CCCOER > Guest Blogs > “Urgent Help Needed”
Guest Blogs

“Urgent Help Needed”

By: Brandon Board, Digital Services Coordinator, Waubonsee Community College Libraries

This article was posted in 3 sections:

Navigating the Shift: Proposed Changes to Automatic Textbook Billing Programs

Back in early January, I received an email from a colleague with the subject line “URGENT HELP NEEDED.” This email contained a forwarded message from a publisher representative, who was making the fairly astounding claim that the US Department of Education (ED) was considering a rule change which “essentially eliminates the ability for institutions to continue to run [Inclusive/Equitable Access] programs as is.” 

The author of the email went on to explain that the only way to continue to run one of these programs would be for an institution who is able to “demonstrate a health or safety reason for including books and supplies in tuition and fees or if the institution is the only option for students to access the supplies or course materials.”

The author continued: “If the committee accepts the proposed rules as is, this would deny institutions the ability to provide students the choice to obtain their required course materials on day one of class at the lowest market rate, in the manner they do now.”

So that’s all fairly apocalyptic sounding, especially for those of us at institutions that have substantial automatic textbook billing programs (like Inclusive Access or Equitable Access). Of course, the colleague who forwarded the email was concerned, and this whole thing touched off a small panic storm here among a few departments. This publisher’s email was the first any of us had heard of the proposed rule changes, and it seemed like such a massive paradigm shift that I thought there must be more to the story. 

Seeking additional perspective, I reached out to the SPARC OE and CCCOER listservs. I reasoned that, while these rule changes wouldn’t directly impact the work of OER advocates and practitioners, they certainly have the potential to do so indirectly. Many responses indicated that these proposed rule changes were not well-known, though apparently SPARC had been monitoring the process and was able to provide some additional background. Eventually, this all led to SPARC and CCCOER collaborating to deliver a webinar on the proposed rule changes, to which this blog post is (ostensibly) responding.

What and Why: The Proposed Changes

Before we get into the proposed rule changes, it may be helpful to define some key terms that I’ll be using quite a lot: Inclusive Access (IA) and Equitable Access (EA). These names come from the publishing industry and can be a bit misleading, as they bring to mind and make it sound like they should fit right in with the various DEI initiatives that many of our schools are pursuing. The reality, though, is that they have nothing to do with DEI – rather, these are models for selling access to course materials to students. 

Both Inclusive Access and Equitable Access are types of automatic textbook billing programs, where students are charged automatically for digital access to their course materials. These charges are usually rolled into the students’ tuition and fees each semester. Inclusive Access refers to a sort of course-by-course fee model, where each applicable course carries its own individual fee for accessing the materials. Equitable Access, on the other hand, refers to a flat-fee model, where students are charged the same amount regardless of which courses they are enrolled in. This flat rate is often assessed on a per-credit-hour basis.

So what exactly has ED proposed to change? You can read it for yourself in the Department of Education’s Cash Management Issue Paper, and this article from Inside Higher Ed provides a helpful summary of the so-called “negotiated rulemaking” process to date. But essentially ED has proposed requiring colleges and universities to obtain student authorization in order to continue utilizing automatic textbook billing programs. This stands in contrast to the current practice at many institutions (including mine) where students are automatically enrolled in these programs and billed for their materials (hence the term “automatic textbook billing”), unless and until they take specific steps to opt out of the program.

In other words, the proposed changes would require automatic textbook billing programs to transition from an “opt out” model to an “opt in.” While this does represent a fairly substantial shift in the way institutions run their programs, it’s a far cry from the claims in that email I received that it would “eliminate the ability…to run” automatic textbook billing programs and “deny institutions the ability to provide students the choice to obtain their required course materials on day one of class.”

In their webinar on the topic, SPARC outlined a few reasons that the Department has proposed these changes:

  1. There are concerns that claims of student savings are exaggerated and based on apples-to-oranges comparisons. Critics of automatic textbook billing programs argue that calculating savings based on comparing the list price of a new print book vs. what is essentially a digital rental is not a fair comparison and ignores many of the ways students might go about reducing costs if they had the option. They argue that students are rarely paying full list price for textbooks, so basing a savings calculation on that number is inaccurate1, especially when they don’t get to keep the materials for which they pay. (Resisting the urge to rant about the inability to own things anymore. Must everything be a subscription?!?)
  2. Opt-out processes are opaque and difficult to navigate, which serves to funnel a disproportionately high number of students into the programs, whether they’d prefer another option or not. This can make it more difficult for students to employ other methods to reduce their costs.
  3. Flat-fee (so-called “Equitable Access”) programs can be priced outrageously high and can hinder (or even degrade) progress towards OER and other affordability solutions.
  4. Students are captive consumers, so the more we move towards automatic textbook billing programs, the fewer options students have, leading to ever-increasing prices.

As I reflect on these arguments, I can see how moving to an opt-in model might serve to alleviate some of the concerns. I can also see why the publishers (and many bookstores) are so worked up about the proposed changes–they might lose their captive markets! But if these automatic textbook billing programs are truly good for students (as their advocates claim), then these new regulations will not destroy the programs, as students will choose to opt in. However, if we get to the point where the programs are not beneficial to the students, the students will not continue to do so. Capitalist markets only work (for everyone) when consumers have options for their consumption, which serves as a check on the profit motive of the producers. As soon as that check is eliminated, the profit motive wins out to the detriment of the consumers (students, in this case).

At this point, ED’s negotiated rulemaking sessions have concluded, and they were unable to reach consensus on the proposed rule changes. However, ED is free to move forward even without consensus, and in an email to the SPARC OE listserv, Nicole Allen of SPARC shared that “the Department strongly signaled intent to stick with the ‘opt-in’ proposal in order to increase student choice.”

The Road Ahead

As the dust settles on the discourse around these potential changes, the path forward remains uncertain, though it seems likely that there will be opportunities (requirements?) for institutions to adapt and evolve in the ways we serve our students. We must remain vigilant, prepared to navigate the evolving regulatory landscape with resilience and strategic foresight.

Looking to the future, it becomes imperative that stakeholders stay informed and engaged. We may want to consider beginning to advocate for policies that prioritize student choice. If/as the Department of Education moves forward with its proposed opt-in regulations, continued dialogue and proactive measures will be essential in shaping policies that empower students, safeguard their rights, and foster equity and affordability.

  1. Though to be fair, comparing the list price of new textbooks is basically how I go about calculating my institution’s cumulative OER savings totals, and I suspect others are in the same boat. ↩︎

Balancing Act: Student Choice & Institutional Practices

Student Feedback on IA

In my role as Digital Services Coordinator, I have a hand in leading the college’s instructional materials affordability initiatives, which include both OER and Inclusive Access (IA) (the latter being a collaborative effort across several departments – library, bookstore, faculty development office, etc.). OER and IA can be strange bedfellows, and I occasionally feel the tension between the two, but having a foot in each camp also gives me a bit of a unique perspective. I applaud the Department of Education (ED) for looking out for students’ best interests, but I fear this topic is not as straightforward as we’d like it to be.

On the one hand, at least at my college, our students are generally very positive about their experiences with our Inclusive Access (IA) program. Every semester we survey students who were enrolled in IA courses, and while the response rate is low, those students who do respond are overwhelmingly positive. 

In the most recent survey:

  • 90% of students would recommend IA courses to a friend
  • 82% were satisfied or very satisfied with the ability to pay for course materials as part of tuition
  • 85% were satisfied or very satisfied with the convenience of the program

Some of this positivity may be somewhat unique to us. Our college, Waubonsee Community College, has stuck with an independent bookstore model, rather than outsourcing to one of the big corporations (i.e. Barnes & Noble, Follett) which are so prevalent on campuses around the country. I work closely with our bookstore leaders and know that, while they obviously want to make sales and be profitable, they are equally focused on removing barriers and making sure our students have the opportunity to be successful. I have found them to be strong allies in my work advocating for OER, for example. This may not be the case if your campus bookstore is run by a large corporation driven primarily by profit motives.

Unintended Consequences?

I do wonder if ED’s focus on student choice fully aligns with the evolving digital landscape. It seems that more and more textbook publishers are pushing digital options, which (even if not part of an automatic textbook billing program) removes at least some of the options students have for reducing costs, such as buying a used copy or an old edition. I’m not sure these new rules will help with that at all. 

I also have some concerns about what these new regulations might do to the cost of course materials. Publishers have come to rely on the guaranteed revenue stream provided by automatic billing programs, which has ensured a steady influx of sales without the need for individual student purchases. However, if students are given the choice to opt into these programs, publishers may face heightened competition for their products, compelling them to explore alternative revenue-generation strategies.

One potential strategy may indeed be that they lower their prices. That would be ideal! But there’s also the possibility that publishers may adjust their pricing models to offset potential revenue losses stemming from decreased participation in automatic textbook billing programs. Without the assurance of a captive market, publishers may feel compelled to increase prices to maintain profitability, passing the burden of additional costs onto students. With fewer students enrolled in automatic billing programs, publishers may seek to maximize profits from each transaction, further exacerbating the financial strain on students already grappling with the high costs of education.

We may also see publishers invest resources in further developing proprietary homework or testing platforms and/or subscription-based services to circumvent the regulatory changes and regain control over course material distribution. These alternative distribution channels could come with their own set of costs and fees, ultimately increasing the financial burden on students. So while the proposed regulations aim to enhance student choice and affordability, there may in fact be unintended consequences, which underscores the need for careful consideration as we move forward.

What’s Best for Students?

And then on the other hand, I take a look at our IA program’s student participation rates:

  • Spring 2022: 99.8%
  • Summer 2022: 99.8%
  • Fall 2022: 99.8%
  • Spring 2023: 99.9%
  • Summer 2023: 99.7%
  • Fall 2023: 99.6%

These rates seem to be in line with other IA programs, as well. A quick bit of Googling revealed that Pearson “has typically seen opt-out rates below 5 percent.” Likewise, the University of Maine has reported an opt-out rate under 5%, while the University of Arizona saw opt-out rates ranging from 3.9% to 7.6% between 2016-17. 

Looking at those rates, it’s hard not to wonder how many of our students are being funneled into the program because they don’t know there are other options available, or they don’t know how to opt out, or even that they can opt out. I know our bookstore makes a lot of effort to communicate with students about their options and the process for opting out, but clearly (almost) none of them are actually doing it. Is it because our IA program is really that good, or is there some other reason behind it (didn’t know they could opt out, opt out process is too much effort or too complicated, etc.)? 

The question of what happens if a student does nothing? should weigh heavily on our minds. It makes me uncomfortable to think that there are students who are being charged just because they missed the communication from the bookstore and weren’t aware of what was going to happen. Personally, even in light of the concerns I outlined above, I’d still like to place more power in the students’ hands to make the best decisions for themselves, and put the pressure on us (the program administrators) to make sure A) it’s a compelling option for them, and B) that they know how to take advantage of that option. Given the high reported satisfaction rates from our student surveys, it seems likely that we would continue to have a high participation rate, while still allowing students the freedom to make their own decisions.

That seems like a win for everybody.

Charting a Course: Strategies & Considerations

Over the previous two posts on this topic, I have sought to provide details on what the United States Department of Education (ED) is proposing to change regarding the rules and regulations that govern the implementation of automatic textbook billing programs, such as Inclusive Access and Equitable Access. Namely, these proposed changes would require these programs to convert to an opt-in model, as opposed to the current opt-out norms. I have also explored the reasons behind these changes and why they have the potential to positively impact our students–though I do have some concerns about unintended consequences. 

At this point, I think it’s prudent to look ahead and think about ways that we can go about preparing for these potential changes. ED is free to move forward with its proposed rule changes, or revise them, or do away with them altogether. If they do move forward with new rules (either the current proposal or a revision), there will be a public comment period, and then the new rules will take effect no earlier than July 1, 2025. 

July 2025 is actually not very far away, so it may be helpful to think about ways that we could (or should) be preparing ourselves and our institutions for these potential changes. To that end, a few recommendations:

Delay Implementation on New Automatic Textbook Billing Programs

Given the proposed changes from ED and the signals indicating their intent to implement these changes (including their inclusion in a recent White House fact sheet), institutions must exercise caution and prudence in their decision-making regarding automatic textbook billing programs. It is becoming increasingly challenging to justify moving forward with the implementation of any new automatic textbook billing programs under the current opt-out model.

There is considerable potential risk involved with implementing new programs under the existing framework. Institutions may invest significantly in setting up these programs, only to face a required restructuring (or even discontinuation) of them once the new regulations take effect. Institutions may find themselves scrambling to adapt systems, policies, and procedures to comply with the revised requirements, causing disruption and confusion for all parties. This potentially results in wasted expenditures, inefficiencies, disruption to operations, and more.

There’s also the risk that proceeding with implementation despite impending regulatory changes could lead to negative perceptions of the program among students, faculty, and other key stakeholders. Students may come to view the program as coercive or unfair, eroding trust and goodwill between them and the institution.

Rather than move forward with implementing new programs, I recommend that institutions prioritize strategic planning and readiness assessments to proactively address the impending changes and position themselves for a smooth transition to a (newly required) opt-in model. By refraining from hasty implementation and strategically preparing for the transition to opt-in models, institutions can effectively navigate the changing landscape while upholding the principles of transparency and student autonomy.

Include Provisions for OER in “Flat Fee” Programs

One piece of rationale behind the proposed changes is that automatic textbook billing programs, especially of the flat fee / “Equitable Access” variety, can hinder (or even degrade) institutional efforts toward open educational resources (OER). For this reason, it’s important to include provisions for OER in any flat fee billing programs.

OER represents a fundamental shift towards greater affordability, accessibility, and equity in higher education. By providing free (or very low cost) access to course materials, OER reduces financial barriers for students, promotes academic success, and enhances inclusivity within the learning environment. However, automatic textbook billing programs that lock students into purchasing digital materials at a fixed rate can create disincentives for faculty to adopt OER. Without appropriate provisions or incentives for OER adoption and usage, institutions risk perpetuating reliance on traditional publisher-created materials, hindering progress towards broader OER integration.

I also have concerns that automatic textbook billing programs, especially of the flat fee variety, prioritize commercial interests over educational objectives, which potentially undermines the values of academic freedom and faculty autonomy. Faculty members using OER materials in their courses may face institutional pressure to participate in the textbook billing programs, even if it conflicts with their pedagogical principles or preferences. Without mechanisms to accommodate OER within these programs, faculty may perceive their options as limited, stifling innovation and creativity in their course design and in the classroom.

So then, what exactly do I mean by “provisions for OER”? I think any effective OER provision within a flat fee billing environment would include three key components:

  1. Ensure that students enrolled in OER classes are not charged for materials in their OER classes. Many flat fee billing programs calculate their charges on a per-credit-hour basis. For a student enrolled in an OER class, simply exclude those credit hours in the calculation of their fee.
  2. Ensure that faculty retain full academic freedom to select and implement OER materials in their courses. Do not require selection of particular materials just because they could be included in the billing program.
  3. Be transparent. Institutions implementing flat fee billing programs with OER provisions should ensure transparency regarding the allocation of fees and the cost breakdown between traditional textbooks and OER materials. Students should be informed about the savings associated with choosing OER over traditional textbooks and how their fees contribute to supporting OER initiatives.

Proactively Address Impending Changes

If you already have an automatic textbook billing program at your institutions, make sure administrators and other key stakeholders are aware of these potential forthcoming regulatory changes. Transitioning an existing automatic textbook billing program to an opt-in model requires careful consideration and strategic planning to ensure a smooth and effective transition, so it may be prudent to begin thinking now about what this transition might look like for you and your institution. Laying some groundwork and planning ahead can alleviate potential future headaches, especially if the new rules are going to take effect as early as next year. We may all have to pivot quickly. 

Closing Thoughts

At its core, this issue revolves around the balance between commercial interests and educational objectives, between convenience and student choice, between profit and affordability.

As I contemplate the evolving landscape of automatic textbook billing programs and the regulatory changes on the horizon, it’s crucial to recognize the underlying principles at stake. At its core, this issue revolves around the balance between commercial interests and educational objectives, between convenience and student choice, between profit and affordability.

While we navigate through the complex arena of shifting policies and institutional practices, let’s keep our eyes on the broader implications for the educational experience. I’ve written a lot here about the technicalities of billing models and regulatory compliance, but we must remember the profound impact these things have on our students and their access to learning materials, their academic success, and their overall wellbeing. I hope we can continue to focus our efforts on empowering our students, promoting equity and accessibility, and fostering a culture of innovation and inclusivity in education. I would challenge you to think creatively, to engage in meaningful dialogue, and to advocate for policies and practices that prioritize the needs and rights of our students, first and foremost. We each have a role to play in our students’ academic success, and we have before us an opportunity to shape the future of course materials in a way that serves our students best.

Featured Photo by Radek Homola on Unsplash

Share with your community