Tag: Oxford International

Realities, Rumours and Days of Reckoning

Another week another private equity investment in pathways, but there’s no sign of the consolidation that would seem to make most sense in a sector beset by competitive pressures globally, rising costs of acquisition and restless partners.  Nonetheless, a few months of underlying movement with pathways closing or being won might suggest universities are beginning to look at their options in a more assertive manner.  This blog takes a quick run through the latest news and discuss a couple of emerging rumours*.

This week’s sale of Oxford International Education Group’s (OIEG) sale was a curate’s egg.  On the one hand there was the strategic backdrop of Nord Anglia buying the schools and colleges (via THI’s purchase of OIEG) to get a solid presence in the UK.  But the rump of the business leaves an assortment of English language offerings with a pathway business that has seen relatively slow growth in partnerships.

For many years there was a notion that pathway businesses and English language businesses had some sales, marketing and enrollment synergy but recent developments suggest other thinking.  The sale of Study Group’s Embassy language schools to EC came in November 2018 ahead of Ardian taking its majority stake in Study Group in February 2019.  Then in June 2019 English language provider EC sold its higher education arm to Study Group in a “strategic move” which EC suggested supported its “core strength” of full immersion English language provision.

THI does however make a lot of the synergy between Oxford International’s relatively new OI Digital Institute (OIDI), launched in 2020, as an online learning platform that sits neatly with Corndel and Learnship in their portfolio.  As far as I can see those brands offer diploma and language learning courses and OIDI has a range of English language courses, test preparation and non-credit bearing pre-Masters and PhD offerings.  It will be interesting to see how these line up against the credibility of CEG’s seven online degree partners, Study Group’s developing strategy with Insendi and Kaplan’s success at the universities of Liverpool and Essex.

The founders and management of OIEG have remained invested as part of the deal with THI but move from having a private investor with a minority stake (Bowmark) to one with a ‘controlling interest’ (THI).  A lot will be riding on the digital offering but also the capability of the English language business to recover from the drubbing the sector has received in recent years.  A rising exchange rate against the Euro deterring language students, the loss of European Union students to UK universities and the resurgence of the US as a student destination may give some headwinds.

Rumours

Most well-founded rumour is probably that CEG are teaching out at Coventry University and will be replaced.  There is no announcement but there seems no way of applying for a course at CEG’s OnCampus operation in Coventry starting in Autumn 2021.  The recent addition of Aston University and the University of Southampton to the CEG stable must have been welcome additions but it is difficult to see that they will quickly match the numbers at Coventry which were over 700 in 2018 according to a QAA report.

If one were to speculate there might be reasons to think that Study Group can leverage their relationship from the Coventry London Campus to win the prize of a pathway at the main campus.  But there have also been suggestions that Oxford International have a fighting chance given their CEO’s contacts with the university – including a contract stint working on international development.  There’s also the glowing recommendation from an Assistant Professor John Fowler of the university about the engagement with OIEG on the development of online, pre-university programmes.        

Less well baked but understandable in today’s feverish environment is the suggestion that INTO’s relationship with Oregon State University is under review.  The INTO team at the university seems well regarded and it may just be that a new President is running the rule over everything.  The fact that the President was previously President and Chancellor of Shorelight partner Louisiana State University (LSU) may add some spice but it’s worth remembering the Insider HigherEd piece which noted a target of 850 for the LSU pathway with only 136 enrolled students after three years.

There is no secret that INTO’s pathway joint ventures in the US suffered the loss of Marshall University in 2020 and Washington State University earlier this year, with reports suggesting that Colorado State University will also be closing.  Looking at the numbers for OSU indicates that the pathway center has had a very tough year with Fall 2020 enrollment declining 58.7% year on year from 809 to 334.  It may be tough to judge performance under current conditions but total enrollments at the pathway have been falling since a peak of over 1400 in 2014 so the trend is well established.  

Days of Reckoning

It is easy to forget how quickly the tides of fortune can change in the world of international student mobility.  The Australian charge to double digit enrollment growth appears to have foundered on a clumsy Government response to the pandemic and they may be out of the reckoning until 2023 unless there is a rapid turnaround.  A burst of interest in the UK has been partially challenged by the travel restrictions of the past year but the continuing extension of post-study work options will deliver opportunities and the data from UCAS suggests that Chinese numbers are particularly robust.  The post-Biden bubble in the US has seen rising interest from overseas but there are still problems in the tensions with China and the practical issues of getting visas.  In Canada there seems to be a growing interest in pathway programmes at lower ranked institutions and the threat from a resurgent US is looming.

For pathway providers, as for higher education more generally, the pandemic has thrown the need for high quality digital courses into sharp focus but without any certainty that students will want to engage in that medium when they can travel again.  For most universities the realities of high fixed costs in their geographical location mitigate against a wholesale shift away from trying to recruit students to attend in person.  It is just possible that the global student mobility world will return to something approaching the “old normal” rather than there being a “new normal” but with the added options of models incorporating digital and even, so some would suggest, virtual reality.

*Note

I am happy to accept authoritative responses, comments or corrections to any of the points made and will represent them in amendments to this blog.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

PATHWAY, DEAD END OR TIME FOR A U-TURN?

August 2018 will be the fifth anniversary of Shorelight’s first partner, Bath Spa University in the UK, being announced with suggestions that the university would ‘see its overseas intake swell to around 2,000 students over the next four years.’. The four years would run from 2015/16 to 2018/19.

It seemed a good moment to look at the pathway market and what happens when relationships don’t  work out.  This is partly because we may be entering a period where the pathway sector has matured and circumstances make it ripe for realignment.  The stakes are high on all sides and the factors are particularly relevant to the UK and US where growth in pathways has been rapid and international student recruitment has been under substantial pressure.

As finances tighten university management is under more scrutiny and is likely to demand more in terms of targets and delivery from partners.  The consequences of a failing pathway are becoming increasingly difficult to hide as direct recruitment gets harder.  Providers have their own problems with unprecedented global pressures and ubiquitous competition.  Some may be reaching a point where optimising their portfolio is more important than simply adding or maintaining capacity.

In the UK a number of institutions have been following the University of Sheffield to see how the switch from one major private provider to another might work.  Loyalties are under pressure as university leaders who signed the deal move on and some pathway providers look to change hands after the glut of private equity investment from 2010 to 2014.  Pressure to perform has never been greater.

So, when a pathway becomes a dead-end there is every incentive for one or other party to make a U-turn.  Or, as Warren Buffett is quoted as saying, “Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be a more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.”  And it doesn’t really matter if it’s a long-term contract (where remedies for under-performance are usually written in) or time for a tender after five years.

IT HASN’T ALWAYS ENDED WELL IN THE PAST
There is, of course, precedent and although closures can be hard to trace I have listed below those that I have uncovered in my research.  New partnerships are usually heralded with a fanfare and people smiling as they shake hands on a deal done. Unsurprisingly, a veil is drawn over partnerships that end and those that are public are usually dressed in anodyne media responses.

For both universities and providers that is unfortunate.  Considering and addressing failure is a good way of learning and often more informative than the bright, shiny case studies which are so popular as sales tools.  In my time with two leading universities with private providers and as COO and CEO with two providers I saw many factors that can make or break a partnership.  These are worth sharing.

I make no comment on the reasons for the ending of the relationships noted (but have referenced reports where available). Neither do I claim that this list is exhaustive and I would be interested in any other examples.  For organisations contemplating partnerships an open and honest discussion with those who have tried and moved on is probably worth as much as hours of expensive contract development.

Study Group
i) Stirling University (Opened 2007- Closed 2013) Source: QAA

INTO
i) University of East Anglia London (2010-2014) Source: THE)                                                                         ii) University of Stirling London (Opened 2014 – Closed 2015?)                                                                                     iii) St George’s University (Opened 2012 – closed 2017 Source: St George’s University Annual Report

Oxford International
i) Canterbury Christchurch (Opened 2015 – closed 2017?)

Kaplan
i) University of Utah (Opened 2010 – Closed?) ii)University of Sheffield (Opened 2006 – Closed 2015)

Navitas
i) Western Kentucky University (Opened 2010 – Closed 2016)
ii) Edinburgh Napier (Opened 2011 – due to close 2018)

PRIVATE PATHWAYS MAY NOT BE ACCESSIBLE OR GUARANTEE SUCCESS
UK universities with the greatest decline in overall international enrolments in the past five years often have no pathway partner or are relatively late to the party. Several of the non-aligned universities here have been actively seeking providers but there is, inevitably, caution from providers about taking on institutions that do not have underlying strength.

It remains to be seen whether some of the new partnerships can materially alter the trajectory of underperforming universities.  Sector sources suggest that Oxford International and the University of Bedfordshire are parting company and the provider is not currently listing this university on its website.

Table 1 – UK Universities With Greatest Decline In International Enrolments 2012/13 to 2016/17

Source: HESA (enrolments), QAA and University/Company websites

And that brings me full circle to Bath Spa and Shorelight. HESA data (supported by the University’s Annual Report narrative) showed strong growth in international recruitment from 2012/13 to 2014/15. In the first full year of the partnership with Shorelight (2015/16) there was a weakening of growth which was followed by declining international enrolments in 2016/17.  There is some way to go for the university to reach the anticipated 2,000 by 2018/19.

Table 2 – Bath Spa University International Enrolments 2012-13 to 2016/17

Source: HESA

Perhaps more troubling is that in December 2017 the THE reported that ‘figures available on (sic) Companies House show that Bath Spa Global – an international pathway college venture set up in 2014 in partnership with US firm Shorelight Education – has lost about £1.4 million in the three years to July 2016, while its parent company Bath Spa U has lost about £736,000 over the same period.’. The 2016/17 Financial Statement from Bath Spa showed international student income and numbers declining year on year and noted that the joint venture partnership, Bath Spa Global, ‘remains fragile’.  At the time of writing I can find no mention of Bath Spa University on Shorelight’s web-site and no current reference to Shorelight on the University’s site.