KHE’s 2013 revenues, could have a 90/10 ratio over 90%. As noted above, Kaplan is taking steps to address compliance with the 90/10 rule; however, there can be no guarantee that these measures will be adequate to prevent the 90/10 ratio at some of the schools from exceeding 90% in the future.

CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and Legal 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, invasion of privacy; trademark, copyright and patent infringement; U.S. False Claims Act (False Claims Act) violations; violations of 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. 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.

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, and is expected to be administered in 2014.

On or about January 17, 2008, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania contacted KHE’s Broomall campus and made inquiries about the Surgical Technology program, including the program’s eligibility for Title IV U.S. Federal financial aid, the program’s student loan defaults, licensing and accreditation. Kaplan responded to the information requests and fully cooperated with the inquiry. The ED also conducted a program review at the Broomall campus, and Kaplan likewise cooperated with the program review. On July 22, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced that it had entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement with Kaplan that resolved the U.S. Attorney’s inquiry, provided for the conclusion of the ED’s program review and also settled a previously sealed False Claims Act complaint that had been filed by a former employee of the CHI-Broomall campus. The total amount of all required payments by Broomall under the agreements was $1.6 million. Pursuant to the comprehensive settlement agreement, the U.S. Attorney inquiry has been closed, the False Claims Act complaint (United States of America ex rel. David Goodstein v. Kaplan, Inc. et al.) was dismissed with prejudice and the ED will issue a final program review determination. At this time, Kaplan cannot predict the contents of the pending final program review determination or the ultimate impact the proceedings may have on the Broomall campus or the KHE business generally.

During 2013, certain Kaplan subsidiaries were subject to two other 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).

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. As of December 2013, the Diaz and Gillespie rulings were on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Court, where the Company will seek affirmation of the judgments in its favor.

On July 7, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the Jajdelski complaint in its entirety and entered a final judgment in favor of Kaplan. On February 13, 2013, the U.S. Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed the dismissal on one allegation under the False Claims Act relating to eligibility for Title IV funding based on claims of false attendance. As of December 2013, this case had been remanded to the District Court, where discovery is expected to take place in 2014 as to the remaining allegation in the complaint.

On October 21, 2010, Kaplan Higher Education Corporation received a subpoena from the office of the Florida Attorney General. The subpoena sought information pertaining to the online and on-campus schools operated by KHE in and outside of Florida. KHE has cooperated with the Florida Attorney General and provided the information requested in the subpoena. Although KHE may receive further requests for information from the Florida Attorney General, there has been no such further correspondence to date. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry.

On December 21, 2010, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Kaplan Higher Education Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging racial bias by Kaplan in requesting credit scores of job applicants seeking financial positions. In March 2011, the court granted in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On January 28, 2013, the court entered summary judgment in favor of Kaplan Higher Education Corporation and against the EEOC, terminating the case in its entirety. The EEOC appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, and briefing on that appeal was completed in November 2013.

On February 7, 2011, Kaplan Higher Education Corporation received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois. The demand primarily sought information pertaining to Kaplan University’s online students who are residents of Illinois. KHE has cooperated with the Illinois Attorney General and provided the requested information. Although KHE may receive further requests for information from the Illinois Attorney General, there has been no such further correspondence to date. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry.

On April 30, 2011, Kaplan Higher Education Corporation received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts. The demand primarily sought information pertaining to KHE Campuses’ students who are residents of Massachusetts. KHE has cooperated with the Massachusetts Attorney General and provided the requested information, as well as additional information requested in 2012 and 2013. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry.

On July 20, 2011, Kaplan Higher Education Corporation received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Delaware. The demand primarily sought information pertaining to Kaplan University’s online students and KHE Campuses’ students who are residents of Delaware. KHE has cooperated with the Delaware Attorney General and provided the information requested in the subpoena. Although KHE may receive further requests for information from the Delaware Attorney General, there has been no such further correspondence to date. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry.

Student Financial Aid. The Company’s education division derives the majority of its revenues from U.S. Federal financial aid received by its students under Title IV programs administered by the ED pursuant to the Higher Education Act, as amended. To maintain eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, a school must comply with extensive statutory and regulatory requirements relating to its financial aid management, educational programs, financial strength, administrative capability, compensation practices, facilities, recruiting practices and various other matters. In addition, the school must be licensed or otherwise legally authorized to offer postsecondary educational programs by the appropriate governmental body in the state or states in which it is physically located or is otherwise subject to state authorization requirements, be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the ED and be certified to participate in the Title IV programs by the ED. Schools are required periodically to apply for renewal of their authorization, accreditation or certification with the applicable state governmental bodies, accrediting agencies and the ED. In accordance with ED regulations, some KHE schools operate individually while others are combined into groups of two or more schools for the purpose of determining compliance with certain Title IV requirements, and each school or school group is assigned its own identification number, known as an OPEID number. As a result, as of the end of 2013, the schools in KHE have a total of 25 OPEID numbers. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Higher Education Act or related regulations could result in the restriction or loss of the ability to participate in Title IV programs and subject the Company to financial penalties and refunds. No assurance can be given that the Kaplan schools, or individual programs within schools, will maintain their Title IV eligibility, accreditation and state authorization in the future or that the ED might not successfully assert that one or more of such schools have previously failed to comply with Title IV requirements.

Financial aid and assistance programs are subject to political and governmental budgetary considerations. There is no assurance that such funding will be maintained at current levels. Extensive and complex regulations in the U.S. govern all of the government financial assistance programs in which students participate.

For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, approximately $819 million, $882 million and $1,110 million, respectively, of the Company’s education division revenue was derived from financial aid received by students under Title IV programs. Management believes that the Company’s education division schools that participate in Title IV programs are in material compliance with standards set forth in the Higher Education Act and related regulations.

ED Program Reviews. The ED has undertaken program reviews at various KHE locations. Currently, there are three pending program reviews, including the ED's final report on the program review at KHE’s Broomall, PA, location.

In May 2012, the ED issued a preliminary report containing several findings that required Kaplan University to conduct additional file reviews and submit additional data. In January 2013, Kaplan submitted a response to the ED’s data request. In December 2013, the ED issued its Final Program Review Report determining that Kaplan University was required to repay a nominal sum.

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.

The 90/10 Rule. Under regulations referred to as the 90/10 rule, a KHE school would lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs for a period of at least two fiscal years if the institution derives more than 90% of its receipts from Title IV programs, as calculated on a cash basis in accordance with the Higher Education Act and applicable ED regulations, in each of two consecutive fiscal years. An institution with Title IV receipts exceeding 90% for a single fiscal year would be placed on provisional certification and may be subject to other enforcement measures. The 90/10 rule calculations are performed for each OPEID unit. The largest OPEID reporting unit in KHE in terms of revenue is Kaplan University, which accounted for approximately 69% of the Title IV funds received by the division in 2013. In 2013, Kaplan University derived less than 81% of its receipts from the Title IV programs, and other OPEID units derived between 69% and 89% of their receipts from Title IV programs. In 2012, Kaplan University derived less than 80% of its receipts from Title IV programs, and other OPEID units derived between 71% and 88% of their receipts from Title IV programs.

A majority of KHE students are enrolled in certificate and associate’s degree programs. Revenue from certificate and associate’s degree programs is composed of a higher percentage of Title IV funds than is the case for revenue from KHE’s bachelor’s and other degree programs. KHE is taking various measures to reduce the percentage of its receipts attributable to Title IV funds, including modifying student payment options; emphasizing direct-pay and employer-paid education programs; encouraging students to carefully evaluate the amount of their Title IV borrowing; eliminating some programs; cash-matching; and developing and offering additional non-Title IV-eligible certificate preparation, professional development and continuing education programs, some of which programs were acquired by certain KHE campuses in 2013 from other Kaplan businesses. Kaplan has taken steps to ensure that revenue from programs acquired by a KHE campus is eligible to be counted in that campus’ 90/10 calculation. However, there can be no guarantee that the ED will not challenge the inclusion of revenue from any recently acquired program in KHE’s 90/10 calculations or will not issue an interpretation of the 90/10 rule that would exclude such revenue from the calculation. Absent the adoption of the changes mentioned above, and if current trends continue, management estimates that in 2014, three of the KHE Campuses’ OPEID units, representing approximately 1.7% of KHE’s 2013 revenues, could have a 90/10 ratio over 90%. As noted above, Kaplan is taking steps to address compliance with the 90/10 rule; however, there can be no guarantee that these measures will be adequate to prevent the 90/10 ratio at some of the schools from exceeding 90% in the future.