Regulators return to Purdue campus to review Purdue Global deal

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – When the Higher Learning Commission in March gave it’s OK, the final piece needed in Purdue University’s acquisition of Kaplan University, the regulatory agency promised it would be back in six months to check in on how well the university was dealing with a handful of conditions placed on the new Purdue Global.

Among the issues as Purdue converted the former, for-profit Kaplan University: Could the university adequately keep the Purdue and Purdue Global brands distinct without confusing their differing missions and students in the process?

That review is happening this week, professors on University Senate’s committee on the Purdue-Kaplan deal told Purdue faculty members Monday.

Three evaluators – one each from the University of Arizona, Northern Illinois and Walden University – were on campus Monday and would be meeting with select faculty members from Purdue, Purdue Global and Purdue Northwest on Tuesday, according to Steve Beaudoin, a chemical engineering professor, and Deb Nichols, an associate professor of human development and family studies.

The timeline for the results of that review weren’t immediately clear Monday. Beaudoin and Nichols – who lead the University Senate’s committee on the Purdue-Kaplan deal – told faculty members on the University Senate that the review did not come with a public hearing of any sort.

Purdue officials, including Purdue President Mitch Daniels, have been adamant that the follow-up review is standard practice and that they’d been making progress on the Higher Learning Commission concerns.

The Higher Learning Commission oversees the accreditation – and ultimately access to federal student loans – of more than 1,000 colleges and universities in 19 states, including Purdue and the former Kaplan University. The Higher Learning Commission approval was the last in line for the deal, following the Indiana Commission for Higher Education and the U.S. Department of Education.

More:Purdue Global, under fire, quits making faculty sign confidentiality agreements

Bangert:Purdue Global blasted, makes students waive right to sue, documents show

More:Purdue ranks No. 4 best value in Wall Street Journal survey

 

Purdue finalized its acquisition of Kaplan University in March 2018, nearly a year after unveiling plans to convert one of the biggest players in the for-profit, online higher education world into a public benefit corporation and rebranding it under the Purdue Global name.

Purdue trustees pitched the idea as a 21st century obligation to expand the university’s land grant mission, putting the Purdue name behind course aimed at working parents, veterans and older students who otherwise would never step foot on the West Lafayette campus. Daniels also said that tapping into Kaplan’s built-in online structure, which reached some 30,000 students, would allow Purdue to leapfrog other schools in a race to take existing curriculum on the West Lafayette campus to wider audiences online.

Purdue’s intentions immediately faced resistance from some faculty, including the majority in the University Senate, where they passed a resolution objecting to being left out of discussions and questioning whether Purdue would get dragged into practices that made some for-profit colleges suspect.

The Higher Learning Commission put conditions on the approval, pending the six-month review. Aside from keeping the Purdue and Purdue Global brands separate:

► The agency wanted to see “evidence that Purdue University Global has mechanisms in place that monitor the representations made to continuing and prospective students related to program requirements, transfer and/or articulation within the Purdue University system and admission to graduate programs at Purdue University Global.”

► Higher Learning Commission trustees wanted evidence that the Purdue Global board – a group of five Purdue trustees and one Kaplan trustee – was autonomous and operating independently.

► And Higher Learning Commission trustees also said they would look for evidence that a larger group of Purdue faculty, administrators and staff were given an opportunity to help integrate Purdue Global into the Purdue system; that Purdue revised its strategic plan to include Purdue Global; and that Purdue Global adopted “a comprehensive set of policies that are fully aligned with Purdue University expectations.”

Monday was the first time the University Senate met for the 2018-19 school year – and the first time since a number of accusations landed Purdue Global in the news.

“Things have come up … very quickly,” Nichols told the University Senate members, as she and Beaudoin outlined a summer spent comparing notes with administrators who have been working to weave Purdue Global into the university’s fabric.

In recent weeks, a pair of Purdue Global policies – one aimed at faculty, the other at students – came under attack by national groups.

The American Association of University Professors called out Purdue Global over forcing its faculty members to sign non-disclosure agreements before they could teach. The AAUP compared them to gag orders that defied practices and academic freedom at other universities, including Purdue. Purdue Global Chancellor Betty Vandenbosch called the agreements a “normal practice” among online universities, meant to protect what online universities call proprietary “learning management systems.” She said they were “just not a big deal.”

Still, last week, Vandenbosch announced Purdue Global was scrapping the nondisclosure agreement.

Two weeks ago, Bob Shireman – a fellow with a think tank called The Century Foundation and an outspoken critic of the Purdue-Kaplan deal – called out Purdue Global for its student “Policy Guide.” Among other things, the guide would keep students from suing the online school and force them to agree to arbitrate all “disputes, controversies and claims.” The AAUP piled on, calling on Purdue Global to end what it called “another shameful practice.”

Purdue called that policy another on inherited from the Kaplan University days. But Purdue Global hasn’t announced what, if anything would happen to that policy.

Beaudoin said the University Senate committee was working with Purdue and Purdue Global on the questions of student rights raised by the arbitration agreement; the differences in expectations for Purdue Global and those for faculty in the rest of the Purdue system; how “channel conflicts” – essentially crossover in course offerings between Purdue and Purdue Global – are being negotiated; and the gap between what is spent on marketing each university. (Beaudoin said Purdue spends roughly $5 million on marketing compared to $100 million for Purdue Global.)

Faculty members on the Senate raised several questions about safeguards for academic honesty, ownership of course materials created for Purdue classes if they’re deemed appropriate for Purdue Global curriculum and concerns about student confusion about the difference in similar courses offered by both arms of the university.

But for the most part, professors seemed content to let Nichols and Beaudoin’s committee continue to sort things.

“We’re still learning about the process,” Beaudoin said.

Reach Dave Bangert at 765-420-5258 or at dbangert@jconline.com. Follow on Twitter: @davebangert.