Edgar Filing: AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION INC

a6652282.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

(Rule 14a−101)

INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant	þ
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant	o
Check the appropriate box:

o	Preliminary Proxy Statement
o	Confidential, For Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a−6(e)(2))
þ	Definitive Proxy Statement
o	Definitive Additional Materials
o	Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a−12

American Public Education, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

þ	No fee required.

o	Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a−6(i)(4) and 0−11.

	(1)	Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

	(2)	Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

	(3)	Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0−11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

	(4)	Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

	(5)	Total fee paid:

o	Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0−1 1(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the form or schedule and the date of its filing.

	(1)	Amount previously paid:

	(2)	Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

	(3)	Filing Party:

	(4)	Date Filed:

AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION INC.

111 W. Congress Street

Charles Town, West Virginia 25414

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

The 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders will be held on May 6, 2011, at 7:30 a.m. local time, at the Hyatt at The Bellevue, 200 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 for the following purposes:

1. to elect seven members of the Board of Directors;

2. to approve the American Public Education, Inc. 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan;

3. to hold an advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in our proxy statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting;

4. to hold an advisory vote on the frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation of our named executive officers;

5. to ratify the appointment of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm for the Company for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011; and

6. to consider any other matters that properly come before the Annual Meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof.

Each outstanding share of American Public Education, Inc. common stock (NASDAQ: APEI) entitles the holder of record at the close of business on March 11, 2011, to receive notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting or any adjournment or postponement of the Annual Meeting.

We are pleased to take advantage of Securities and Exchange Commission rules that allow us to furnish our proxy materials and our annual report to stockholders on the Internet. We believe that posting these materials on the Internet enables us to provide stockholders with the information that they need more quickly, while lowering our costs of printing and delivery and reducing the environmental impact of our Annual Meeting.

WHETHER OR NOT YOU EXPECT TO ATTEND THE MEETING, WE URGE YOU TO VOTE YOUR SHARES BY INTERNET, TELEPHONE, OR BY SIGNING, DATING AND RETURNING THE PROXY CARD YOU WILL RECEIVE IF YOU REQUEST PRINTED MATERIALS. IF YOU CHOOSE TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING, YOU MAY STILL VOTE YOUR SHARES IN PERSON, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY VOTED OR RETURNED YOUR PROXY BY ANY OF THE METHODS DESCRIBED IN OUR PROXY STATEMENT. IF YOUR SHARES ARE HELD IN A BANK OR BROKERAGE ACCOUNT, PLEASE REFER TO THE MATERIALS PROVIDED BY YOUR BANK OR BROKER FOR VOTING INSTRUCTIONS.

ALL STOCKHOLDERS ARE EXTENDED A CORDIAL INVITATION TO ATTEND THE MEETING.

		By Order of the Board of Directors





		Dr. Wallace E. Boston, Jr.
		President and Chief Executive Officer
		March 22, 2011

AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION INC.

111 W. Congress Street

Charles Town, West Virginia 25414

PROXY STATEMENT FOR ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

To Be Held On May 6, 2011

This Proxy Statement (the “Proxy Statement”) and the accompanying proxy are furnished to the stockholders of American Public Education, Inc. (hereinafter, “we” “us” “American Public Education” and the “Company”) in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Board of Directors (the “Board”), to be voted at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) and at any adjournment or postponement of the Annual Meeting, which will be held at 7:30 a.m. local time on May 6, 2011, at the Hyatt at The Bellevue, 200 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102, for the purposes set forth in the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The Board has made this Proxy Statement and the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting available on the Internet. The Company mailed a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials to each of the Company’s stockholders entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting on or about March 22, 2011.

ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

Purpose of the Annual Meeting

The purpose of the Annual Meeting is for our stockholders to consider and act upon the proposals described in this Proxy Statement and any other matters that properly come before the Annual Meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof. Management is presently aware of no other business to come before the Annual Meeting. In addition, management will report on the performance of American Public Education and respond to questions from stockholders.

Proposals to be Voted Upon at the Annual Meeting

At the Annual Meeting, our stockholders will be asked to consider and vote upon the following five proposals:

●	Proposal No. 1: To elect seven directors to the Board, each of whom will hold office until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until his or her successor is elected and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation or removal.

●	Proposal No. 2: To adopt the American Public Education, Inc. 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan” or the “2011 Plan”).

●	Proposal No. 3: To approve, by advisory vote, the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in these proxy materials.

●	Proposal No. 4: To recommend, by advisory vote, the frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation of our named executive officers.

●	Proposal No. 5: To ratify the selection of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP (“McGladrey & Pullen”) as American Public Education’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011.

In addition, any other matters that properly come before the Annual Meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof will be considered. Management is presently aware of no other business to come before the Annual Meeting.

Recommendation of the Board

The Board recommends that you vote FOR each of the nominees to the Board (Proposal 1); FOR the adoption of the 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan (Proposal 2); FOR the approval of the compensation of our named executive officers (Proposal 3); in favor of future executive compensation votes EVERY YEAR (Proposal 4); and FOR the ratification of the appointment of McGladrey & Pullen as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 (Proposal 5).

Important Notice Regarding The Availability of Proxy Materials for the Stockholder Meeting To Be Held on May 6, 2011

Pursuant to the “notice and access” rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, we have elected to provide stockholders access to our proxy materials over the Internet. Accordingly, we sent a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the “Notice”) on March 22, 2011 to all of our stockholders as of the close of business on March 11, 2011 (the “Record Date”). The Notice includes instructions on how to access our proxy materials over the Internet and how to request a printed copy of these materials. In addition, by following the instructions in the Notice, stockholders may request to receive proxy materials in printed form by mail or electronically by e−mail on an ongoing basis.

Choosing to receive your future proxy materials by e-mail will save the Company the cost of printing and mailing documents to you and will reduce the impact of the Company’s annual meetings on the environment. If you choose to receive future proxy materials by e-mail, you will receive an e-mail next year with instructions containing a link to those materials and a link to the proxy voting site. Your election to receive proxy materials by e-mail will remain in effect until you terminate it.

Our Annual Report to Stockholders and this Proxy Statement are available at http://www.amstock.com/ProxyServices/ViewMaterials.asp?CoNumber=15611.

Voting at the Annual Meeting

Stockholders will be entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting on the basis of each share held of record at the close of business on the Record Date.

If on the Record Date you hold shares of our common stock that are represented by stock certificates or registered directly in your name with our transfer agent, American Stock Transfer & Trust Company (“AST”), you are considered the stockholder of record with respect to those shares, and AST is sending these proxy materials directly to you on our behalf. As a stockholder of record, you may vote in person at the meeting or by proxy. Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting in person, you may vote by Internet by following the instructions on the Notice. If you request printed copies of the proxy materials by mail, you may also vote by signing and submitting your proxy card or by submitting your vote by telephone. Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we urge you to vote by way of the Internet, by telephone, or by filling out and returning the proxy card you will receive upon request of printed materials. If you submit a proxy but do not give voting instructions as to how your shares should be voted on a particular proposal at the Annual Meeting, your shares will be voted in accordance with the recommendations of our Board stated in this Proxy Statement. Any proxy given pursuant to this solicitation may be revoked by the person giving it at any time before its use by (1) delivering a written notice of revocation addressed to American Public Education, Inc., Attn: Corporate Secretary, 111 W. Congress Street, Charles Town, West Virginia 25414, (2) a duly executed proxy bearing a later date, (3) voting again by Internet or by telephone, or (4) by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person. Your last vote or proxy will be the vote or proxy that is counted. Attendance at the Annual Meeting will not cause your previously granted proxy to be revoked unless you specifically so request.

If on the Record Date you hold shares of our common stock in an account with a brokerage firm, bank, or other nominee, then you are a beneficial owner of the shares and hold such shares in street name, and these proxy materials will be forwarded to you by that organization. As a beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your broker, bank, or other nominee on how to vote the shares held in their account, and the nominee has enclosed or provided voting instructions for you to use in directing it how to vote your shares. The nominee that holds your shares, however, is considered the stockholder of record for purposes of voting at the Annual Meeting. Because you are not the stockholder of record, you may not vote your shares in person at the Annual Meeting unless you bring a letter from your broker, bank or other nominee confirming your beneficial ownership of the shares to the Annual Meeting. Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we urge you to vote by following the voting instructions provided to you to ensure that your vote is counted.

If you are a beneficial owner and do not vote, and your broker, bank or other nominee does not have discretionary power to vote your shares, your shares may constitute “broker non−votes”. Shares that constitute broker non−votes will be counted for the purpose of establishing a quorum at the Annual Meeting. Voting results will be tabulated and certified by the inspector of elections appointed for the Annual Meeting. If you receive more than one Notice, it is because your shares are registered in more than one name or are registered in different accounts. Please follow the instructions on each Notice received to ensure that all of your shares are voted.

A list of stockholders of record as of the Record Date will be available for inspection during ordinary business hours at our offices located at 111 W. Congress Street, Charles Town, West Virginia 25414, from April 26, 2011 to the date of our Annual Meeting. The list will also be available for inspection at the Annual Meeting.

Quorum Requirement for the Annual Meeting

The presence at the Annual Meeting, whether in person or by valid proxy, of the persons holding a majority of shares of common stock outstanding on the Record Date will constitute a quorum, permitting us to conduct our business at the Annual Meeting. On the Record Date, there were 18,630,790 shares of common stock outstanding, held by 363 stockholders of record. Abstentions (i.e., if you or your broker mark “ABSTAIN” on a proxy) and “broker non−votes” will be considered to be shares present at the meeting for purposes of a quorum. Broker non−votes occur when shares held by a broker for a beneficial owner are not voted with respect to a particular proposal and generally occur because the broker (1) does not receive voting instructions from the beneficial owner and (2) lacks discretionary authority to vote the shares. Brokers and other nominees have discretionary authority to vote on ratification of our independent public accounting firm for clients who have not provided voting instructions. However, without voting instructions from their clients, they cannot vote on “non−routine” proposals, including the election of directors, the authorization of equity compensation plans, and matters related to executive compensation.

Required Votes

Election of Directors. The election of directors requires a plurality of the votes cast for the election of directors; accordingly, the seven directorships to be filled at the Annual Meeting will be filled by the seven nominees receiving the highest number of votes. Broker non−votes and abstentions are not taken into account in determining the outcome of this proposal because only a plurality of votes actually cast is required to elect a director.

Adoption of the 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the ratification of our independent public accounting firm and the advisory vote on executive compensation. Approval of the proposals to adopt the 2011 Plan and ratify the audit committee’s appointment of McGladrey & Pullen as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011, and the advisory vote on compensation of our named executive officers, requires the affirmative vote of the holders of at least a majority of the shares of common stock present in person or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote. Broker non-votes are not taken into account in determining the outcome of these proposals, and abstentions will have the effect of a vote against these proposals.

Frequency of future advisory vote on executive compensation. The proposal on the frequency of future advisory votes on compensation of our named executive officers permits stockholders to select among several alternatives, and it is possible that no one choice will receive a majority vote. Because this vote is merely advisory, the Board will consider but is not bound by its outcomes. While the Board is making a recommendation with respect to this proposal, stockholders are being asked to vote on the choices specified on the proxy card, and not whether they agree or disagree with the Board’s recommendation.

Solicitation of Proxies

We will bear the cost of solicitation of proxies. This includes the charges and expenses of brokerage firms and others for forwarding solicitation material to beneficial owners of our outstanding common stock. We may solicit proxies by mail, personal interview, telephone or via the Internet through our officers, directors and other management employees, who will receive no additional compensation for their services. We have engaged Georgeson Inc. to assist us with the solicitation of proxies, and we expect to pay $15,250 for their services plus out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the course of their work.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE STANDARDS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

The Board has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Code of Ethics”), and a Policy for Related Person Transactions as part of our corporate governance practices and in accordance with rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the listing standards of The NASDAQ Stock Market (“NASDAQ”).

Corporate Governance Matters

The Guidelines set forth a framework to assist the Board in the exercise of its responsibilities. The Guidelines cover, among other things, the composition and certain functions of the Board, director independence, stock ownership by our non−employee directors, management succession and review, Board committees, the selection of new directors, and director expectations.

The Code of Ethics covers, among other things, compliance with laws, rules and regulations, conflicts of interest, corporate opportunities, confidentiality, protection and proper use of company assets, and the reporting process for any illegal or unethical conduct. The Code of Ethics is applicable to all of our officers, directors and employees, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer. The Code of Ethics includes provisions that are specifically applicable to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and other Principal Officers (as defined in the Code of Ethics).

Any waiver of the Code of Ethics for our directors, executive officers or Principal Officers may be made only by our Board and will be promptly disclosed as may be required by law, regulation or rule of the SEC or NASDAQ listing standards. If we amend our Code of Ethics or waive the Code of Ethics with respect to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or other Principal Officer, we will post the amendment or waiver on our corporate website.

The Guidelines and Code of Ethics are each available in the Corporate Governance section of our corporate website, which is located at www.americanpubliceducation.com. The Guidelines, Code of Ethics, and Policy for Related Person Transactions are reviewed periodically by our nominating and corporate governance committee, and changes are recommended to our Board for approval as appropriate.

Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions

Policies and Procedures for Related Person Transactions

Effective as of the date of our initial public offering, our Board adopted the Code of Ethics, pursuant to which our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders, including their immediate family members and affiliates, are not permitted to enter into a related person transaction with us without the prior consent of our nominating and corporate governance committee, or other independent committee of our board of directors. Any request for us to enter into a related person transaction with an executive officer, director, principal stockholder or any of such persons’ immediate family members or affiliates must first be presented to our nominating and corporate governance committee for review, consideration and approval. A related person transaction is a transaction in which the Company is or will be a participant and in which a related person has or will have a direct or indirect material interest, other than (i) a transaction involving $120,000 or less when aggregated with all related transactions, (ii) a transaction involving compensation to an executive officer that is approved by the Board or the compensation committee, (iii) a transaction involving compensation to a director or director nominee that is approved by the Board, the compensation committee or the nominating and corporate governance committee, and (iv) any other transaction that is not required to be reported pursuant to Item 404(a) of Regulation S−K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All of our directors, executive officers and employees are required to report to our nominating and corporate governance committee any such related person transaction. In approving or rejecting the proposed agreement, our nominating and corporate governance committee shall consider the facts and circumstances available and deemed relevant to the nominating and corporate governance committee, including, but not limited to the risks, costs and benefits to us, the terms of the transaction, the availability of other sources for comparable services or products, and, if applicable, the impact on a director’s independence. Our nominating and corporate governance committee shall approve only those agreements that, in light of known circumstances, are in, or are not inconsistent with, our best interests, as our nominating and corporate governance committee determines in the good faith exercise of its discretion. Under the policy, if we should discover related person transactions that have not been approved, the nominating and corporate governance committee will be notified and will determine the appropriate action, including ratification, rescission or amendment of the transaction.

Related Person Transactions

There were no related person transactions in 2010 that required that the transaction be presented to the nominating and corporate governance committee.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

In March 2011, to further align the interest of our executive officers and directors with the interest of our stockholders, and after evaluation of best practices and consultation by the compensation committee with Towers Watson, its independent consultant, the Board implemented stock ownership guidelines applicable to our executive officers and directors. Each executive officer is expected to hold shares of common stock with an aggregate value greater than or equal to a multiple of the executive officer’s base salary as set forth below:

	1.	The Company’s Chief Executive Officer – six times base salary;

	2.	The Company’s Executive Vice Presidents – two times base salary; and

	3.	The Company’s Senior Vice Presidents – one times base salary.

Each of the Company’s non-employee directors is expected to hold shares of Common Stock with an aggregate value greater than or equal to at least three times the amount of the annual retainer paid to non-employee directors for service on the Board, excluding additional committee retainers, if any.

Under the stock ownership guidelines, common stock held directly, including shares of common stock held in a separate brokerage account or in a 401(k) account, and common stock held indirectly (e.g., by a spouse, minor dependent, or a trust for the benefit of the executive or director, or the executive’s or director’s spouse or minor dependent), count toward satisfaction of the levels set forth in the guidelines. For purposes of the guidelines, the “value” of the common stock is based on the closing price of the common stock on the day on which a determination under the guidelines is being made. The determination of compliance with the guidelines will be measured annually on the last business day of each year.

Our executives and non-employee directors are expected to comply these guidelines within five years of the later of March 2, 2011 (the date of adoption of the guidelines) and the date the person first became an executive or non-employee director, as applicable. If an executive officer has not achieved the stock ownership level as outlined above by that date, the executive officer will be required to retain fifty percent (50%) of the net shares of common stock acquired pursuant to restricted stock or option awards made after the adoption of these guidelines until such levels are achieved. “Net shares” are those shares that remain after shares are sold or withheld to pay withholding taxes and/or the exercise price of stock options (if applicable).

The stock ownership guidelines superseded the existing policy applicable to our non−employee directors. That policy provided that directors were expected to hold a number of shares of our common stock equivalent to one−half of all shares of restricted stock they receive.

Board Independence and Leadership Structure

Our Board believes, and our Guidelines require, that a majority of its members should be independent directors. In addition, the respective charters of the audit, compensation and nominating and corporate governance committees, currently require that each member of such committees be independent directors. Six of the seven current members of our Board are independent directors, as defined in the applicable rules for companies listed on NASDAQ. NASDAQ’s independence criteria includes a series of objective tests, such as that the director is not an employee of American Public Education and has not engaged in various types of business dealings with us. In addition, as further required by NASDAQ rules, the Board has made a subjective determination as to each independent director that no relationship exists that, in the opinion of the Board, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. In making these determinations, the Board reviewed and discussed information provided by the directors and management with regard to each director’s business and personal activities as they may relate to us and our management. Based on this review and consistent with NASDAQ’s independence criteria, the Board has affirmatively determined that all of our directors are independent of American Public Education and our management, with the exception of Dr. Boston, who is our President and Chief Executive Officer.

In accordance with our Guidelines, the independent members of our Board will hold at least two “executive session” meetings each year. If the chairperson of the Board is not an independent director, a chairperson will be selected for each executive session. In general, these meetings are intended to be used as a forum to discuss the annual evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer’s performance, the annual review of the Chief Executive Officer’s plan for management succession and such other topics as the independent directors deem necessary or appropriate.

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines specify that the Board shall select its chairperson based on the Board’s determination of what is then in the best interests of the Company. Historically, the Company has split the positions of the Chairperson of the Board and Chief Executive Officer because we believe that this structure is appropriate given the differences between the two roles in our current management structure. Our Chief Executive Officer, among other duties, is responsible for setting the strategic direction for the Company and the day to day leadership and performance of the Company, while the Chairperson of the Board, among other responsibilities, provides guidance to the Chief Executive Officer, and presides over meetings of the full Board.

Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

Our management is responsible for managing risks in our business, including by developing processes to monitor and control risks. The Board views its role as one of oversight and of responsibility for setting a tone that risk management should be properly integrated with our strategy and culture. The Board focuses on understanding management’s risk management processes, the effectiveness of those processes and the way in which management proactively manages risks. The Board carries out its oversight of risks primarily through its committees. In this regard, each of the charters of the Board’s committees specifically address issues of risk.

The audit committee reviews and assesses the qualitative aspects of financial reporting, our processes to manage financial and financial reporting risk, and compliance with significant applicable legal, ethical and regulatory requirements. The audit committee discusses our major financial and other financial reporting risk exposures and the steps that management has taken to monitor and control such exposures, including our risk assessment and risk management policies. The audit committee regularly reports its findings to the Board.

The nominating and corporate governance committee assists the Board in understanding and overseeing management’s processes for the assessment and management of our non−financial risks and the steps that management has taken to monitor and control exposure to such risks. The nominating and corporate governance committee regularly meets with our management, particularly our Chief Operations Officer, as well as our Chief Executive Officer and other executives, to receive updates on how management is assessing and managing risk in particular functional areas of our business. The nominating and corporate governance committee and the Board also request and receive regular reports from management on particular areas of risk. The nominating and corporate governance committee regularly reports its findings to the Board and may, from time to time, bring specific items, or recommendations, to the full Board regarding risk oversight.

While the audit committee and the nominating and corporate governance committee have primary responsibility for assisting the Board with its risk oversight responsibilities, the compensation committee also assists the Board with risk oversight. When establishing executive compensation and director compensation and in its role in implementing incentive compensation plans, the compensation committee considers whether compensation practices properly take into account an appropriate risk−reward relationship or encourage unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the Company.

Meetings of the Board of Directors and its Committees

Information concerning the Board and its three standing committees is set forth below. Each Board committee currently consists only of directors who are not employees of American Public Education and who are “independent” as defined in NASDAQ’s rules.

The Board and its committees meet regularly throughout the year, and also hold special meetings and act by written consent from time−to−time. The Board held a total of five meetings during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. During this time all of our directors attended at least 75% of the aggregate number of meetings held by the Board and all committees of the Board on which such director served (during the period that such director served). The Board does not have a formal policy with respect to Board member attendance at annual meetings of stockholders. Our 2010 annual meeting of stockholders was attended by all of our directors who were then serving.

The Board has three standing committees: the nominating and corporate governance committee; the compensation committee; and the audit committee. The charters for the nominating and corporate governance, compensation, and audit committees can be accessed electronically on the Committees page of our corporate website at www.americanpubliceducation.com.

The Board conducts, and the nominating and corporate governance committee oversees, an annual evaluation of the Board’s operations and performance in order to enhance its effectiveness. Recommendations resulting from this evaluation are made by the nominating and corporate governance committee to the full Board for its consideration.

BOARD COMMITTEES AND THEIR FUNCTIONS

The following table describes which directors serve on each of the Board’s standing committees.

Name

Nominating and

Corporate

Governance Committee

Compensation

Committee

Audit

Committee

Wallace E. Boston, Jr.

J. Christopher Everett(2)

(1)

Barbara G. Fast

F. David Fowler

Jean C. Halle

(1)

Timothy J. Landon

Timothy T. Weglicki(3)

(1)

(1)	Chair of the committee.
(2)	Chairperson of the Board.
(3)	Vice-chairperson of the Board.

Audit Committee

The Board has established a separately designated standing audit committee in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which met 5 times during 2010. The audit committee is responsible, among its other duties and responsibilities, for overseeing our accounting and financial reporting processes, the audits of our financial statements, the qualifications of our independent registered public accounting firm, and the performance of our internal audit function and independent registered public accounting firm. The audit committee reviews and assesses the qualitative aspects of our financial reporting, our processes to manage business and financial risk, and our compliance with significant applicable legal, ethical and regulatory requirements. The audit committee is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of our independent registered public accounting firm. The members of our audit committee are Ms. Halle, who serves as chair of the committee, Mr. Fowler, Mr. Landon, and Mr. Weglicki. Our Board has determined that Mr. Fowler is an “audit committee financial expert,” as that term is defined under the SEC rules implementing Section 407 of the Sarbanes−Oxley Act of 2002. Our Board has determined that each member of our audit committee is independent under NASDAQ’s listing standards and each member of our audit committee is independent pursuant to Rule 10A−3 of the Securities Exchange Act.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The nominating and corporate governance committee is responsible for recommending candidates for election to the Board. The committee met five times during 2010. The committee is also responsible, among its other duties and responsibilities, for making recommendations to the Board or otherwise acting with respect to corporate governance policies and practices, including board size and membership qualifications, new director orientation, committee structure and membership, succession planning for our Chief Executive Officer and other key executive officers, and communications with stockholders. In addition, the nominating and corporate governance committee assists the Board in understanding and overseeing management’s processes for the assessment and management of non−financial risks of the Company and the steps that management has taken to monitor and control exposure to such risks. The members of our nominating and corporate governance committee are Mr. Weglicki, who serves as chair of the committee, Mr. Everett, MG (Ret) Fast, and Mr. Landon. Our Board has determined that the composition of our nominating and corporate governance committee meets NASDAQ’s independence requirements for director nominations.

Compensation Committee

The compensation committee is responsible, among its other duties and responsibilities, for establishing the compensation and benefits of our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers, monitoring compensation arrangements applicable to our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers in light of their performance, effectiveness and other relevant considerations and administering our equity incentive plans. The committee met eight times during 2010. The members of our compensation committee are Mr. Everett, who serves as chair of the committee, MG (Ret) Fast and Mr. Fowler. Our Board has determined that the composition of our compensation committee meets NASDAQ’s independence requirements for approval of the compensation of our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers.

The compensation committee has the sole authority to retain and terminate any compensation consultant to be used to assist in evaluating executive officer compensation. The compensation committee retained Towers Perrin, which became Towers Watson & Co. (“Towers Watson”) on January 1, 2010, directly as an outside compensation consultant to assist in evaluating our compensation programs in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. The compensation committee used information provided to it by Towers Watson in connection with making 2010 compensation determinations. Towers Watson also advised the compensation committee on the use of a peer group for comparative purposes. The consultant’s role in recommending the amount or form of executive compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers during 2010 is described in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Philosophy and Objectives of our Compensation Programs — Review of Compensation and Peer Group Review” section below. Towers Watson does no work for the Company other than work that is authorized by the compensation committee or its chairperson.

The compensation committee works closely with our Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Boston, on compensation decisions and has delegated certain aspects of the annual incentive plans for the other executive officers, including the named executive officers, to Dr. Boston. For a discussion of Dr. Boston’s role in determining or recommending the executive compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers during 2010, see the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Role of Executives in Executive Compensation Decisions” section below.

DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS AND COMMUNICATION WITH DIRECTORS

Director Nomination Process

The nominating and corporate governance committee recommends, and the Board nominates, candidates to stand for election as directors. Stockholders may also nominate persons to be elected as directors. If a stockholder wishes to nominate a person for election as director, he or she must follow the procedures contained in our bylaws and satisfy the requirements of Regulation 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. To nominate a person to stand for election as a director at the annual meeting of stockholders for 2012, our Corporate Secretary must receive such nominations at our principal executive offices not more than 120 days, and not less than 90 days, before the anniversary date of the preceding annual meeting, except that if the annual meeting is set for a date that is not within 30 days before or 60 days after such anniversary, the nomination must be received no later than the close of business on the tenth day following the notice or public disclosure of the meeting. Each submission must include the following information:

●	the name and address of the stockholder who intends to make the nomination and the name and address of the person or persons to be nominated;

●	a representation that the stockholder is a holder of record of Company capital stock entitled to vote at such meeting and intends to appear in person or by proxy at the meeting to nominate the person or persons;

●	if applicable, a description of all arrangements or understandings between the stockholder and each nominee and any other person or persons, naming such person or persons, pursuant to which the nomination is to be made by the stockholder;

●	such other information regarding each nominee to be proposed by such stockholder as would be required to be included in a proxy statement filed under the SEC’s proxy rules if the nominee had been nominated, or intended to be nominated, by the Board;

●	if applicable, the consent of each nominee to serve as a director if elected; and

●	such other information that the Board may request in its discretion.

The Board may require any proposed nominee to furnish such other information as it may reasonably require to determine the eligibility of such proposed nominee to serve as one of its directors.

Additional information regarding requirements for stockholder nominations for next year’s annual meeting is described in this proxy statement under “General Matters — Stockholder Proposals and Nominations.”

Contacting the Board of Directors

Stockholders wishing to communicate with our Board may do so by writing to the Board, chairperson of the Board, or the non−employee members of the Board as a group, at:

American Public Education, Inc.

111 W. Congress Street

Charles Town, West Virginia 25414

Attn: Corporate Secretary

Complaints or concerns relating to our accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters will be referred to members of the audit committee. Other correspondence will be referred to the relevant individual or group. All correspondence is required to prominently display the legend “Board Communication” in order to indicate to the Corporate Secretary that it is communication subject to our policy and will be received and processed by the Corporate Secretary’s office. Each communication received by the Corporate Secretary will be copied for our files and will be promptly forwarded to the addressee. The Board has requested that certain items not related to the Board’s duties and responsibilities be excluded from its communication policy. In addition, the Corporate Secretary is not required to forward any communication that the Corporate Secretary, in good faith, determines to be frivolous, unduly hostile, threatening, illegal or similarly unsuitable. However, the Corporate Secretary will maintain a list of each communication subject to this policy that is not forwarded, and on a quarterly basis, will deliver the list to the chairperson of the Board. In addition, each communication subject to this policy that is not forwarded because it was determined by the Corporate Secretary to be frivolous shall nevertheless be retained in our files and made available at the request of any member of the Board to whom such communication was addressed.

PROPOSAL NO. 1 — ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Our board of directors is currently comprised of seven members. Our nominees for the election of directors at the Annual Meeting include six independent non−employee directors and our Chief Executive Officer. Each director is elected to serve a one−year term, with all directors subject to annual election. At the recommendation of the nominating and corporate governance committee, the Board has nominated the following persons to serve as directors for the term beginning at the Annual Meeting on May 6, 2011: Wallace E. Boston, Jr., J. Christopher Everett, Barbara G. Fast, F. David Fowler, Jean C. Halle, Timothy J. Landon, and Timothy T. Weglicki. All nominees are currently serving on the Board.

It is intended by the persons named as proxies that proxies received in response to this solicitation will be voted FOR the election of each nominee named in this section unless otherwise stated in the proxy or in the case of a broker non−vote with respect to the proposal. Proxies submitted for the Annual Meeting can only be voted for those nominees named in this Proxy Statement. If, however, any director nominee is unable or unwilling to serve as a nominee at the time of the Annual Meeting, the persons named as proxies may vote for a substitute nominee designated by the Board, or the Board may reduce the size of the Board. Each nominee has consented to serve as a director if elected, and the Board does not believe that any nominee will be unwilling or unable to serve. Each director will hold office until his or her successor is duly elected and is qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation or removal.

Criteria for Evaluating Director Nominees

The Board provides strategic direction to the Company and oversees the performance of the Company’s business and management. The nominating and corporate governance committee periodically identifies and reviews with the Board desired skills and attributes of both individual Board members and the Board overall within the context of current and future needs. The nominating and corporate governance committee is responsible for developing the general criteria, subject to approval by the full Board, for use in identifying, evaluating and selecting qualified candidates for election or re−election to the Board. The nominating and corporate governance committee reviews the appropriate skills and characteristics required of directors in the context of the current composition of the Board, our operating requirements and the long−term interests of our stockholders. It may use outside consultants to assist in identifying candidates. Among the characteristics the committee may consider are the collective knowledge and diversity of professional skills and background, experience in relevant industries, age and geographic background in addition to the qualities of integrity, judgment, acumen, and the time and ability to work professionally and effectively with other Board members and management and make a constructive contribution to the Board. The committee considers candidates submitted by directors and management, as well as candidates recommended by stockholders, which are evaluated in the same manner as other candidates identified to it. Final approval of director candidates is determined by the full Board.

The Board has determined that all of our current directors are qualified to serve as directors of the Company.

The name of each nominee for director, their ages as of March 22, 2011, and other information about each nominee is shown below. In addition, the biographies of each of the nominees below contains information regarding the experiences, qualifications, attributes or skills that caused the nominating and corporate governance committee and the Board to determine that the person should serve as a director for the Company.

Name	Age	Principal Occupation	Director Since
Wallace E. Boston, Jr.	56	President and Chief Executive Officer of the
		Company	2004
J. Christopher Everett	63	Retired	2007
Barbara G. Fast	57	Vice President of Cyber and Information
		Solutions, The Boeing Company	2009
F. David Fowler	77	Retired	2007
Jean C. Halle	52	Independent Consultant	2006
Timothy J. Landon	48	Chief Executive Officer of Landon Company	2009
Timothy T. Weglicki	59	Founding Partner of ABS Capital Partners	2002

Dr. Wallace E. Boston, Jr. joined us in September 2002 as Chief Financial Officer and since June 2004 has served as President, Chief Executive Officer and a member of our Board. From August 2001 to April 2002, Dr. Boston served as Chief Financial Officer of Sun Healthcare Group. From July 1998 to May 2001, Dr. Boston served as Chief Operating Officer and later, President of NeighborCare Pharmacies. From February 1993 to May 1998, Dr. Boston served as VP−Finance and later, SVP of Acquisitions and Development of Manor Healthcare Corporation, now Manor Care, Inc. From November 1985 to December 1992, Dr. Boston served as Chief Financial Officer of Meridian Healthcare.

We believe that Dr. Boston’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his service as our Chief Executive Officer since 2004 and his service as our Chief Financial Officer between 2002 and 2004. Dr. Boston’s leadership has been pivotal to the Company in some of our most significant events, including our accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association in 2006, our 2007 initial public offering and most recently, the receipt by American Public University System of the 2009 Ralph E. Gomory Award for Quality Online Education, also known as the Sloan−C Award.

J. Christopher Everett has served on our Board since May 2007, was appointed Vice−Chairperson of the Board in 2009, and Chairperson in 2010. Mr. Everett has been an independent consultant and investor since his retirement from PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2000. Mr. Everett served as an Executive in Residence at the Kogod School of Business at American University from 2000 to 2003 where he taught graduate courses in the application of technology and strategy. Prior to his retirement in 2000, Mr. Everett was a senior partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers and was a leader in the firm’s Management Consulting Services Practice. Mr. Everett led the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Global E−business practice from 1998 until 2000. Mr. Everett also served as a member of the PricewaterhouseCoopers Global Oversight Board, the firm’s board of directors, and served on the firm’s Global Leadership Team from 1995 until his retirement in 2000. Mr. Everett currently serves on the board of directors of several private companies.

We believe that Mr. Everett’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his substantial experience and leadership in the application of technology−enabled strategy and international ecommerce including his positions as Senior Partner and leader of the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Global E−business efforts, membership on its Global Oversight Board, and his experience in post−secondary education as an Executive in Residence at the Kogod School of Business at American University.

Major General Barbara G. Fast, USA, Retired has served on our Board since May 2009. She is Vice President of Cyber and Information Solutions at The Boeing Company, which she joined in August 2008. MG (Ret) Fast retired from the Army in July 2008 after a 32 year career. Her most recent posts included: Deputy Director, Army Capability and Integration Center, TRADOC, from July 2007 until June 2008; Deputy then Commanding General for the United States Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca, Arizona from August 2004 until June 2007; and Director of Intelligence, Multinational Forces−Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq, from July 2003 until July 2004.

We believe that MG (Ret) Fast’s qualifications to serve on our Board include her extensive experience and achievements in the U.S. Military national and defense intelligence, and cyber security culminating over 32 years of military service as a Major General, her leadership of global operations of the National Security Agency and Commanding General of Fort Huachuca and current position of Vice President of Cyber and Information Solutions, The Boeing Company.

F. David Fowler has served on our Board since May 2007. From June 2001 to 2006, Mr. Fowler served on the board of directors of MicroStrategy, Inc. and as chairman of its Audit Committee. Mr. Fowler also served as a member and chairman of the board of directors of FBR Funds, an open−end management investment company that is part of FBR Capital Markets Corporation and the Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc., from 1997 to 2006. From 2007 to February 2011, Mr. Fowler served on the board of directors of Liquidity Services, Inc., an operator of online marketplaces for the sale and purchase of surplus corporate and government assets, and was chairman of its Audit Committee. Mr. Fowler was the dean of the School of Business at The George Washington University from July 1992 until his retirement in June 1997 and a member of KPMG LLP from 1963 until his retirement in June 1992. As a member of KPMG, Mr. Fowler served as managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office from 1987 until 1992, as partner in charge of human resources for the firm in New York City, as a member of the firm’s board of directors, operating committee and strategic planning committee and as chairman of the KPMG Foundation and the KPMG personnel committee.

We believe that Mr. Fowler’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his significant experience in financial accounting including the positions of managing partner of the KPMG LLP Washington, D.C. office, as partner in charge of human resources for the firm in New York City, as a member of the firm’s board of directors, operating committee and strategic planning committee, leadership in education as dean of the School of Business at The George Washington University and as a director of other public companies.

Jean C. Halle has served on our Board since March 2006. Ms. Halle is currently an independent consultant. From 2002 to 2010, Ms. Halle was the Chief Executive Officer of Calvert Education Services, a provider of accredited distance education programs and educational support services. From 1999 to 2001, Ms. Halle was the Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of New Business Development for Times Mirror Interactive, a digital media subsidiary of the former Times Mirror Company. From 1986 to 1999, Ms. Halle held a number of positions with The Baltimore Sun Company, including Vice President of New Business Development, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance, President of Homestead Publishing, a subsidiary of The Baltimore Sun Company, and Director of Strategic Planning. From 1983 to 1986, Ms. Halle was the Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance for Abell Communications, and Assistant Treasurer of A.S. Abell Company, the former parent company of The Baltimore Sun Company. Previously, from 1979 to 1983, Ms. Halle had been a Senior Management Consultant with Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, now Deloitte & Touche, an international accounting and professional services firm. Ms. Halle currently serves on the Advisory Board for Stevenson University.

Consistent with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, when Ms. Halle left Calvert Education Services in 2010, she tendered a conditional letter of resignation from the Board to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee recommended to the Board that it not accept her resignation, and the Board did not accept her resignation.

We believe that Ms. Halle’s qualifications to serve on our Board include her multifaceted experiences in online education as Chief Executive Officer of Calvert Education Services, a provider of accredited distance education programs, in media as Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of New Business Development for Times Mirror Interactive, a digital media subsidiary of the former Times Mirror Company and financial consulting as a Senior Management Consultant at an international accounting and professional services firm.

Timothy J. Landon has served on our Board since January 2009. Since September 2008, Mr. Landon has served as Chief Executive Officer of Landon Company, which focuses on early stage angel investing and consulting for private equity, venture capital and large traditional and online media companies. Mr. Landon retired from the Tribune Company in February 2008, after having served in a variety of positions within the Tribune organization, including most recently as President of Tribune Interactive, Inc. from March 2004 until February 2008, where he was responsible for overall interactive and classified advertising strategy, technology and operations for the Tribune Company, and had leadership roles in starting CareerBuilder.com, Classified Ventures (the holding company of apartments.com and cars.com), and other online businesses. In December 2008, the Tribune Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

We believe that Mr. Landon’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his extensive experience in starting, building and managing internet−focused media businesses over the last fifteen years. He brings significant knowledge of online marketing and online business models, including his positions as President of Tribune Interactive and experience at CareerBuilder.com, which has direct relevance and applicability to our business.

Timothy T. Weglicki has served on our Board since August 2002 and was appointed Vice−Chairperson of the Board in 2010. Mr. Weglicki is a Founding Partner of ABS Capital Partners, a private equity firm founded in 1993. Prior to co−founding ABS Capital Partners, from 1977 to 1993, Mr. Weglicki was an investment banker with Alex. Brown & Sons where he founded and headed the capital markets group from 1989 to 1993. Mr. Weglicki currently serves on the board of directors and the compensation and the nominating and governance committees of Coventry Health Care, Inc. and is also on the board of directors of several of ABS Capital Partners’ portfolio companies.

We believe that Mr. Weglicki’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his significant experience and leadership of businesses in investment banking, capital markets and private equity as head of the capital markets group at Alex. Brown & Sons, a Founding Partner of ABS Capital Partners and a director of other public companies.

Required Vote and Board Recommendation

The election of directors requires a plurality of the votes cast for the election of directors; accordingly, the seven directorships to be filled at the Annual Meeting will be filled by the seven nominees receiving the highest number of votes. A properly executed proxy marked “ABSTAIN” with respect to the election of one or more directors will not be voted with respect to the nominee or nominees indicated, although it will be counted for purposes of determining whether there is a quorum. A broker “non−vote,” discussed above, will also have no effect on the outcome because only a plurality of votes actually cast is required to elect a director. Stockholders do not have the right to cumulate their votes in the election of directors. If an incumbent nominee in an uncontested election such as the election to be held at the Annual Meeting fails to be elected, the incumbent nominee will continue in office.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR ELECTION OF EACH OF THE SEVEN NOMINATED DIRECTORS.

2010 Director Compensation

In 2009, the compensation committee adopted a revised non−employee director compensation policy after consulting with Towers Watson. Under this policy, our non−employee directors received an annual retainer of $32,250 and each committee chair received an additional annual retainer of $5,000, except for the chair of the audit committee, whose additional annual retainer was $10,000. In addition, the non−employee chairperson of the Board received an additional annual retainer of $20,000, and the vice-chairperson of the Board received an additional $10,000. Mr. Everett, the Chairperson of the Board, did not receive a separate retainer related to his service as chair of the compensation committee. Similarly, after Mr. Weglicki’s appointment as the Vice-Chairperson of the Board, he did not receive a separate retainer related to his service as chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The annual retainers are payable in quarterly installments, and each director has the alternative to elect before the beginning of the applicable year to receive their annual retainer in common stock having the same value as the portion of the annual retainer to be paid, calculated as of the close of business on the first business day of the year. In connection with our annual meeting of stockholders, our non−employee director compensation policy also provides for an annual grant to each director of restricted stock having a value of $41,750 on the date of delivery. The restricted stock grant vests on the earlier of the one year anniversary of the date of grant and immediately prior to the next year’s annual meeting of stockholders. In 2009, the Board determined that it did not intend to review director compensation on a more frequent basis than every other year.

The following table sets forth information regarding compensation paid to directors during 2010:

Name(1)	Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($)(2)		Stock Awards ($)(3)		Option Awards ($)(4)		Total ($)

J. Christopher Everett		48,876		41,742		—		90,618
Barbara Fast		32,250		41,742		—		73,992
F. David Fowler		36,327		41,742		—		78,069
Jean C. Halle		42,250		41,742		—		83,992
Timothy Landon		36,327		41,742		—		78,069
Timothy T. Weglicki		43,916		41,742		—		85,658

(1)	See the Summary Compensation Table in the Executive Compensation section of this Proxy Statement for disclosure related to Dr. Boston who is one of our named executive officers (“NEOs”) as of December 31, 2010.

(2)	Messrs. Fowler, Landon, and Weglicki each elected to receive his entire 2010 annual retainer in fully−vested shares of common stock. Mr. Everett elected to receive half of his 2010 annual retainer in fully−vested shares of common stock. In addition, Mr. Everett’s and Mr. Weglicki’s retainers were pro-rated to reflect their respective appointments to the positions of Chairperson and Vice-chairperson on May 20, 2010. Neither Mr. Everett nor Mr. Weglicki received a separate retainer related to his service as a committee chair.

(3)	The aggregate grant date fair value of each restricted stock award in 2010 was $41,742, computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718.

(4)	No stock option awards were made to directors in 2010.

We also reimburse all directors for travel and other necessary business expenses incurred in the performance of their services for us and extend coverage to them under the directors’ and officers’ indemnity insurance policies.

As of December 31, 2010, the aggregate number of unvested stock awards and exercisable and unexercisable option awards outstanding held by our current non−employee directors were as follows:

			Option Awards
Name	Stock Awards(1)		Exercisable		Unexercisable
J. Christopher Everett		973		24,992		—
Barbara G. Fast		973		—		—
F. David Fowler		973		14,492		—
Jean C. Halle		973		28,874		4,559
Timothy Landon		973		—		—
Timothy T. Weglicki		973		—		—

(1)

Each non−employee director receives a grant of restricted stock in connection with our annual meeting of stockholders, which grant vests in full on the earlier of the one year anniversary of the date of grant or immediately prior to the next year’s annual meeting of stockholders. The column reflects the restricted stock award grant made in connection with the 2010 annual meeting of stockholders.

COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

The following compensation discussion and analysis provides information regarding the objectives and elements of our compensation philosophy and policies for the compensation of our named executive officers, or NEOs, for 2010. These executives, who appear in the Summary Compensation Table below, are:

●	Wallace E. Boston, Jr., Ed.D., our President, Chief Executive Officer, Member of our Board of Directors and Member of our Board of Trustees;

●	Harry T. Wilkins, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer;

●	Sharon van Wyk, Ph.D., Executive Vice President, Chief Operations Officer;

●	Carol Gilbert, Executive Vice President, Programs and Marketing; and

●	Frank B. McCluskey, Ph.D., Executive Vice President and Provost.

Executive Summary

We believe that 2010 was a year of considerable achievement for the Company, as reflected by an increase in revenues, profitability, and course enrollments, and by recognition of the academic achievements of our education programs. In 2010, total revenue increased 33%, earnings per share increased 25%, and course enrollments, or net course registrations, increased 31% over 2009. In addition to strong financial performance, the Company built on its past success and continued to excel operationally and academically. In 2009, APUS was recognized by the Sloan Consortium with its Ralph Gomory Award for Quality Online Education becoming the first for-profit institution and the only wholly online institution to receive the award in its 15 year history. In 2010, APUS was again recognized by the Sloan Consortium with an Effective Practices Award. We believe that the increases in revenues, profitability, and net course registrations in 2010, as well as the achievement of a number of our strategic development goals, such as beginning the implementation of our new learning management system, was largely due to the achievements of our named executive officers, and is represented by the Company achieving our “Student Satisfaction Quotient” goals, or SSQ goals, for each quarter of 2010 and by each of our NEOs meeting 100% of their 2010 personal management objectives, with the exception of Ms. Gilbert, who achieved 98% of her 2010 personal management objectives.

The performance in 2010 followed a year of exceptionally strong performance in 2009, reflected by a 39% increase in revenues in 2009 compared to 2008, a 48% increase in net income, and a 41% increase in course enrollments, or net course registrations. As discussed further below, the Company took into account the 2009 performance, together with relevant survey data and peer group data, in making initial decisions with respect to base salary and the granting of equity awards for 2010.

The Company’s compensation of our NEOs in 2010 reflects the strong operating and financial performance of the Company for the year, as well as the individual achievements of our NEOs for the year. The compensation of the NEOs also reflects, however, that the Company did not achieve the financial component of our Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, which is based on targeted earnings per share. Earnings per share in 2010 were $1.59, which represented a 25% increase over 2009. This represented achievement of approximately 97% of the budgeted earnings per share target of $1.64. Accordingly, the NEOs did not receive any payment related to the portion of the Company’s Annual Incentive Compensation Plan tied to financial performance. While the compensation committee recognized that the budgeted target earnings per share was not achieved, the committee concluded that the “cliff” nature of the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan did not reflect the positive performance of the Company and the contributions of the Company’s employees and NEOs to that performance. After considering these factors, the compensation committee recommended, and the Board approved, a one-time bonus equivalent to 50% of the amount that they would have received had the targeted amount been achieved.

When compared to payments in 2009 related to the achievement of the financial performance aspect of our Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, the 2010 bonus payment was equivalent to a reduction of approximately 75% (in the case of Dr. van Wyk, on a pro-rated basis to reflect that she joined the Company during 2009). Similarly, when compared to total annual incentive compensation payments to our named executive officers in 2009, the 2010 total annual incentive compensation payments, represented by the discretionary bonus and the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan payments, ranged from 42% to 51% lower for our named executive officers (in the case of Dr. van Wyk, on a pro-rated basis to reflect that she joined the Company during 2009). And, when compared to 2009 actual cash compensation (base salary plus annual incentive payments) and after taking into account the increases to base salary to reflect the strong 2009 performance and relevant survey data and peer group data, the 2010 actual direct cash compensation payments ranged from 12% to 21% lower for our named executive officers (in the case of Dr. van Wyk, on a pro-rated basis to reflect that she joined the Company during 2009). For Dr. Boston, this number was 18%.

In 2010 the Company adopted the practice of making equity incentive awards to all executive officers on an annual basis. As described in greater detail below, the Company did not make equity incentive grants to Dr. Boston and Mr. Wilkins in 2008 or 2009 because of a large multi-year grant to these officers at the time of our initial public offering in 2007. As a result of the change in this practice, a year over year comparison of total compensation for Dr. Boston and Mr. Wilkins is not meaningful.

Philosophy and Objectives of our Compensation Programs

Overview

As in prior years, for 2010 our compensation committee implemented an executive compensation policy that was in-line with our company-wide compensation philosophy of providing competitive levels of compensation that utilize variable cash compensation based on performance metrics, reflect the level of capability and effort required to achieve our corporate goals, encourage continuous quality improvement and that are easily understood by our employees.

●	Variable Cash Compensation. We believe in using variable cash compensation to motivate and reward performance at all levels of the organization, and particularly for our NEOs.

●	Focus on Corporate Goals. We strive to provide compensation that is directly related to the achievement of our corporate goals, which we measure through individual management objectives and through earnings results compared to budget.

●	Continuous Quality Improvement. We have developed a “Student Satisfaction Quotient”, or SSQ, to encourage employees to work together across organizational boundaries to improve the processes that we believe contribute to our success as an organization. The SSQ is designed to measure the quality of our efforts on behalf of our students by utilizing a variety of metrics applicable to our business. We use the SSQ as a component of our annual incentive plan to reward continued improvement to our performance in various student satisfaction metrics, often compared to prior period performance.

●	Simple and Straightforward Incentives. We seek to minimize the complexity of our compensation policies and practices and to maximize our employees’ understanding of the elements of compensation.

In implementing this philosophy for our NEOs, we award compensation that we believe (i) assists us in attracting and retaining qualified executives, (ii) aligns executive compensation with our SSQ goals and operating and financial performance goals, and (iii) uses equity−based awards in an effort to further align executives’ and stockholders’ interests.

Attract and Retain Qualified Executives

We believe that the supply of qualified executive talent is limited and have designed our compensation programs to help us attract and retain qualified candidates by providing compensation that is competitive within the for−profit education industry and the broader market for executive talent. Our executive compensation policies are designed to assist us in attracting and retaining qualified executives by providing competitive levels of compensation that are consistent with the executives’ alternatives. As discussed below under “Review of Compensation and Peer Group Review,” it is the compensation committee’s general intent that each NEOs base salary should be set near the 50th percentile of the survey data, and that annual incentives should be structured so that an NEO has the opportunity to get to between the 50th and 75th percentile of the survey data for total cash compensation (base salary plus annual incentives) at full payment for achievement of target performance goals under the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, with a higher payment for superior performance if an NEO achieves the stretch performance goals under the plan. The compensation committee believes that these percentages for base salary and target annual incentive pay are in line with competitive market levels, and are appropriate if our NEOs achieve the level of performance required for the payment of these incentives.

Reflect SSQ Goals and Performance Goals

As part of our executive compensation program, we reward achieving and surpassing corporate goals through cash incentives paid under our Annual Incentive Compensation Plan. This plan offers the opportunity for employees, including our NEOs, to earn quarterly cash incentive payments for achievement of company−wide SSQ goals. This plan also offers the opportunity for annual cash incentives to be earned if both company earnings targets and individual management objectives are met. By linking incentive payments to achievement of SSQ goals, earnings targets and individual management objectives, we believe this plan is easily understood by employees and directly contributes to increases in stockholder value.

Utilize Equity−Based Awards

Our compensation program uses equity−based awards, the value of which is contingent on our long−term performance, in order to provide our NEOs with a direct incentive to seek increased stockholder returns. Our stockholders receive value when our stock price increases, and by using equity−based awards our NEOs realize increased value when our stock price increases. However, we also believe that it is important that some equity awards decrease in value were our stock price to decrease. We believe that equity−based awards exemplify our philosophy of having a straightforward structure by reminding NEOs that a measure of long−term corporate success is increased stockholder value over time. We also believe that because our equity incentives are granted with time−based vesting, that our equity incentive awards, particularly our awards of restricted stock, also aid in the retention of our NEOs.

Review of Compensation and Peer Group Review

For 2010, the compensation committee engaged Towers Perrin (which became Towers Watson & Co. on January 1, 2010) to provide services to our compensation committee, as requested and directed by the committee. Towers Watson provided information on competitive levels of compensation, including information on base salary, annual incentives, equity awards and total compensation. The Towers Watson information was used by the compensation committee in determining 2010 executive officer compensation. The compensation committee identified, with the guidance and input of Towers Watson and Dr. Boston, a group of companies against which to compare compensation paid to our executives. These companies were selected because the compensation committee considered them to be similar to, and competitive with, us in the market for executive talent, and because they are in comparable or related businesses. This group, which we refer to as our peer group, consisted of the following companies:

●	Apollo Group Inc.

●	Bridgepoint Education Inc.

●	Career Education Corporation

●	Corinthian Colleges Inc.

●	DeVry Inc.

●	Education Management Corporation

●	Grand Canyon Education Inc.

●	ITT Educational Services Inc.

●	University Technical Institute Inc.

●	Lincoln Educational Services Corporation

●	Strayer Education Inc.

●	Capella Education Co.

●	GP Strategies Corporation

●	Nobel Learning Communities Inc.

●	Princeton Review Inc.

This peer group remained the same from 2009, with the exception of the additions of Bridgepoint Education Inc., Grand Canyon Education Inc. and Education Management Corporation, which had not previously been included in the peer group because they had not previously been public companies.

The review of the peer group only included comparative information for Dr. Boston, Mr. Wilkins and Dr. van Wyk as the peer group information did not identify executives at comparable positions for Ms. Gilbert and Dr. McCluskey. In addition to a review of the proxy statements of the peer group, Towers Watson provided survey data for our NEOs based on an analysis of multiple proprietary and published surveys, which for Dr. McCluskey, because of his position as Executive Vice President, Provost, were based on academic surveys. Because of the variance in size among the companies included in the databases, Towers Watson informed the compensation committee that to the extent possible Towers Watson had performed regression analyses to adjust the compensation for differences in revenues.

The comparative data provided by Towers Watson was used in connection with our determinations of base salaries, annual incentive compensation and equity incentive awards as part of the 2010 compensation setting process, as described below under “Elements of Compensation.”. For those executives for whom both survey data and peer group data is available, the compensation committee uses the survey data for its primary comparisons because we believe that the survey data is a better comparison for the Company than the peer group data. This is in large part because many of the companies in the peer group are significantly larger than the Company and because the survey data represents a cross-section of companies with whom the Company competes for executive talent and generally reflects the size of the Company, as measured by revenues. However, we believe that even though the peer group is comprised of companies that are generally larger than us, it is still an important group in considering those companies with which we compete for executive talent.

Elements of Compensation and 2010 Compensation Decisions

The compensation program for our NEOs is comprised of three elements: base salary; annual incentive cash compensation; and long-term equity incentives. In setting base salary and annual incentive cash compensation for 2010, we considered the compensation levels for our NEOs in 2009, the respective performances of each of our NEOs in 2009, and what we believed was required based on the marketplace for executive talent. In evaluating what was required based on the marketplace for executive talent, the members of our compensation committee used their collective experience and judgment.

Base Salary

Base salary is an integral part of compensation for our NEOs, and is generally set in January of each year, absent other factors, such as promotions. It is the compensation committee’s general intent that each NEO’s base salary should be set near the 50th percentile of the survey data. While a significant portion of the executives’ compensation is performance-based, the compensation committee believes that the 50th percentile for base salary is appropriate to remain competitive with the companies with which the Company competes for executive talent.

In 2010, the annual base salary for Dr. Boston was increased $65,000, or by approximately 14.9%, to an annual base salary amount of $500,000. In setting the annual base salary amount for Dr. Boston, the compensation committee considered Dr. Boston’s excellent performance in driving the Company’s financial, operational and academic results in 2009 that are discussed above. The compensation committee also considered Dr. Boston’s commitment to the Company, the compensation committee’s assessment of the continued success of our business compared to other companies and the competitive review by Towers Watson. This base salary placed Dr. Boston approximately 11% above the 50th percentile of the survey data and approximately 14.5% below the 50th percentile of the peer group. The committee felt that being above the 50th percentile of the survey data was appropriate given the Company’s successes and growth, as represented by the Company’s 2009 performance, but that it was still appropriate to be significantly below the 50th percentile of the peer group given our size relative to many of the companies in the peer group.

In 2010, the annual base salary for Mr. Wilkins was increased $15,000, or by approximately 5.6%, to an annual base salary of $285,000. In setting the annual base salary amount for Mr. Wilkins, the compensation committee considered Mr. Wilkins’ performance in 2009 and the Towers Watson competitive review. This base salary placed Mr. Wilkins approximately 3.6% above the 50th percentile of the survey data and approximately 5.0% below the 50th percentile of the peer group, which the committee felt appropriate given the Company’s 2009 performance and the importance the Company places on executive retention.

In 2010, the annual base salary for Dr. van Wyk was increased $15,000, or by approximately 5.5%, to an annual base salary of $290,000. In setting the annual base salary amount for Dr. van Wyk, the compensation committee considered that Dr. van Wyk had relatively recently joined the Company in August 2009. However, the compensation committee concluded that an increase was appropriate to reflect what Towers Watson indicated was competitive for Dr. van Wyk’s position and to reflect her immediate performance upon joining the Company. This base salary placed Dr. van Wyk approximately 6.5% below the 50th percentile of the survey data and approximately 3.3% below the 50th percentile of the peer group. Notwithstanding what the compensation committee believed was her strong performance, the compensation committee noted that it was appropriate that Dr. van Wyk’s base salary was below the survey data and the peer group data because the data was for the position of chief operating officer, a position that the committee felt typically encompassed greater responsibility than the position held by Dr. van Wyk.

In 2010, the annual base salary for Ms. Gilbert was increased $12,000, or by approximately 5.5%, to an annual base salary of $232,000. In setting the annual base salary amount for Ms. Gilbert, the compensation committee considered that in 2009 Ms. Gilbert had a significant increase in her compensation when she was promoted to Executive Vice President from Senior Vice President. However, the compensation committee also considered that it was appropriate to reflect what Towers Watson indicated was competitive for Ms. Gilbert’s position and to reflect what the compensation committee considered was Ms. Gilbert’s strong performance in 2009. This base salary placed Ms. Gilbert approximately 3.1% above the 50th percentile of the survey data.

In 2010, the annual base salary for Dr. McCluskey was increased $14,000, or by approximately 6.9%, to an annual base salary of $218,000. In setting the annual base salary amount for Dr. McCluskey, the compensation committee considered that in addition to an increase to reflect what Towers Watson indicated was a typical increase in executive salaries it was appropriate to increase Dr. McCluskey’s base salary to reflect Dr. McCluskey’s strong performance in 2009 and to reflect the compensation committee’s determination that Dr. McCluskey’s base salary did not fully reflect his contribution to the Company’s performance relative to the base salaries of the other executive officers. This base salary placed Dr. McCluskey approximately 6.3% above the 50th percentile for the survey data. The committee further agreed that it was appropriate that Dr. McCluskey be compensated above the 50th percentile because the survey data for Dr. McCluskey was based largely on academic surveys and not fully reflective of the competitive market for public company executives, which the compensation committee felt required an additional skill set for which additional compensation above the survey data was appropriate.

Annual Incentive Cash Compensation

We believe annual incentive pay furthers our compensation philosophy and objectives by focusing our NEOs on corporate goals, encouraging continuous quality improvement and providing straightforward incentives. The target for annual incentive pay for our NEOs is expressed as a percentage of base salary and was 50% for all of our NEOs during 2010, except for Dr. Boston, whose annual incentive pay target was set at 60% of his base salary. These percentages for annual incentive pay targets remained the same in 2010 as they were in 2009 and 2008 and for Dr. Boston, Mr. Wilkins, Dr. van Wyk and Dr. McCluskey reflect the minimum percentages set forth in their employment agreements. After considering the survey data information and the individual performance of the executives, the committee believed, in their subjective judgment, that these percentages should remain the same for 2010. Dr. Boston’s annual incentive target is set at a higher percentage than the other NEOs as a result of the negotiation of his employment agreement in 2004, at which time we agreed to provide him a larger annual incentive to reflect his greater ability as Chief Executive Officer to influence our business success as well as his greater responsibilities as the head of our company.

Overall, we believe that the proportion of annual incentive target pay to total target cash compensation (base salary plus annual incentive target pay) for our NEOs should be a relatively high percentage. It is our general intent that each NEO’s base salary should be set near the 50th percentile of the survey data, and that annual incentives should be structured so that the NEO has the opportunity to get to between the 50th and the 75th percentile of the survey data for total cash compensation (base salary plus annual incentives) at full payment of target opportunities under the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan. We believe that positioning between the 50th and the 75th percentile is appropriate for total cash compensation because the level of performance required from our executives in order for the Company to achieve the targeted awards represents a level of strong performance and corporate growth above what would be expected at other organizations. We believe the high percentage of compensation tied to incentive pay increases the focus of our NEOs on achieving our SSQ and performance goals.

Beginning in 2008 we decided to further enhance this focus through an additional incentive for truly superior financial performance and returns to our stockholders that would pay an additional amount to our NEOs. We maintained this additional incentive structure in 2009 and 2010. This additional amount, if achieved, would have resulted in an additional payment to Dr. Boston of 40% of his base salary (for 100% in total incentive potential), an additional incentive to Mr. Wilkins and Dr. van Wyk of 30% of each of their respective base salaries (for 80% in total incentive potential) and an additional incentive to Ms. Gilbert and Dr. McCluskey of 20% of each of their respective base salaries (for 70% in total incentive potential). This additional incentive would have resulted in total cash compensation payments to our NEOs of amounts in line with the 75th percentile of the survey data for each of our NEOs, which the compensation committee believes is appropriate for exceptional performance.

One half of each NEO’s target award under the Annual Incentive Plan relates to achievement and surpassing of our SSQ goals, and the other half is related to achievement and surpassing of our financial performance goal. We determined this split between our SSQ goals and financial performance goal in order to send a message to our employees that they should be focused on both operational and earnings goals, and we believe this split discourages a focus on one particular metric of performance to the exclusion of others that are also important to our results. These goals are provided equal weight in reaching the target award to communicate that they are equally important to our success. The additional incentive percentages to reach the maximum incentive potential for our NEOs relate to our financial performance goal because that goal is most directly reflective of superior financial performance and returns to our stockholders.

SSQ Goals. We believe that the focus on continuous quality improvement related to the achievement and surpassing of our SSQ goals encourages our employees to work together across organizational boundaries to improve the processes involved in our operations, with a particular focus on processes that we believe contribute to the satisfaction and success of our students, which is consistent with our goal of Educating Those Who Serve™. The half of each participant’s Annual Incentive Compensation Plan target award related to the SSQ is divided into four equal quarterly amounts that are paid based on quarterly metrics that are measured monthly. Our SSQ uses metrics that are divided into categories, including awards based on student satisfaction, which includes metrics based on student surveys, and awards based on performance monitoring, which includes metrics related to business processes and transfer credit evaluation processes.

Each month we compare the performance for each metric against the baseline for that metric. The baselines are set annually by the committee, generally as a percentage improvement over past results, such as the actual past performance in a prior month, quarter or year. Results for each metric are then expressed as a percentage of the baseline. The percentages of achievement for each metric in a given month are then averaged. The monthly average is then averaged with the monthly average for the other months in a given quarter to obtain the quarterly average. If the quarterly average is at least 100%, one−fourth of the maximum amount of the SSQ portion of the annual incentive plan is then paid. If the quarterly average is not at least 100%, then no portion of the annual incentive plan applicable to that quarter’s SSQ goals is paid.

The SSQ is based on metrics that measure objective operational targets. This is in keeping with our compensation philosophy of providing simple and straightforward incentives. Because of the way that we calculate the monthly and quarterly averages, each metric is weighted equally. As a result, we believe that no one metric provides an incentive to our executive officers to focus disproportionately on any area of our business. Rather, we believe that the SSQ is structured to provide an incentive to focus more generally on student satisfaction and success, our business operations and continuous quality improvement. Furthermore, we have structured the SSQ to be paid on a quarterly basis based on monthly results because we track the components of the SSQ daily, and we believe frequent payments heightens the focus of our employees on these metrics and continuous quality improvement. All of our employees and NEOs have the same SSQ goals.

Financial performance. In 2010, the compensation committee determined that the half of the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan target award that relates to financial performance would be based on achieving and surpassing a specified amount of budgeted earnings per share. The committee specified earnings per share of $1.64 for this purpose, which was equivalent to 29% growth over full-year 2009 earnings per share, and reflected the earnings per share in the Company’s budget when approved by the board of directors. The committee viewed this level of achievement as representing a high level of growth for which management’s performance should be rewarded. The additional incentive amount for each of our NEOs would be earned if earnings per share were at least $1.75, which was a level that the committee felt represented truly exceptional performance.

For 2010, for our NEOs, the maximum Annual Incentive Compensation Plan potential would have been earned if 100% or more of SSQ goals were met, earnings per share was at least $1.75, and all personal management objectives, as discussed below, were met.

The below tables illustrate how the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan would have rewarded our NEO’s assuming a variety of performance circumstances related to the SSQ and financial components of the plan.

	PAYMENTS FOR ACHIEVING 100% OR GREATER OF THE SSQ
	GOALS IN THE QUARTERS INDICATED
Named Executive Officer	First Quarter		Second Quarter		Third Quarter		Fourth Quarter

Wallace E. Boston	$	37,500	$	37,500	$	37,500	$	37,500

Harry T. Wilkins	$	17,813	$	17,813	$	17,813	$	17,813

Sharon van Wyk	$	18,125	$	18,125	$	18,125	$	18,125

Carol S. Gilbert	$	14,500	$	14,500	$	14,500	$	14,500

Frank McCluskey	$	13,625	$	13,625	$	13,625	$	13,625

	POTENTIAL AWARD TO BE EARNED BASED ON EPS(1)
Named Executive Officer	Amount to be paid for achieving Goal of $1.64		Additional Amount to be Paid for Achieving Stretch Goal of $1.75

Wallace E. Boston	$	150,000	$	200,000

Harry T. Wilkins	$	71,250	$	85,500

Sharon van Wyk	$	72,500	$	87,000

Carol S. Gilbert	$	58,000	$	23,200

Frank McCluskey	$	54,500	$	21,800

(1)	Amounts do not include any reduction, if any, for failure to meet MBOs.

Payment of the portion of the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan that is tied to the annual financial goal for senior level participants, including our NEOs, is subject to reduction to the extent that personal management objective, or MBO, targets are not achieved. Thus, even if the annual financial goal is met but the NEO does not achieve all of his or her annual MBO targets, the NEO’s payment related to the financial goal is reduced by the relative weight of the missed MBO targets. We believe that setting personal MBO targets for our NEOs that are tied to company−wide goals for which they are directly responsible, or to whose success they contribute, provide personal accountability in addition to rewards for company performance. We have conditioned receipt of this portion of the award on achieving MBO targets in order to recognize that corporate success is the most important measure and that individual success alone will not be rewarded without meeting the financial targets. Similarly, many MBO targets are shared between executives to reflect that executives have to work together to achieve results.

For 2010, our compensation committee set MBO targets for Dr. Boston. Dr. Boston in turn set MBOs for the other NEOs. In turn, our NEOs set MBOs for their direct reports and so on throughout the organization for all management level employees. MBOs for our NEOs are derived from the MBOs that are set for Dr. Boston and our annual corporate performance goals derived from our strategic plan, including taking into account the sphere of responsibility for achievement of those goals for the particular NEO. We strive to have MBOs that can be objectively measured and are time−bound, which helps to provide incentives that can be clearly understood by our NEOs. We believe that the MBOs help to keep management from focusing solely on the current year’s financial results, because many of the MBOs represent our view of key actions required to capture future market opportunities and help prepare the company for continued growth and improvement in the future. The compensation committee actively advises Dr. Boston on the MBOs he sets for the other NEOs.

For Dr. Boston, the compensation committee adopted the following MBOs consistent with his role as our chief executive officer, all of which were equally weighted:

●	Select and implement a new learning management system.

●	Reorganize intake process for efficiencies and improved student satisfaction.

●	Prepare and implement a strategy for enhancing the name recognition and prestige of American Public University System.

●	Prepare a strategy for improving student retention.

●	Board approval of a budget of at least $2.13 of earnings per share for 2011, excluding stock based compensation.

Mr. Wilkins’ MBOs, consistent with his responsibilities as our chief financial officer, included:

●	File all periodic reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on a timely basis (weighted 20%).

●	Complete construction of our new 45,000 square foot academic center (weighted 15%).

●	Create a federal student aid customer service team in the finance department (weighted 15%).

●	Maintain an official cohort default rate of less than ten percent (weighted 20%).

●	Obtain at least 16 hours of SEC continuing professional education requirements (weighted 5%).

●	Board approval of a budget of at least $2.13 of earnings per share for 2011, excluding stock based compensation (weighted 25%).

Dr. van Wyk’s MBOs, consistent with her responsibilities as our chief operations officer, included:

●	Select and implement a new learning management system (weighted 20%).

●	Reorganize intake process for efficiencies and improved student satisfaction (weighted 20%).

●	Implement information technology applications and infrastructure changes necessary to support planned student, faculty and staff growth for 2010 (weighted 10%).

●	Redesign our Partnership At a Distance system architecture and implement automated testing to reduce cycle time for system enhancements (weighted 10%).

●	Prepare a strategy for improving student retention (weighted 20%).

●	Board approval of a budget of at least $2.13 of earnings per share for 2011, excluding stock based compensation (weighted 20%).

Ms. Gilbert’s MBOs, consistent with her role as our executive vice president for programs and marketing, included:

●	Launch and measure effectiveness of outreach efforts to new segments of the civilian market (weighted 20%).

●	Reorganize intake process for efficiencies and improved student satisfaction (weighted 20%).

●	Prepare and implement a strategy for enhancing the name recognition and prestige of American Public University System (weighted 20%).

●	Develop a reporting system for communicating to management with respect to marketing initiatives and new student enrollment effectiveness (weighted 10%).

●	Continue to enhance the strategic planning and annual business planning processes (weighted 10%).

●	Board approval of a budget of at least $2.13 of earnings per share for 2011, excluding stock based compensation (weighted 20%).

Dr. McCluskey’s MBOs, consistent with his role as our provost and chief academic officer, included:

●	Oversee academic transition to new learning management system (weighted 20%).

●	Reorganize intake process for efficiencies and improved student satisfaction (weighted 20%).

●	Prepare a regulatory risk strategy for submission to our Board (weighted 10%).

●	Publish two major articles enhancing the name recognition and prestige of American Public University System (weighted 10%).

●	Prepare a strategy for improving student retention (weighted 20%).

●	Board approval of a budget of at least $2.13 of earnings per share for 2011, excluding stock based compensation (weighted 20%).

Based on 2009 results, for 2010 the committee set our SSQ and financial performance targets on what it believed to be the high end of realistically achievable goals. Similar to the approach that we use for setting our internal budget, the committee determined to increase the SSQ targets and EPS financial goal. In setting the SSQ goals for 2010, in keeping with our objective of continuous improvement, the compensation committee expected that there would be an improvement from 2009 performance for the metrics used in the SSQ, and consistent with past practice, removed metrics from the SSQ for which the committee determined that the company was already performing well and there was not significant room for improvement. In establishing our MBOs for 2010, we set goals that were consistent with our strategic plan. Accordingly, our MBOs were set at levels that we thought could realistically be achieved but were at a level necessary for superior company performance. Each of our NEOs achieved 100% of his or her respective MBO targets, with the exception of Ms. Gilbert, who achieved 98% of her MBO targets.

We believe that 2010 was a year of considerable achievement for the company, including an increase in revenues, profitability, course registrations and successful operation as a public company, as well as recognition of the academic achievements of our education programs. In 2010, we achieved each quarter of our SSQ goals at an average of at least 100%, reflecting the strong operating performance of the Company. As a result of a number of factors, however, we did not achieve the financial goal of budgeted earnings per share of $1.64. This meant that none of our employees, including our NEOs, were entitled to receive a payment tied to the financial performance of the Company. The compensation committee recognized, however, that notwithstanding that the budgeted target was not achieved, our full-year 2010 earnings per share represented 25% growth over 2009 full-year earnings per share, and approximately 97% of the budgeted earnings per share target of $1.64. The compensation committee also considered that the Company’s inability to achieve the budgeted earnings per share resulted from the performance in the third quarter, which the Company believes may in part have been due to increased operations activity and overseas deployments across all branches of the US Military. The compensation committee concluded that the “cliff” nature of the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan – meaning that the plan required achieving the targeted earnings per share before any payments were made with respect to the financial portion of the plan and that if the targeted earnings per share were not achieved than no payment would be made with respect to the financial portion of the plan – did not properly reflect the positive performance of the Company, and the contributions of the Company’s employees and NEOs to that performance. After considering these factors, the compensation committee recommended, and the Board approved, a payment of a discretionary bonus to all employees, including the NEOs, related to financial performance in an amount equivalent to 50% of what would have been paid under the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan had the financial objectives been achieved. Taking into account this one-time discretionary bonus, base salary and the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan payments, total actual cash compensation for 2010 for each of our NEOs was equivalent to approximately the 50th percentile of the survey data. In considering the achievement of MBOs for 2010, the compensation committee determined not to make any deduction related to the MBO requiring board approval of a budget of at least $2.13 of earnings per share for 2011, excluding stock based compensation. This decision was made to reflect that the size of the bonus paid to our named executive officers took into account that the Company did not achieve the targeted financial performance goal and that to make a deduction related to this MBO would penalize our NEOs twice for the same circumstances. These discretionary bonus payments are reflected in the bonus column of the Summary Compensation Table below.

Equity Incentives

We believe that NEOs should have a significant potential to benefit from increases in our equity value in order to align the interests of the NEOs and our stockholders. Our equity awards are split between stock options and restricted stock, with approximately 60% of the aggregate award value being allocated to the stock options and approximately 40% of the aggregate award value being allocated to the restricted stock. The compensation committee uses these percentages based in part on the guidance of Towers Watson that these percentages are consistent with market practice. We have historically used stock options because we believe that they align the interests of our executives with our stockholders’ interest in the value of our stock growing. We have determined to use a component of restricted stock in addition to options, which is what we used before our initial public offering in 2007, so that the NEOs are incented to preserve as well as grow stockholder the value of our stock. Our stock options and restricted stock awards vest in one-third equal annual installments on the first three anniversaries of the grant date, and stock options have seven year terms. Equity awards are made at the beginning of the year to which the award relates.

In 2010, we made annual equity awards to Dr. Boston and Mr. Wilkins for the first year since 2007. We did not make equity awards to Dr. Boston or Mr. Wilkins in 2008 or 2009, because at the time of our initial public offering in 2007, we made grants that were intended to be multi−year grants. We felt it was desirable to award a larger grant to these officers than we would have if we expected to award them a grant every year to provide them incentive to gain from the value created above the initial public offering price given their importance to our success, and to align their interests most directly with investors acquiring our shares in connection with our initial public offering. However, in 2010, the compensation committee determined that the performance of Dr. Boston and Mr. Wilkins had been superior, and the size and growth of the Company warranted making an award to these officers. The compensation committee determined, however, that it was appropriate to move to a practice of making annual grants to these officers so that grants could be more easily adjusted from year to year to reflect changing performance and other factors.

In determining the appropriate level of 2010 equity incentive grants for our NEOs, in late 2009, the compensation committee reviewed the comparative survey information requested by the committee and provided by Towers Watson. In calculating the equity incentive grants to our NEOs, the compensation committee considered the survey data provided by Towers Watson and determined that awards that were consistent with the 50th percentile of the survey data would be at an appropriate level to recognize performance and remain competitive with comparable companies. Our stock option awards were made at the closing price of our common stock on the date of grant on The NASDAQ Global Market.

Equity Grant Practices

Our 2010 equity awards were approved in December 2009 with a grant date of January 4, 2010. We expect that going forward equity awards will be made on a consistent basis at the beginning of the year to which the award relates.

Employment Agreements and Post-Termination Compensation

We have entered into employment agreements with each of Dr. Boston, Mr. Wilkins, Dr. van Wyk and Dr. McCluskey. These agreements provide the executive with severance payments upon certain terminations, including terminations without cause, terminations by the executive for good reason in the event of a change of control, or if the executive’s employment agreement is not assumed by a successor entity in a change of control. Dr. Boston’s and Mr. Wilkins’ provide for certain payments in connection with a termination of their employment within 6 months of a change in control of the Company. We believe that these agreements were necessary to attract some of our NEOs and help in our retention of our NEOs due to the prevalence of similar provisions in the market in which we compete for executives and so that we can be competitive with our peers.

In 2007, prior to the time that we were a public company, we entered into an amendment and restatement of our employment agreements with Dr. Boston and Mr. Wilkins to provide for additional severance payments for certain terminations in connection with a change of control and to provide that if severance payments payable by us become subject to the excise tax on “excess parachute payments” that we will reimburse them for the amount of such excise tax (and the income and excise taxes on such reimbursement). We agreed to provide Dr. Boston and Mr. Wilkins with these changes in anticipation of our initial public offering to reflect what at the time we concluded were prevalent practices in the marketplace in which we compete for executives, and because as a public company we wanted these officers to be able to focus on our operations and not be distracted by their personal situations in the event a change in control transaction arises and, in the case of Dr. Boston, to reflect his long−term commitment to us and our long−term commitment to him as our Chief Executive Officer. For Mr. Wilkins, we determined that in light of his shorter tenure with us, the additional severance benefits in connection with a change of control would not be effective until after February 28, 2010. We further amended the employment agreements for Dr. Boston, Mr. Wilkins and Dr. McCluskey in December 2008 to provide for technical compliance with certain Department of the Treasury regulations. We entered into the employment agreement with Dr. van Wyk in August 2009 at the time she joined the Company. Additional information regarding these agreements, including a quantification of benefits that would be received by these officers had termination occurred on December 31, 2010, is found below under the heading “Potential Payments on Termination or Change−in−Control.”

Benefits and Perquisites

Our NEOs are eligible to participate in the same benefit plans that are available to substantially all of our salaried employees, including 401(k) contributions and customary life insurance policies. It has also been our practice to provide limited perquisites to our NEOs. We do offer an annual physical exam for all of our NEOs because we believe that it is consistent with what our competitors are doing and because of our belief that the health of these executives is important to the continued success of our business. In addition, the compensation committee authorized the payment of tuition for Dr. Boston’s Executive Doctorate in Higher Education Management. We supported and encouraged Dr. Boston to pursue this degree because of our belief that it could directly improve on his already exceptional leadership and because we believe that it is important to the way that American Public University System is viewed for its President to have a terminal degree.

Effect of Accounting and Tax Treatment on Compensation Decisions

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, generally imposes a $1 million limit on the amount that a public company may deduct for compensation paid to a company’s CEO or any of the company’s three other most highly compensated executive officers (other than the CFO) who are employed as of the end of the year. This limitation does not apply to compensation that meets the requirements under Section 162(m) for “qualifying performance−based” compensation (i.e., compensation paid only if the individual’s performance meets pre−established objective goals based on performance criteria approved by stockholders) that is established by a committee that consists only of “outside directors” as defined for purposes of Section 162(m). All members of our compensation committee qualify as “outside directors”, and we consider the potential long−term impact of Section 162(m) when establishing compensation. Our Annual Incentive Compensation Plan and the portion of our equity awards made in options qualify as performance−based compensation within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. We currently expect to continue to qualify our compensation programs as performance−based compensation within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code to the extent that doing so remains consistent with our compensation philosophy and objectives.

Role of Executives in Executive Compensation Decisions

Historically, each element of compensation has been recommended to the compensation committee by our Chief Executive Officer for compensation of executive officers other than himself, and the compensation committee determines the target level of compensation for each executive officer. Our Chief Executive Officer sets the MBO targets for our other executive officers based on his MBO targets and our annual corporate performance goals, after taking into account the sphere of responsibility for achievement of those goals for the particular NEO. The Chief Executive Officer reports the MBOs of the other NEOs and other key executives to the compensation committee for its comment prior to the end of the first quarter.

The amount of each element of compensation for our Chief Executive Officer is determined by the compensation committee. Our Chief Executive Officer does not participate in deliberations relating to his own compensation, and none of our other NEOs participate in any deliberations related to the setting of executive compensation.

Compensation Committee Report

The compensation committee reviewed and discussed the above Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) with the Company’s management. Based on its review and discussions with the Company’s management, the compensation committee recommended that the CD&A be included in the Company’s Proxy Statement and in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10−K (including by incorporation to the Proxy Statement).

Compensation Committee (March 9, 2011)

J. Christopher Everett (Chair)

Barbara G. Fast

F. David Fowler

Compensation Tables and Disclosures

Summary Compensation Table

Name and Principal Position	Year	Salary		Bonus (1)		Stock Awards (2)		Option Awards (2)		Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation (3)		All Other Compensation (4)		Total
Wallace E. Boston, Jr.	2010		500,000		75,000		365,400		524,938		150,000		44,022		1,659,360
President and Chief	2009		447,981		—		—		—		435,000		78,167		961,148
Executive Officer	2008		357,692		—		—		—		360,000		59,157		776,849

Harry T. Wilkins	2010		285,000		35,625		104,400		140,609		71,250		31,259		668,143
Executive Vice President,	2009		279,385		—		—		—		216,000		21,949		517,333
Chief Financial Officer	2008		250,000		—		—		—		200,000		24,277		474,277

Sharon van Wyk(5)	2010		298,375		36,250		104,400		140,609		72,500		108,810		761,304
Executive Vice President,
Chief Operating Officer

Carol S. Gilbert	2010		232,000		29,000		48,720		73,116		58,000		15,332		456,168
Executive Vice President,	2009		226,821		—		45,744		54,439		149,050		14,560		490,614
Marketing and Programs(6)	2008		187,200		—		—		—		168,480		11,389		367,069

Frank B. McCluskey (7)	2010		230,750		27,250		48,720		73,116		54,500		15,775		450,111
Executive Vice President,	2009		211,006		—		45,744		54,439		142,800		11,736		465,725
Provost	2008		187,510		—		—		—		131,040		11,797		330,347

(1)	Amounts represent one-time discretionary bonus payments related to financial performance in an amount equivalent to 50% of what would have been paid pursuant to the Company’s Annual Incentive Compensation Plan had the budgeted earnings per share been achieved.

(2)	Amounts reflect the aggregate grant date fair value, computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. A discussion of the relevant assumptions used in calculating these equity awards can be found in Notes 1 and 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year end December 31, 2010.

(3)	Amounts represent annual incentive payments paid pursuant to our Annual Incentive Compensation Plan based upon the achievement of certain performance goals established by our compensation committee for 2010.

(4)	Amounts in this column consist of (i) life insurance premiums; (ii) 401(k) contribution matches by us; (iii) for Mr. Wilkins, fringe benefit payment in lieu of health benefits; (iv) for Dr. van Wyk, $91,356 (which amount includes the actual value and gross up value) for relocation and moving expenses pursuant to her employment agreement in connection with her commencement of employment with American Public Education, (v) for Dr. Boston, tuition related to his Executive Doctorate in Higher Education Management, and (vi) for Dr. Boston and Mr. Wilkins, payments for costs associated with annual physical examinations.

(5)	Dr. van Wyk joined the Company in August 2009.

(6)	Ms. Gilbert served as Senior Vice President, Programs and Marketing until December 31, 2008, when she became Executive Vice President, Programs and Marketing.

(7)	Effective March 17, 2011, Dr. McCluskey retired from his position as Executive Vice President and Provost.

2010 Grants of Plan Based Awards

The following table sets forth information with respect to grants of plan−based awards to our NEOs during 2010:

			Estimated Future Payout
			Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)
Name	Grant Date	Date of Committee Action	Threshold ($)		Target ($)	Maximum ($)		All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#)		All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options (#)		Exercise or Base Price of Option Awards ($/share)		Grant Date Fair Value of Stock or Option Awards(2)

Wallace E. Boston, Jr.	1/18/2010			37,500	300,000		500,000
	01/04/2010	12/29/2009							10,500						365,400
	01/04/2010	12/29/2009									56,000		34.80		524,938

Harry T. Wilkins	1/18/2010			17,813	142,500		228,000
	01/04/2010	12/29/2009							3,000						104,400
	01/04/2010	12/29/2009									15,000		34.80		140,609

Sharon van Wyk	1/18/2010			18,125	145,000		232,000
	01/04/2010	12/29/2009							3,000						104,400
	01/04/2010	12/29/2009									15,000		34.80		140,609

Carol S. Gilbert	1/18/2010			14,500	116,000		162,400
	01/04/2010	12/29/2009							1,400						48,720
	01/04/2010	12/29/2009									7,800		34.80		73,116

Frank B. McCluskey	1/18/2010			13,625	109,000		152,600
	01/04/2010	12/29/2009							1,400						48,720
	01/04/2010	12/29/2009									7,800		34.80		73,116

(1)	These columns show the range of cash payouts for 2010 performance pursuant to our Annual Incentive Compensation Plan. For a discussion of the performance goals established by the compensation committee for these awards, see the section titled “Annual Incentive Cash Compensation” in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis. The threshold amounts in this table represent the amounts that would have been paid if only SSQ goals for one quarter were achieved.

(2)	Amounts reflect the grant date fair value, computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718.

Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan−Based Awards Table

Employment Agreements

For Dr. Boston, Mr. Wilkins, Dr. van Wyk and Dr. McCluskey, the amounts disclosed in the tables above are in part a result of the terms of their employment agreements. We do not have an employment agreement with Ms. Gilbert.

Dr. Boston’s Employment Agreement. In June 2004, we entered into an employment agreement with Dr. Boston to serve as our president and Chief Executive Officer with an initial term of three years starting from June 21, 2004 and ending June 21, 2007, which was subsequently amended to provide for renewal until February 28, 2010 and annually thereafter unless we give written notice of our intent not to renew at least 30 days prior to the renewal date. In December 2008, his employment agreement was amended to provide for technical compliance with certain treasury regulations. Pursuant to his agreement, Dr. Boston’s initial base salary was set at $225,000 per year, subject to annual review and adjustment by our compensation committee. Under the agreement, Dr. Boston’s base salary may be reduced at any time as part of a general salary reduction to all employees with annual salaries in excess of $100,000, provided, however, that any reduction shall be no more than the lesser of the median percentage salary reduction applied to such employees or 20%. Dr. Boston’s employment agreement provides that he is entitled to participate in our annual incentive plan with a target award of up to 60% of his then base salary as determined by our compensation committee and based upon the performance goals set by that committee for the year.

In addition to a base salary and annual bonus, Dr. Boston is entitled to receive such other benefits approved by our compensation committee and made available to our other senior executives and to participate in plans and receive bonuses, incentive compensation and fringe benefits as we may grant or establish from time to time. Furthermore, under Dr. Boston’s employment agreement, we are required to pay or reimburse him for customary and reasonable moving expenses he incurs in connection with any subsequent relocation of our executive offices, including a gross−up amount in the event that the relocation expense amount is considered taxable income to him. In his employment agreement, Dr. Boston has agreed not to compete with us nor solicit our employees for alternative employment during the term of his agreement and for a period of one year after termination for any reason.

Dr. Boston’s base salary for 2010 was $500,000 and his Annual Incentive Compensation Plan award for 2010 was targeted at $300,000, with a maximum bonus potential of $500,000. Dr. Boston received total incentive compensation of $225,000 in 2010, which included a one-time discretionary bonus of $75,000.

Mr. Wilkins’s Employment Agreement. Upon his hiring in February 2007, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Wilkins to serve as our executive vice president and chief financial officer, which agreement was amended and restated on October 10, 2007. In December 2008, his employment agreement was amended to provide for technical compliance with certain treasury regulations. The agreement has an initial term of approximately three years commencing from January 29, 2007 and ending February 28, 2010 and will automatically renew for additional one year terms unless we give written notice of our intent not to renew at least 30 days prior to the renewal date. Pursuant to his agreement, Mr. Wilkins’s initial base salary is set at $225,000 per year, subject to annual review and adjustment by our compensation committee. Under the agreement, Mr. Wilkins’s base salary may be reduced at any time as part of a general salary reduction to all employees with annual salaries in excess of $100,000, provided, however, that any reduction shall be no more than the lesser of the median percentage salary reduction applied to such employees or 20%. Pursuant to his employment agreement, Mr. Wilkins is entitled to participate in our annual incentive plan with a target award of up to 50% of his then base salary as determined by our compensation committee and based upon the performance goals set by that committee for the year.

In addition to a base salary and annual bonus, Mr. Wilkins is entitled to receive such other benefits approved by our compensation committee and made available to our other senior executives and to participate in plans and receive bonuses, incentive compensation and fringe benefits as we may grant or establish from time to time. Furthermore, under Mr. Wilkins’s employment agreement, we are required to pay or reimburse him for customary and reasonable moving expenses he incurs in connection with any subsequent relocation of our executive offices, including a gross−up amount in the event that the relocation expense amount is considered taxable income to him. In his employment agreement, Mr. Wilkins has agreed not to compete with us nor solicit our employees for alternative employment during the term of his agreement and for a period of one year after termination for any reason.

Mr. Wilkins’s base salary for 2010 was $285,000 and his Annual Incentive Compensation Plan award for 2010 was targeted at $142,500, with a maximum bonus potential of $228,000. Mr. Wilkins received total incentive compensation of $106,875 in 2010, which included a one-time discretionary bonus of $35,625.

Dr. van Wyk’s Employment Agreement. We have an employment agreement with Dr. van Wyk that has similar provisions to the provisions of Dr. Boston’s agreement discussed above, except with respect to their positions, term renewal provisions and amounts relating to their base salary and annual bonus. We entered into the employment agreement with Dr. van Wyk to serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer beginning August 3, 2009. Under her employment agreement, Dr. van Wyk has an initial term of employment of three years from the date employment commenced. Pursuant to her agreement, Dr. van Wyk’s initial annual salary was $275,000 and she was eligible for an annual bonus of 50% of her base salary then in effect, and up to additional 20% of her base salary as then in effect based upon the achievement of certain performance goals as determined by the compensation committee. In 2010, Dr. van Wyk’s base salary and target annual bonus was $290,000 and $145,000, with a maximum bonus potential of $232,000. Dr. van Wyk received total incentive compensation of $108,750 in 2010, which included a one-time discretionary bonus of $36,250.

Dr. McCluskey’s Employment Agreement. We have an employment agreement with Dr. McCluskey that has similar provisions to the provisions of Dr. Boston’s agreement discussed above, except with respect to their positions, term renewal provisions and amounts relating to their base salary and annual bonus. We entered into the employment agreement with Dr. McCluskey to serve as Executive Vice President and Provost (Chief Academic Officer) beginning April 10, 2005. In December 2008, his employment agreement was amended to provide for technical compliance with certain treasury regulations. Under his employment agreement, Dr. McCluskey has an initial term of employment of three years from the date employment commenced. Pursuant to his agreement, Dr. McCluskey’s initial annual salary was $160,000 and he was eligible for an annual bonus of 50% of his base salary then in effect. In 2010, Dr. McCluskey’s base salary and target annual bonus was $218,000 and $109,000, with a maximum bonus potential of $130,800. Dr. McCluskey received total incentive compensation of $81,750 in 2010, which included a one-time discretionary bonus of $27,250.

In addition, each of the above employment agreements provides for payments upon certain terminations of the executive’s employment. For a description of these termination provisions, whether or not following a change−in−control, and a quantification of benefits that would be received by these executives see the heading “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change−in−Control” below.

2010 Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year−End

The following table sets forth information with respect to the outstanding equity awards at December 31, 2010 for our NEOs:

	Option Awards (1)							Stock Awards
	Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable		Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercisable		Options Exercise Price ($)		Options Expiration Date	Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#)		Market Value of Shares or Units of StockThat Have Not Vested ($)(2)




Name

Wallace E. Boston, Jr.		126,390		0		20.00	11/13/2014
		0		56,000		34.80	1/4/2017
									10,500		391,020
Harry T. Wilkins		182,954		0		3.96	2/8/2017
		56,880		0		20.00	11/13/2014
		0		15,000		34.80	1/4/2017
									3,000		111,720
Sharon van Wyk		4,167		8,333		35.44	8/3/2016
		0		15,000		34.80	1/4/2017
									4,666		173,762
Carol S. Gilbert		8,000		0		1.43	11/29/2014
		5,475		0		20.00	11/13/2014
		1,996		3,992		37.19	1/1/2016
		0		7,800		34.80	1/4/2017
									2,220		82,673
Frank B. McCluskey		197		0		1.67	4/10/2015
		403		15,197		3.30	2/27/2016
		8,610		0		20.00	11/13/2014
		1,996		3,992		37.19	1/1/2016
		0		7,800		34.80	1/4/2017
									2,220		82,673

(1)	The vesting date for each service-based option award that is not otherwise fully vested is listed in the table below by expiration date as of December 31, 2010.

Expiration Date		Vesting Schedule and Date for Unvested Portion
1/1/2016		Remaining portions vest on January 1, 2012
1/1/2017		Remaining portions vest in equal installments on January 4, 2012 and 2013

(2)	The market value of the shares of common stock that have not vested is based on the closing price of our common stock on The NASDAQ Global Market of $37.24 on December 31, 2010.

Option Exercises and Stock Vested

The following table sets forth information with respect to option exercises by our NEOs during 2010 and shares of restricted stock held by our NEOs that vested during 2010:

	Option Awards				Stock Awards
	Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#)		Value Realized on Exercise ($)(1)		Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#)		Value Realized on Vesting ($)(2)


Name

Wallace E. Boston, Jr.		60,788		1,697,201		10,755		291,138
Harry T. Wilkins		10,000		395,675		4,840		131,019
Sharon van Wyk		0		0		834		37,221
Carol S. Gilbert		7,197		229,296		810		24,916
Frank B. McCluskey		51,576		2,088,729		1,110		33,037

(1)	The value realized on exercise is based on the difference between the exercise price of the option and the closing price of our common stock on The NASDAQ Global Market on the day of exercise, multiplied by the number of shares acquired.

(2)	The value realized on vesting is based on the closing price of our common stock on The NASDAQ Global Market on the day of vesting, multiplied by the number of shares acquired.

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change−in−Control

The section below describes the payments that may be made to our NEOs in connection with a change−in−control or pursuant to certain termination events. Other than in the event of a corporate transaction, as that term is defined under our equity incentive plans and as described in further detail below, in the absence of an employment agreement or other arrangement, our NEOs are employed at−will and are not entitled to any payments upon termination or a change−in−control other than their accrued but unpaid salary or benefits.

The employment agreements for Dr. Boston, Mr. Wilkins, Dr. van Wyk and Dr. McCluskey, described above, have certain provisions that provide for payments to them in the event of the termination of their respective employment.

Termination for cause, without good reason or by reason of death. In the event that any of Dr. Boston’s, Mr. Wilkins’, Dr. van Wyk’s or Dr. McCluskey’s employment is terminated by us for “cause”, by the executive without “good reason”, or by reason of death (each of “cause” and “good reason” as defined below), we will pay to each of them or their estate, as the case may be, their full base salary and benefits that are otherwise payable to them through the termination date of their employment. However, in the event that their employment is terminated by them without “good reason” or by reason of their death, we will also pay to them or their estate any earned, but unpaid, amounts they are entitled to under any of our incentive compensation plans or programs, including the annual bonus under their employment agreements (as adjusted for the period of the year during which they served).

Termination by reason of disability. If any of Dr. Boston’s, Mr. Wilkins’, Dr. van Wyk’s or Dr. McCluskey’s employment is terminated by reason of disability, we are required to pay to them or their estates, as the case may be, the full base salary or other benefits payable to them, including any earned, but unpaid, amounts they are entitled to under any of our incentive compensation plans or programs, including the annual bonus under their employment agreements (to the extent that performance would merit it being paid). However, payments made to them during the time they are disabled shall be reduced by the sum of the amounts, if any, payable to them at or prior to the time of any payment under our disability benefit plans and which amounts were not previously applied to reduce any payment.

Termination without cause or for good reason. In the event that we terminate any of Dr. Boston’s, Mr. Wilkins’, Dr. van Wyk’s or Dr. McCluskey’s employment without “cause” or they terminate their employment for “good reason,” we are required to pay, or provide, to them:

●	in a lump sum, the sum of (a) their full base salary through the date of their termination, (b) a pro−rata amount of their annual bonus for the current fiscal year, provided that the necessary performance requirements were satisfied, adjusted for the shorter period, through their termination date, and (c) any compensation previously deferred by them and any accrued vacation pay;

●	for a period of 12 months following their termination date, an amount equal to the sum of their base salary and their annual bonus, to the extent that their and our performance was satisfying the relevant performance targets, adjusted for the short period, after their termination date through the end of the calendar year and, as to the remainder of the 12 month period following the termination date, only if our net income has increased from the same period in the prior year and the performance targets established for the NEO’s successor are being satisfied in that period;

●	for a period of 12 months following their termination date or any longer period provided for under the terms of any benefit, a continuation of benefits to them or their family at a level and in an amount that is at least equal to that which would have been provided by us to them had they continued their employment, provided, however, that if they become reemployed and are eligible to receive any of the benefits that had been provided by us, then the benefits we provide shall be secondary; and

●	to the extent not otherwise paid or provided, for a period of 12 months following their termination date, any other amounts or benefits required to be paid or provided or which they are eligible to receive under any of our other existing benefit schemes.

Dr. van Wyk’s agreement provides that the portion of the severance payments owed in the event of a termination without “cause” or for “good reason,” attributable to annual bonus payments will be paid in a lump sum at the same time annual bonuses for the year of termination are paid, but in no event later than March 15th of the year after the year of termination.

In addition, for Dr. Boston, to the extent that less than 331/3% of all stock options granted to him are outstanding and unexercisable on their termination date, such additional options, if any, shall immediately accelerate and vest and become exercisable. Pursuant to an amendment and restatement of his employment agreement in August 2007, if we terminate Dr. Boston’s employment without “cause” or he terminates his employment for “good reason” in connection with a change of control, we will calculate the amounts referred to in the last three bullet points above for a 24−month period instead of a 12−month period, will pay the amount in respect of the annual bonus for that period based on his and our prior performance and not with respect to future performance and will pay the amount in respect of his base salary and annual bonus in a lump sum instead of in accordance with our regular payroll practices. The amendment and restatement of Dr. Boston’s employment agreement also provides that if severance payments payable by us become subject to the excise tax on “excess parachute payments” imposed by Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) or additional tax under Section 409A of the IRC, we will reimburse him for the amount of such excise tax (and the income and excise taxes on such reimbursement). We entered into a similar amendment and restatement of Mr. Wilkins’ agreement in August 2007, provided that the provisions related to the termination of his employment in connection with a change in control were not effective until after February 28, 2010.

Acceleration of options upon change of control. Under Dr. Boston’s, Mr. Wilkins’ and Dr. McCluskey’s employment agreements, immediately prior to a change of control (as defined below), all stock options granted to them on or prior to the date of their respective employment agreements that are outstanding immediately prior to a change of control shall vest and become fully exercisable.

Our equity incentive plans provide that, upon a corporate transaction, all outstanding shares of restricted stock and all stock units shall vest in full. All outstanding stock options and stock appreciation rights shall either (i) become immediately exercisable for a period of fifteen days prior to the scheduled consummation of the corporate transaction or (ii) our Board may elect, in its sole discretion, to cancel any outstanding awards of stock options, restricted stock, stock units and/or stock appreciation units and pay to the holder, in the case of restricted stock or stock units, an amount equal to the per share corporate transaction consideration or, in the case of stock options or stock appreciation rights, an amount equal to the number of shares of stock subject to the stock option or stock appreciation right multiplied by the difference of the per share corporate transaction consideration and the exercise price of the stock option or stock appreciation price.

For this purpose, a “corporate transaction” is generally defined as:

●	our dissolution or liquidation or a merger, consolidation, or reorganization between us and one or more other entities in which we are not the surviving entity;

●	a sale of substantially all of our assets to another person or entity; or

●	any transaction that results in any person or entity, other than persons who are stockholders or affiliates immediately prior to the transaction, owning 50% or more of the combined voting power of all classes of our stock.

Accelerated vesting upon a “corporate transaction” will not occur to the extent that provision is made in writing in connection with the corporate transaction for the assumption or continuation of the outstanding awards, or for the substitution of such outstanding awards for similar awards relating to the stock of the successor entity, or a parent or subsidiary of the successor entity, with appropriate adjustments to the number of shares of stock that would be delivered and the exercise price, grant price or purchase price relating to any such award. For awards made under our 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan, if an award is assumed or substituted in connection with a corporate transaction and the holder is terminated without cause within a year following a change in control, the award will fully vest and may be exercised in full, to the extent applicable, beginning on the date of such termination and for the one−year period immediately following such termination or for such longer period as the compensation committee shall determine.

Terms defined in employment agreements. For purposes of Dr. Boston’s, Mr. Wilkins’, Dr. van Wyk’s and Dr. McCluskey’s employment agreements, the following definitions apply:

●	“Cause” means:

	●	refusal by the NEO to follow a written order of the Chairman of our Board or of the Board;

	●	the NEO’s engagement in conduct materially injurious to us or our reputation;

	●	dishonesty of a material nature that relates to the performance of the NEO’s duties under their employment agreement; the NEO’s conviction for any crime involving moral turpitude or any felony; and

	●	the NEO’s continued failure to perform his or her duties under his or her employment agreement (except due to the NEO’s incapacity as a result of physical or mental illness) to the satisfaction of our Board for a period of at least 30 consecutive days after written notice is delivered to the NEO specifically identifying the manner in which the NEO has failed to perform his or her duties.

●	“Change of Control” means:

	●	our dissolution or liquidation, or a merger, consolidation or reorganization of us with one or more other entities in which we are not the surviving entity;

	●	a sale of substantially all of our assets to another person or entity; or

	●	any transaction (including without limitation a merger or reorganization in which we are the surviving entity) which results in any person or entity owning 50% or more of the combined voting power of all classes of our stock.

●	“Good Reason” means:

	●	the assignment to the NEO of duties inconsistent in any material respect with the NEO’s position as set forth in, or in accordance with, their employment agreement, excluding an isolated, insubstantial and inadvertent action that we remedy promptly after receipt of notice from the NEO;

	●	any failure by us to comply with any provisions of the NEO’s employment agreement, excluding an isolated, insubstantial and inadvertent action that we remedy promptly after receipt of notice from the NEO;

	●	there is a merger, acquisition or other similar affiliation with another entity and the NEO does not continue in his or her position, or any other office he or she holds at the time of the transaction, of the most senior resulting entity succeeding to our business; and

	●	any failure by us to require any successor or any party that acquires control of us, whether directly or indirectly, by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise, or all or substantially all of our business and/or assets to assume expressly and agree to perform the NEO’s employment agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that we would be required to perform it if no succession had taken place.

Provided, however, that none of the foregoing constitute Good Reason if the executive consents in writing to such event, and none of the foregoing constitute Good Reason unless we fail to cure the asserted grounds for Good Reason within 30 days of receipt of notice from the executive. In order to terminate his or her employment for Good Reason, the executive must terminate employment within 30 days of the end of the cure period if the breach has not been cured.

Payment and Benefit Estimates

The table below was prepared to reflect the estimated payments that would have been made pursuant to the agreements and arrangements described above. The estimated payments were calculated as though the applicable triggering event occurred, and the NEO’s employment was terminated, or the applicable change in control occurred, on December 31, 2010, using the closing price of our common stock on The NASDAQ Global Market of $37.24 on December 31, 2010. As discussed in the narrative above, upon termination for cause, by the NEO without good reason or upon death or disability, the NEO is generally only entitled to receive amounts he is owed as of the termination date (e.g., salary, benefits and, in limited cases, any previously earned, but unpaid, annual incentive compensation). Assuming a termination date of December 31, 2010, these amounts are set forth in the tables above, and we have not included any such amounts below. We have not included these earned, but unpaid amounts, in the termination events included in the table below.

	Aggregate Severance Pay(1) ($)		Accelerated Vesting of Stock Options ($)(2)		Accelerated Vesting of Restricted Stock ($)(2)		Welfare Benefits Continuation ($)		Gross- Up		Total ($)
Wallace E. Boston, Jr.
Termination without Cause or
by executive for Good Reason		725,000		136,640		—		12,000		—		873,640
Termination without cause or by executive for Good Reason in
connection with a
Change-in-Control(2)		1,450,000		136,640		391,020		24,000		—		2,001,660
Occurrence of a Change-in-Control(2)		—		136,640		391,020		—		—		527,660
Harry T. Wilkins
Termination without Cause or
by executive for Good Reason		391,875		—		—		12,000		—		440,475
Termination without cause or by executive for Good Reason in
connection with a
Change-in-Control(2)		783,749		36,600		111,720		24,000		—		956,069
Occurrence of a Change-in-Control(2)		—		36,600		111,720		—		—		111,720
Sharon van Wyk
Termination without Cause or by executive for Good Reason		407,485		—		—		12,097		—		419,582
Occurrence of a Change-in-Control(2)		—		51,599		173,762		—		—		225,361
Carol S. Gilbert
Occurrence of a Change-in-Control(2)		—		19,232		82,673		—		—		101,904
Frank B. McCluskey
Termination without Cause or by executive for Good Reason		312,500		—		—		11,974		—		324,474
Occurrence of a Change-in-Control(2)		—		535,018		82,673		—		—		617,691

(1)	We have assumed for purposes of calculating the aggregate severance pay that our net income and the NEO’s successor’s performance would be sufficient for the NEO to receive the maximum payout.

(2)	Except for stock options for Dr. Boston, Mr. Wilkins and Dr. McCluskey, which accelerate upon a change in control pursuant to the terms of their employment agreements, we have assumed for purposes of calculating the acceleration of equity awards that a Corporate Transaction, as defined in our equity incentive plans, had occurred and that equity awards are not assumed or substituted.

PROPOSAL NO. 2 — APPROVAL OF THE 2011 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN

Overview

Our Board approved the American Public Education, Inc. 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2011 Plan”) on March 15, 2011, subject to approval from our stockholders. We are asking our stockholders to approve the 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan as we believe that its approval is essential to our continued success. The purpose of the 2011 Plan is to provide eligible persons with an incentive to contribute to the success of American Public Education and to manage our business in a manner that will provide for long-term growth and profitability to benefit our stockholders and other important stakeholders, including our employees and customers, and to provide a means of obtaining, rewarding and retaining key personnel, all in compliance with applicable law.

If our stockholders approve the 2011 Plan, the number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under the Plan will be 2,000,000 authorized but unissued shares, plus the number of any shares under our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “2002 Plan”) and our 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2007 Plan”) which become available due to forfeitures or cancellations of outstanding awards after the date of shareholder approval of the 2011 Plan. As of March 11, 2011, under the 2007 Plan and the 2002 Plan, there was an aggregate of 1,158,482 shares subject to outstanding option awards with a weighted average exercise price of $20.01 and a weighted average remaining term of 5.33 years and an aggregate of 80,365 shares subject to outstanding restricted stock awards. In connection with the Company’s annual grant of equity incentive awards in January 2011, there were 7 executive officers, 6 non-employee directors and approximately 67 employees of the Company and its subsidiaries who received awards under the 2007 Plan. The 2011 Plan provides that following stockholder approval of the 2011 Plan we can no longer make grants under the 2002 Plan or 2007 Plan.

On the record date, March 11, 2011, the closing price of our common stock was $41.51 per share, and there were 7 executive officers, 6 non-employee directors and approximately 2,293 employees of the Company and its subsidiaries who were eligible to participate in the 2011 Plan. There are currently no participants in the 2011 Plan. Because participation and the types of awards under the 2011 Plan are subject to the discretion of the compensation committee, the benefits or amounts that will be received by any participant or groups of participants if the 2011 Plan is approved are not currently determinable.

Description of the 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan

The following is a summary of the principal features of the 2011 Plan. This summary is qualified in its entirety by the more detailed terms and conditions of the 2011 Plan, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to this proxy statement. If the 2011 Plan is not approved by the required vote of stockholders within one year of the date our Board adopted the 2011 Plan, any awards made under the 2011 Plan will be null and void and of no effect. We intend to file a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, to register the shares to be issued pursuant to the 2011 Plan promptly following stockholder approval of the 2011 Plan.

Administration

The 2011 Plan will be administered by the compensation committee of the Board. Subject to the terms of the 2011 Plan, the compensation committee may select participants to receive awards, determine the types of awards and terms and conditions of awards, and interpret provisions of the 2011 Plan. Except as the Board may otherwise determine, the Committee appointed by the Board to administer the 2011 Plan will consist of two or more directors of the Company who: (a) are not officers or employees of the Company, (b) qualify as “outside directors” within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, (c) meet such other requirements as may be established from time to time by the SEC for plans intended to qualify for exemption under Rule 16b-3 (or its successor) under the Exchange Act and (d) comply with the independence requirements of the stock exchange on which the our common stock is listed. Members of the compensation committee serve at the pleasure of the Board. The Board may also appoint one or more separate committees of the Board, each composed of one or more directors of the Company who may also be officers or employees of the Company, to administer the Plan with respect to employees or other service providers who are not executive officers or directors of the Company.

Share Usage

Shares of our common stock that are subject to awards of options or stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) will be counted against the 2011 Plan share limit as one share for every one share subject to the award. Any shares of stock that are subject to awards other than options or SARs shall be counted against the 2011 Plan share limit as 1.69 shares for every one share subject to the award. The number of shares subject to any SARs awarded under the 2011 Plan will be counted against the aggregate number of shares available for issuance under the 2011 Plan regardless of the number of shares actually issued to settle the SAR upon exercise.

Eligibility

Awards may be made to employees, officers or directors of the Company or any of our affiliates, or a consultant or adviser (in each case who is a natural person) then providing services to the Company or any of our affiliates.

Amendment or Termination of the 2011 Plan

The Board may terminate, suspend or amend the 2011 Plan at any time and for any reason as to any shares as to which awards have not been made. The 2011 Plan will terminate in any event ten years after the effective date of the 2011 Plan, which will be May 6, 2021 if the 2011 Plan is adopted at the Annual Meeting. Amendments will be submitted for stockholder approval to the extent stated by the Board, required by applicable law or required by applicable stock exchange listing requirements. In addition, no amendment may be made to the no-repricing provisions described below without the approval of the Company’s stockholders. No amendment, suspension, or termination of the 2011 Plan shall impair rights or obligations under any outstanding award made under the 2011 Plan without consent of any affected grantee.

No-Repricing

Except in connection with certain corporate transactions, no amendment or modification may be made to an outstanding stock option or SAR, including by replacement with or substitution of another award type, that would be treated as a repricing under applicable stock exchange rules or would replace stock options or SARs with cash, in each case without the approval of the stockholders (although appropriate adjustments may be made to outstanding stock options and SARs to achieve compliance with applicable law, including the Internal Revenue Code).

Options

The 2011 Plan permits the granting of stock options intended to qualify as incentive stock options under the Internal Revenue Code and also stock options that do not qualify as incentive stock options.

The exercise price of each stock option may not be less than 100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant date. The fair market value is generally determined as the closing price of the common stock on the grant date or other determination date. In the case of certain 10% stockholders who receive incentive stock options, the exercise price may not be less than 110% of the fair market value of the common stock on the date of grant. An exception to these requirements is made for options that the Company grants in substitution for options held by employees of companies that the Company acquires. In such a case the exercise price would be adjusted to preserve the economic value of the employee’s stock option from the former employer.

The term of each stock option is fixed by the compensation committee and may not exceed 10 years from the date of grant (five years if the optionee is a 10% stockholder and the option is intended to be an incentive stock option). The compensation committee determines at what times each option may be exercised and any period after retirement, death, disability or termination of employment during which options may be exercised. Options may be made exercisable in installments. The exercisability of options may be accelerated by the compensation committee.

In general, an optionee may pay the exercise price of an option by cash or cash equivalents, or, if the option agreement so provides, by tendering shares of our common stock with a fair market value equal to the option exercise price, by means of a broker-assisted cashless exercise or any combination. An award agreement may provide for other methods as well.

Other Awards

Under the 2011 Plan, the following types of awards may also be made:

SARs. A SAR is an award that gives the holder the right to receive, upon exercise thereof, the excess of (a) the fair market value of one share of our common stock on the date of exercise over (b) the SAR exercise price on the grant date. The SAR exercise price must be at least equal to the fair market value of a share of our common stock on the date of grant, as determined in accordance with the 2011 Plan.

Restricted Stock. Restricted stock is an award of shares of our common stock, which may be granted for no consideration (other than the par value of the shares which is deemed paid by services). At the time a grant of restricted stock is made, the compensation committee may establish time or performance vesting applicable to such restricted stock. There is a minimum three-year vesting requirement for time-vested restricted stock awards and deferred stock unit awards and one-year minimum vesting requirement for performance-vesting restricted stock awards and deferred stock unit awards, with up to ten percent of shares reserved under the plan exempted from the foregoing minimum requirements. Unless the compensation committee provides otherwise in the award agreement, holders of restricted stock will have the right to vote such stock and the right to receive any dividends. The compensation committee may provide that any dividends paid on restricted stock must be reinvested in common stock.

Unrestricted Stock. An award of unrestricted stock is an award of shares of our common stock free of restrictions. The compensation committee may grant an award of shares of unrestricted stock or sell at par value or such other higher purchase price determined by the compensation committee. Unrestricted stock awards may be granted or sold for services and other valid consideration, or in lieu of or in addition to any cash compensation due to the grantee.

Deferred Stock Units. A stock unit is a bookkeeping entry that represents the equivalent of one share of Company common stock. The same terms and restrictions as may be set forth by the compensation committee with respect to shares of restricted stock apply to deferred stock units. However, holders of deferred stock units will have no rights as stockholders or any other rights (other than those of a general creditor of the Company). The compensation committee may provide that the holder of deferred stock units will be entitled to receive, upon the Company’s payment of a cash dividend on its outstanding common stock, a cash payment for each stock unit held equal to the per-share dividend paid on our common stock. The compensation committee may also provide in the award agreement that such cash payment will be deemed reinvested in additional deferred stock units at a price per unit equal to the fair market value of a share of Company common stock on the date that such dividend is paid.

Dividend Equivalent Rights. A dividend equivalent right is an award entitling the recipient to receive credits based on cash distributions that would have been paid on the shares of our common stock specified in the dividend equivalent right (or other award to which it relates) if such shares had been issued to and held by the recipient. The terms and conditions of dividend equivalent rights will be specified in the grant.

Performance-Based Awards. These awards are awards of options, SARs, restricted stock, deferred stock units, performance shares or other equity-based awards that are made subject to the achievement of performance goals over a performance period specified by the compensation committee and comply with applicable law. Subject to the terms of the 2011 Plan, the compensation committee may pay earned shares or units in cash or in shares of our common stock (or in a combination of cash and shares of our common stock) equal to the value of the earned common stock or units at the close of the applicable performance period or as soon as practicable thereafter.

Recoupment

Award agreements for awards granted pursuant to the 2011 Plan may be subject to mandatory repayment by the recipient to the Company of any gain realized by the recipient to the extent the recipient is in violation of or in conflict with certain agreements with the Company (including but not limited to an employment or non-competition agreement) or upon termination for Cause as defined in the 2011 Plan, applicable award agreement, or any other agreement between the Company or an affiliate and the recipient. Reimbursement or forfeiture also applies if the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the Company, as a result of misconduct, with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws or if an award was earned or vested based on achievement of pre-established performance goals that are later determined, as a result of the accounting restatement, not to have been achieved.

Effect of Certain Corporate Transactions; Adjustments for Stock Dividends and Similar Events

Certain change of control transactions, such as a sale of the Company, may cause awards to vest, unless the awards are continued or substituted for in connection with the change of control transaction. The compensation committee will make appropriate adjustments in outstanding awards and the number of shares available for issuance under the 2011 Plan, including the individual limitations on awards, to reflect stock splits and other similar events.

Performance Criteria approved by Stockholders and Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code limits publicly-held companies such as the Company to an annual deduction for federal income tax purposes of $1 million for compensation paid to their covered employees, but performance-based compensation is excluded from this limitation. The compensation committee may grant stock options and stock appreciation rights that qualify as performance-based for purposes of satisfying the conditions of Section 162(m). Covered employees include the chief executive officer and the three highest compensated executive officers (other than the chief financial officer) determined at the end of each year. To qualify as performance-based, among other things the compensation must be paid solely on account of the attainment of one or more pre-established, objective performance goals.

In addition, the material terms under which the compensation is to be paid must be disclosed to and subsequently approved by stockholders of the Company in a separate vote before payment is made. The 2011 Plan therefore requires that the performance goals upon which the payment of a performance-based award to a covered employee that is intended to qualify as performance-based compensation are limited to the performance measures list below, which would be approved by stockholders as part of the 2011 Plan.

The approved performance measures would consist of the following: (a) total stockholder return; (b) such total stockholder return as compared to total return (on a comparable basis) of a publicly available index such as, but not limited to, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index; (c) net income; (d) pretax earnings; (e) earnings before interest expense, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or other identified expenses, including stock-based compensation expenses; (f) pretax operating earnings after interest expense and before bonuses, service fees, and extraordinary or special items; (g) operating margin; (h) earnings per share; (i) return on equity; (j) return on capital; (k) return on investment; (l) operating earnings; (m) working capital; (n) ratio of debt to stockholders’ equity; (o) revenue; (p) demonstrated sound financial, budgeting and operational practices; (q) changes to processes, systems, technology and reporting models, (r) student academic performance; (s) improvements to student services; (t) student satisfaction surveys or measures; (u) quality measures, including ranking of the Company by third parties; (v) acquisitions or new program developments; (w) improvements to academic rigor, faculty qualifications and curriculum development; (x) performance with respect to regulatory requirements, including compliance with those promulgated by the Department of Education; (y) regulatory approvals to operate in new states; (z) maintenance of regional accreditation; and (aa) maintaining or obtaining specialized accreditations.

None of the foregoing, either at all or for particular periods, will be applied or interpreted to provide any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly upon success in securing enrollments or financial aid to any person or entity engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions regarding the awarding of Title IV program funds, except as permitted by law.

Any performance measure(s) may be used to measure (i) the performance of the Company, a subsidiary, and/or an affiliate as a whole, (ii) the Company, any subsidiary, and/or any other affiliate or any combination, or (iii) any business unit of the Company, subsidiary, and/or affiliate or any combination thereof, as the compensation committee may deem appropriate. The Company may also use any of the above performance measures as compared to the performance of a group of comparator companies, or published or special index that the compensation committee, deems appropriate. The Company may also select performance measure (h) above as compared to various stock market indices. The compensation committee also has the authority to provide for accelerated vesting of any award based on the achievement of performance goals pursuant to the performance measures specified above.

On October 29, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department of Education”) published new rules effective July 1, 2011 implementing a provision of Title IV (“Title IV”) of the Higher Education Act ("HEA") that an institution participating in federal student financial aid programs may not provide any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial aid to any person or entity engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions regarding awarding of Title IV program funds. The HEA exempts recruitment of foreign students residing in foreign countries who are not eligible for Title IV assistance. The compensation committee intends to administer the 2011 Plan in accordance with the HEA and its implementing regulations, and accordingly intends not to use any of the performance measures described above in awards to individuals engaged in any student recruiting or admissions activities or in making decisions regarding awarding of Title IV program funds, except as permitted by law.

Limitations on Grants

The 2011 Plan sets limitations on certain types of awards for purposes of being able to comply with Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The limitations under the 2011 Plan are the same limitations as those that existed under the 2007 Plan and do not reflect any current plans of the compensation committee to make awards of any particular size. The maximum number of shares of Company common stock subject to awards under the 2011 Plan that can be granted to any person is 275,000 per calendar year. The maximum amount that may be paid as a performance-based cash-settled award in a calendar year to any person is $2,000,000 and the maximum amount that may be paid as performance-based cash-settled awards in respect of a performance period greater than 12 months by any person shall be $3,000,000. The preceding limitations are subject to adjustment for stock dividends and similar events as provided in the 2011 Plan.

Federal Income Tax Consequences

Non-Qualified Options

The grant of an option will not be a taxable event for the grantee or the Company. Upon exercising a non-qualified option, a grantee will recognize ordinary income in an amount equal to the difference between the exercise price and the fair market value of the Company common stock on the date of exercise. Upon a subsequent sale or exchange of shares acquired pursuant to the exercise of a non-qualified option, the grantee will have taxable capital gain or loss, measured by the difference between the amount realized on the disposition and the tax basis of the shares of Company common stock (generally, the amount paid for the shares plus the amount treated as ordinary income at the time the option was exercised).

If we comply with applicable reporting requirements and with the restrictions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, we will be entitled to a business expense deduction in the same amount and generally at the same time the grantee recognizes ordinary income.

A grantee who has transferred a non-qualified stock option to a family member by gift will realize taxable income at the time the non-qualified stock option is exercised by the family member. The grantee will be subject to withholding of income and employment taxes at that time. The family member’s tax basis in the shares of Company common stock will be the fair market value of the shares of Company common stock on the date the option is exercised. The transfer of vested non-qualified stock options will be treated as a completed gift for gift and estate tax purposes. Once the gift is completed, neither the transferred options nor the shares acquired on exercise of the transferred options will be includable in the grantee’s estate for estate tax purposes.

In the event a grantee transfers a non-qualified stock option to his or her ex-spouse incident to the grantee’s divorce, neither the grantee nor the ex-spouse will recognize any taxable income at the time of the transfer. In general, a transfer is made “incident to divorce” if the transfer occurs within one year after the marriage ends or if it is related to the end of the marriage (for example, if the transfer is made pursuant to a divorce order or settlement agreement). Upon the subsequent exercise of such option by the ex-spouse, the ex-spouse will recognize taxable income in an amount equal to the difference between the exercise price and the fair market value of the shares of Company common stock at the time of exercise. Any distribution to the ex-spouse as a result of the exercise of the option will be subject to employment and income tax withholding at this time.

Incentive Stock Options

The grant of an option will not be a taxable event for the grantee or for the Company. A grantee will not recognize taxable income upon exercise of an incentive stock option (except that the alternative minimum tax may apply), and any gain realized upon a disposition of the Company common stock received pursuant to the exercise of an incentive stock option will be taxed as long-term capital gain if the grantee holds the shares of Company common stock for at least two years after the date of grant and for one year after the date of exercise (the “holding period requirement”). We will not be entitled to any business expense deduction with respect to the exercise of an incentive stock option, except as discussed below.

For the exercise of an option to qualify for the foregoing tax treatment, the grantee generally must be our employee or an employee of our subsidiary from the date the option is granted through a date within three months before the date of exercise of the option.

If all of the foregoing requirements are met except the holding period requirement mentioned above, the grantee will recognize ordinary income upon the disposition of the Company common stock in an amount generally equal to the excess of the fair market value of the Company common stock at the time the option was exercised over the option exercise price (but not in excess of the gain realized on the sale). The balance of the realized gain, if any, will be capital gain. We will be allowed a business expense deduction to the extent the grantee recognizes ordinary income, subject to our compliance with Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code and to certain reporting requirements.

SARs

There are no immediate tax consequences of receiving an award of SARs that is settled in Company common stock under the 2011 Plan. Upon exercising a SAR that is settled in Company common stock, a grantee will recognize ordinary income in an amount equal to the difference between the exercise price and the fair market value of the Company common stock on the date of exercise. The Company does not currently intend to grant cash-settled SARs. If we comply with applicable reporting requirements and with the restrictions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, we will be entitled to a business expense deduction in the same amount and generally at the same time as the grantee recognizes ordinary income.

Restricted Stock

A grantee who is awarded restricted stock will not recognize any taxable income for federal income tax purposes in the year of the award, provided that the shares of Common Stock are subject to restrictions (that is, the restricted stock is nontransferable and subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture). However, the grantee may elect under Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code to recognize compensation income in the year of the award in an amount equal to the fair market value of the Company common stock on the date of the award (less the purchase price, if any), determined without regard to the restrictions. If the grantee does not make such a Section 83(b) election, the fair market value of the Company common stock on the date the restrictions lapse (less the purchase price, if any) will be treated as compensation income to the grantee and will be taxable in the year the restrictions lapse and dividends paid while the Company common stock is subject to restrictions will be subject to withholding taxes. If we comply with applicable reporting requirements and with the restrictions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, we will be entitled to a business expense deduction in the same amount and generally at the same time as the grantee recognizes ordinary income.

Unrestricted Stock

Participants who are awarded unrestricted Company common stock will be required to recognize ordinary income in an amount equal to the fair market value of the shares of Company common Stock on the date of the award, reduced by the amount, if any, paid for such shares. If we comply with applicable reporting requirements and with the restrictions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, we will be entitled to a business expense deduction in the same amount and generally at the same time as the grantee recognizes ordinary income.

Deferred Stock Units

There are no immediate tax consequences of receiving an award of deferred stock units under the 2011 Plan. A grantee who is awarded deferred stock units will be required to recognize ordinary income in an amount equal to the fair market value of shares issued to such grantee at the end of the restriction period or, if later, the payment date. If we comply with applicable reporting requirements and with the restrictions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, we will be entitled to a business expense deduction in the same amount and generally at the same time as the grantee recognizes ordinary income.

Dividend Equivalent Rights

Participants who receive dividend equivalent rights will be required to recognize ordinary income in an amount distributed to the grantee pursuant to the award. If we comply with applicable reporting requirements and with the restrictions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, we will be entitled to a business expense deduction in the same amount and generally at the same time as the grantee recognizes ordinary income.

Performance-Based Awards

The award of a performance-based award will have no federal income tax consequences for us or for the grantee. The payment of the award is taxable to a grantee as ordinary income. If we comply with applicable reporting requirements and with the restrictions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, we will be entitled to a business expense deduction in the same amount and generally at the same time as the grantee recognizes ordinary income.

Section 280G

To the extent payments which are contingent on a change in control are determined to exceed certain Code limitations, they may be subject to a 20% nondeductible excise tax and the Company's deduction with respect to the associated compensation expense may be disallowed in whole or in part.

Section 409A

The Company intends for awards granted under the 2011 Plan to comply with Section 409A of the Code. To the extent a grantee would be subject to the additional 20% excise tax imposed on certain nonqualified deferred compensation plans as a result of a provision of an award under the 2011 Plan, the provision will be deemed amended to the minimum extent necessary to avoid application of the 20% excise tax.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 2011 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table summarizes the Company’s equity compensation plan information as of December 31, 2010. All equity compensation plans have been approved by Company stockholders.

Plan Category	Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights (a)		Weighted- average exercise price of outstanding options (b)		Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a)) (c)
Equity compensation plans approved by Company stockholders		714,079	$	8.65		408,675
Equity compensation plans not approved by Company stockholders		0		0		0
Total		714,079	$	8.65		408,675

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

No member of our compensation committee has ever been an executive officer or employee of ours. None of our executive officers currently serves, or has served during the last completed fiscal year, on the compensation committee or board of directors of any other entity that has one or more executive officers serving as a member of our board of directors or compensation committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 3 — ADVISORY VOTE ON THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was enacted in July 2010, we are seeking stockholder input on the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement. The Board and the compensation committee actively monitor our executive compensation practices in light of the industry in which we operate and the marketplace for talent in which we compete. We believe that the supply of qualified executive talent is limited and have designed our compensation programs to help us attract and retain qualified candidates by offering compensation that is competitive within the for-profit education industry and the broader market for executive talent.

As described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 15 of this proxy statement, our executive compensation program is designed to provide competitive levels of compensation that are based on performance metrics, reflect the level of capability and effort required to achieve our corporate goals, encourage continuous quality improvement, and can be easily understood. By paying for performance, we believe that we align the interests of our executive officers with those of our stockholders. We also believes that an effective executive compensation program assists us in attracting and retaining qualified executives who will grow the Company’s financial performance and drive the continued creation of stockholder value.

To achieve these objectives, we adhere to the following principles:

●	compensation should be directly related to achievement of our corporate goals as measured through individual management objectives and through earnings results compared to budget;

●	components of compensation should be linked to quality improvements in the satisfaction and success of our students as measured by our Student Satisfaction Quotient;

●	incentives should be simple and straightforward to maximize understanding of compensation and achievement of performance goals;

●	an emphasis on equity-based compensation aligns the long-term interests of executive officers and stockholders; and

●	NEO’s compensation must be evaluated against opportunities offered by companies that are similar to, and competitive with, us in the market for executive talent.

Our executive compensation program also includes features specifically intended to align the interests of our NEOs and our stockholders, such as:

●	the use of restricted stock and stock option awards, the value of which is contingent on our long-term performance; and

●	time-based vesting provisions, which allow our stock option and restricted stock awards to vest in one-third equal installments on the first three anniversaries of the grant date.

We believe our executive compensation program achieves our compensation principles, properly aligns the interests of our NEOs and our stockholders and is deserving of stockholder support. Stockholders should consider the following when determining whether to approve the compensation of our NEOS as presented in this proxy statement:

●	overall 2010 direct cash compensation (base salary plus annual incentive payments plus the 2010 one-time discretionary bonus) was down 12% to 21% from 2009. The annual incentive compensation payments and discretionary bonus paid in 2010 to our NEOs represented a reduction of approximately 42% to 51% as compared with the incentive compensation payments made in 2009.

●	our executive officers are subject to stock ownership guidelines.

●	our executive officers receive limited perquisites.

·	our equity awards have been granted with three-year minimum vesting periods, and our equity plans prohibit repricing or replacement of outstanding option awards, and require options be granted with exercise prices at fair market value on the date of grant.

For these reasons, the Board recommends that stockholders vote in favor of the following resolution:

“RESOLVED, that the compensation paid to the American Public Education, Inc. named executive officers, as disclosed in the Company’s proxy statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and any other related disclosure, is hereby APPROVED”

The vote is advisory and is not binding on the Company, the Board or the compensation committee of the Board. However, the compensation committee of the Board expects to take into account the outcome of the vote as it continues to consider our executive compensation program.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AS DISCLOSED IN THIS PROXY STATEMENT.

PROPOSAL NO. 4 — ADVISORY VOTE ON THE FREQUENCY OF THE ADVISORY VOTE ON THE COMPENSATION OF OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was enacted in July 2010, we are seeking stockholder input on how often we will hold advisory votes on the compensation of our named executive officers. These future votes will be similar to Proposal 3 in this Proxy Statement, in which stockholders are asked to approve the compensation of our named executive officers. We are required to hold such votes at least once every three years. Accordingly, stockholders may indicate their preference to hold future non-binding executive compensation votes every one, two, or three years. You may also abstain from voting.

The Board recommends that stockholders vote in favor of holding future non-binding executive compensation votes once every year. Because this vote is advisory and non-binding, the Board may determine how frequently we will hold future advisory named executive officer compensation votes. However, the Board of Directors will consider the outcome of this vote in making its determination and may decide that it is in the best interests of our stockholders and the Company to hold an advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers more or less frequently than the frequency receiving the most votes cast by our stockholders.

The Board believes that holding an advisory executive compensation vote every year will allow for stockholder concerns to be voiced regularly and considered by the compensation committee as it undertakes its yearly compensation determinations. As a result, an annual vote will allow the compensation committee to continue to be responsive to stockholder concerns about the compensation of our named executive officers.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE OPTION OF HOLDING FUTURE ADVISORY VOTES ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION EVERY YEAR.

PROPOSAL NO. 5 — RATIFICATION OF SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We are asking our stockholders to ratify the audit committee’s selection of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP (“McGladrey & Pullen”) as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011. Although ratification is not required by our bylaws or otherwise, the Board is submitting the selection of McGladrey & Pullen to our stockholders for ratification as a matter of good corporate practice. If the selection is not ratified, the audit committee will consider whether it is appropriate to select another registered public accounting firm. Even if the selection is ratified, the audit committee in its discretion may select a different registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if it determines that such a change would be in the best interests of American Public Education and our stockholders.

The Board first approved McGladrey & Pullen as our independent auditors in October 2007, and McGladrey & Pullen audited our financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007. Representatives of McGladrey & Pullen are expected to be present at the meeting. They will be given an opportunity to make a statement at the meeting if they desire to do so, and they will be available to respond to appropriate questions.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF MCGLADREY & PULLEN AS THE COMPANY’S INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2011.

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

We regularly review the services and fees of our independent accountants. These services and fees are also reviewed by the audit committee on an annual basis. The aggregate fees billed for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 for each of the following categories of services are as follows:

Fee Category	2009		2010

Audit Fees	$	456,000	$	410,000
Audit−Related Fees		24,000		60,000
Tax Fees		19,435		0
All Other Fees		0		0
Total Fees	$	499,435	$	470,000

Audit Fees. Consist of fees billed for professional services rendered for the audit of our annual financial statements and services provided in connection with our securities offerings and registration statements.

Audit−Related Fees. Consist of fees billed for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of our financial statements and are not reported under “Audit Fees.”

Tax Fees. Consist of fees billed for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning and includes fees for tax return preparation.

All Other Fees. Consist of fees billed for products and services, other than those described above under Audit Fees, Audit−Related Fees and Tax Fees.

During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, McGladrey & Pullen has provided various services, in addition to auditing our financial statements. The audit committee has determined that the provision of such services is compatible with maintaining McGladrey & Pullen’s independence. In 2010 and 2009, all fees paid to McGladrey & Pullen were pre−approved pursuant to the policy described below.

Audit Committee’s Pre−Approval Policies and Procedures

The audit committee reviews with McGladrey & Pullen and management the plan and scope of McGladrey & Pullen’s proposed annual financial audit and quarterly reviews, including the procedures to be utilized and McGladrey & Pullen’s compensation. The audit committee also pre−approves all auditing services, internal control related services and permitted non−audit services (including the fees and terms thereof) to be performed for us by McGladrey & Pullen, subject to the de minimus exception for non−audit services that are approved by the audit committee prior to the completion of an audit. The audit committee may delegate pre−approval authority to one or more members of the audit committee consistent with applicable law and listing standards, provided that the decisions of such audit committee member or members must be presented to the full audit committee at its next scheduled meeting.

Audit Committee Report

THE FOLLOWING REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SOLICITING MATERIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED FILED OR INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO ANY OTHER FILING BY US UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT WE SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATE THIS REPORT.

During 2010, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of American Public Education, Inc. consisted of Ms. Halle, who serves as the chairperson, Mr. Fowler, Mr. Landon and Mr. Weglicki. The Audit Committee operates under a written charter adopted by the Board, which is available in the Corporate Governance—Committees section of our corporate website, which is www.americanpubliceducation.com. The Audit Committee reviews the charter and proposes necessary changes to the Board on an annual basis.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, the Audit Committee fulfilled its duties and responsibilities generally as outlined in its charter. The Audit Committee has:

■	reviewed and discussed with management our audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010;

■	discussed with McGladrey & Pullen, LLP (“McGladrey”), our independent auditors for fiscal 2010, the matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, Communication with Audit Committees, as amended, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in Rule 3200T; and

■	received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent auditors required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent auditors communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and has discussed with the independent auditors their independence.

On the basis of the reviews and discussions referenced above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board that the audited financial statements be included in American Public Education’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

AUDIT COMMITTEE (February 17, 2010)

Jean C. Halle, Chairperson

F. David Fowler

Timothy J. Landon

Timothy T. Weglicki

SECTION 16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires our directors, executive officers and 10% stockholders to file reports of ownership of our equity securities. To our knowledge, based solely on review of the copies of such reports furnished to us related to the year ended December 31, 2010, all such reports were made on a timely basis except the following Section 16 reporting persons failed to timely file such number of Form 4s as indicated: Dr. McCluskey (3), Mr. Wilkins (3), Dr. Boston (2), Mr. Fowler (2), Mr. Everett (1), Dr. van Wyk (1), and Ms. Gilbert (1).

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF COMMON STOCK

The following table sets forth certain information as of March 11, 2011 (unless otherwise specified), with respect to the beneficial ownership of our common stock by each person who is known to own beneficially more than 5% of the outstanding shares of common stock, each person currently serving as a director, each nominee for director, each NEO (as set forth in the Summary Compensation Table above), and all directors and executive officers as a group:

		Shares of Common Stock Beneficially Owned(1)