Below is an open letter that was sent to Dr. Miguel Cardona, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, regarding the proposed language changes to Cash Management rules that impact students being able to use Title IV funds for programs like Inclusive and Equitable Access. To date, there are 97 signatures representing 75 institutions. If you are interested in signaling your support to continue to allow for these programs to exist in a way that we know is supporting student equity to access in higher education and along their journey to degree attainment, you can still sign on to the open letter at the bottom of the page.

-Mike

Open Letter to the Department of Education

February 14, 2024

The Honorable Miguel Cardona Secretary

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20202

Dear Secretary Cardona,

As representatives of American universities and colleges, we are alarmed to learn that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is moving to curb access and affordability course materials programs such as Inclusive Access – which are highly effective offerings that provide low-cost, high-quality course materials to students at our nation’s institutions of higher education, dramatically increase faculty and student choice, and deliver particularly strong benefits to low income and at-risk populations.

We request that you move quickly and decisively to protect and preserve these critically important options for course materials by retaining the current rules. Given many of the concerns raised during the negotiation sessions, we encourage the Department to consider this feedback in its next draft of language during this process.

By way of background, access and affordability programs such as Inclusive Access were developed by colleges and universities during the Obama-Biden administration when the Department of Education issued federal guidance creating an important mechanism for institutions of higher learning to include course material expenses as part of tuition and fees, with the caveat that those materials had to be offered to students at a cost below the competitive market rate. This move enabled low-income students to pay for course materials through their federal grants and loans–rather than going out of pocket–providing significant relief to those struggling to afford their degree.

In the years that followed the introduction of these programs, the positive impact has been nothing less than extraordinary. More than 1,900 colleges and universities (nearly 50%) from across the country now offer access and affordability programs based on the rules created during the Obama-Biden era.

The response from students has been extremely positive as well. In just one example, 83% of students surveyed at Norfolk State University said that such programs had a positive impact on their academic success, and 89% said that they would be likely to recommend the program to other students.

In terms of affordability, these programs have contributed to a dramatic 57% decline in student spending on course materials over the past decade, according to independent research group Student Watch. As part of that ongoing trend, students now spend an average of just $310 a year in the category, according to the 2023 Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid Report from the College Board.

While the benefits in terms of affordability are clear, students also always have the choice of opting out of the program and acquiring the course materials they need elsewhere.

In short, these programs are an essential tool for making higher education affordable to a broader range of Americans than ever before.

Additionally, these affordability and access programs accelerate student access to high-quality course materials, providing them seamlessly on or before the first day of class, and dramatically improve student outcomes and retention rates.

Programs providing early access to course materials have been shown to have particularly strong benefits for the most underserved student populations. In fact, recent independent academic research has shown substantial increases in course completion rates for at-risk groups, including Black students (up 21%), students over the age of 25 (up 6%), and female students (up 13%) who participate in these programs

.While there is no one-size fits all solution when it comes to course materials, these programs provide faculty and students with the option to choose high-quality materials at an affordable rate, while at the same time providing critically important support to at-risk groups.

The proposed regulation updates would effectively gut these programs by making it much more difficult for students to apply their federal student aid to course materials, undermining the successful legacy of a key Obama-Biden era campaign promise to bolster quality and affordability in higher education.

Affordability and access programs will, of course, continue to improve and evolve over time. We are committed to enhanced transparency and disclosure for students. But there is simply no good reason to threaten the extraordinary progress that these programs have made in terms of affordability and improved student outcomes over the past eight years.

As college administrators we urge ED to modify your proposed cash management regulation updates and retain the current regulations that make possible an important, successful course material access model that has demonstrated real positive outcomes for students.

Respectfully,

97 Signatories, Representing 75 Institutions

(See full list of Signatories below)

Higher Education Professionals at Four Year Institutions:

Russell Weldon, Auburn University (Alabama)

Michal Jarolimek, Director of the Bronco Shop, Boise State University (Iowa)

Sandra Hope, Professor, Microbiology & Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University (Utah)

Marie C. Pizzorno Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Bucknell University (Pennsylvania)

Jared Ceja, CEO, Cal Poly Pomona Enterprises

Suzanne Donnelly, Associate Director, Bronco Bookstore, Cal Poly Pomona

Cyndi Farrington, Director Bookstore Services, California State University Long Beach

Miles Nevin, Associate Vice President, Auxiliary Enterprises, California State University Long Beach

MItali Jain, California State University, Long Beach

Rick Evans, The University Corporation, California State University (CSU) Northridge

Rico Ovalles, Associate Director of Academic Resources, California State University Long Beach

Kimberly Yates, Assistant Director – Course Materials, Central Michigan University

Barry Waters, Central Michigan University

John A. Marohn, Professor, Cornell University (New York)

Tigran Abrahamyan, PhD, Florida International University (FIU)

David R. Decker, Franklin University President, Franklin University (Ohio)

Kathleen Hutcheson, Lab Supervisor, Staff, Georgia Southern University

Derick Robertson Director of Retail, Georgia Southern University

Lana Veleva, Georgia Southern University (Georgia)

Carrie Rose, Bookstore Manager, Grove City College (Pennsylvania)

Jacklyn Downing, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Andrew Steele, Associate Professor, Chemistry, School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Lenoir Rhyne University (North Carolina)

Dr. Eric Terry, Associate Professor, Miami Dade College (Florida)

Thania Rios, Miami Dade College (Florida)

Tina Kuhn, Miami Dade College (Florida)

Shahrooz Moosavizadeh, Professor, Director of the Spartans All Inclusive Learning (SAIL) Program, Norfolk State University (Virginia)

Amy Barnsley, Professor, Mathematics, Northern Michigan University

Jennifer Kelly, Executive Director University Affairs, Northwestern State University (Louisiana)

Briana Salas, Associate Professor, Our Lady of the Lake University (Texas)

Daryoush Tahmassebi, Purdue University Fort Wayne (Indiana)

Jeff Laborda, Associate Professor, Natural Science Dept., State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota

Scott Chapman, Book Division Manager, UCLA Store, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)

James Rourke, Assistant Director, Academic Resources – KU Bookstore, University of Kansas

Melvin Beck, University of Memphis (Tennessee)

Eric Parsons, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Economics, University of Missouri

Dr. Mike Moore, Affiliate Research Assistant Professor, University of New Hampshire

Christina Green, University of North Georgia

Timothy Barnett, University of South Carolina

Jerry Carroll Director of Contract and Retail Services, University of South Carolina Upstate

Betty Phillips, Course Materials Manager, University of Tennessee

Lee Murphy, Distinguished Lecturer, Department of Nutrition, University of Tennessee – Knoxville

Lindsay Mahony, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Dr. Matthew Pamental, Senior Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, University of Tennessee-Knoxville

Michelle Childs, The University of Tennessee

Shirley Streeter, Assistant Director, Volbooks, University of Tennessee

Vaish, University of Virginia

Juno A. Farnsworth, Assistant Professor, Vincennes University (Indiana)

Alyson Froehlich; Assistant Professor, Higher Ed Instructional Consultant; University of Utah

Randy Simmons, Utah State University

Linne Marsh, Utah Tech University

Dr. Danny Walker, Assistant Professor, Chair of Philosophy & Arts, Wilmington University (Delaware)

Adrian Jarrell, Lecturer, Winston-Salem State University (North Carolina)

Carol L. Cain, PhD, Associate Professor of Accounting, Winston-Salem State University (North Carolina)

Dr. Philip J. Slater, Winston-Salem State University, (North Carolina)

Higher Education Professionals at Two-Year, Community College, and Technical Schools:

Christopher Walsh, Anne Arundel Community College (Maryland)

Gena Britt, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Brightpoint Community College (Virginia)

William Hoover, MD Science Coordinator for Allied Health Sciences, Bunker Hill Community College (Massachusetts)

Dr. David Ferreira, Provost, Charter Oak State College (Connecticut)

Noah Channell, Bookstore Manager, Coastal Alabama Community College

Dr. Lorelle Davies, Chief Financial Officer, Columbia Gorge Community College (Oregon)

Thomas Feather, Assistant Administrator Bookstore, Community College of Rhode Island

Greg Morris, Senior Vice Provost Academic Services, Dallas College (Texas)

Emily Fulgham-Clay, Professional Development Coordinator, Delgado Community College (Louisiana)

Herman Calzadillas, Dean of Prof Tech, Everett Community College (Washington)

Richard H. Turner, AVP Academic Operations, Florida State College at Jacksonville

Ray Lambert Director of Business and Auxiliary Services, Greenville Technical College (South Carolina)

Dr. William Easterwood, Hinds Community College (Mississippi)

Donald Parker, Inclusive Access Coordinator, Houston Community College (Texas)

Doug Sutton, Coordinator of Online Course Materials ICCOC, Iowa Community College Online Consortium

Shelley Black Digital Course Materials Specialist, Kirkwood Community College (Iowa)

Johnette McKown, President, McLennan Community College (Texas)

Jimilea Jansson, Bookstore Manager, NOC Bookstore, Northern Oklahoma College

Roger Yohe, Ph.D., Vice President of Academic Innovation and Strategy, Palm Beach State College (Florida)

Dr. Scott Zimmer, Paradise Valley Community College (Arizona)

Sara Bachenberg, Portland Community College (Oregon)

Michael Cioce, Rowan College at Burlington County (New Jersey)

Dr. Laurel Williamson, Deputy Chancellor & President, San Jacinto College (Texas)

Niki Whiteside, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Instructional Innovation & Support, San Jacinto College (Texas)

Louis Moritz – Manager of Administrative Services, Tri-County Technical College (South Carolina)

Josh Wrightson, Bookstore Manager, Tri-County Technical College (South Carolina)

Beth Dunn, Triton College (Illinois)

Glenn Jablonski, Mathematics Instructor, Triton College (Illinois)

BJ Watson, Senior Business Operations Mgr., Wake Tech Community College (North Carolina)

Dr. Carol Campbell, Instructor, Chemistry, Weber State University (Utah)

Michelle Paustenbaugh, Professor, Weber State University (Utah)

College and University Signatories:

Anoka Ramsey Community College (Minnesota)

Cornell University (New York)

Creighton University (Nebraska)

Eastern Iowa Community College

Florida International University

Kennebec Valley Community College (Maine)

North Carolina Central University

University of Virginia

Waukesha County Technical College (Wisconsin)

Bookstore Professionals:

Jon Bibo, Independent College Bookstore Association

Kevin Taylor, Bookstore Manager, SGA Bookstore (Serving Slippery Rock University) (Pennsylvania)

Education Advocates:

Arnold F Fege, President, Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK)

From Divided to United: Creating A Campus Partnership for Student Success

On campuses across the country there are two entities that are quite similar in services offered, but whose goals are often miles apart. Their names are interchangeable in the student vernacular, but their objectives regularly compete against each other. If you haven’t guessed by now, we’re referring to the campus Bookstore and the Library. When these two cornerstones of the campus community are divided and left to their own devices, the non-ideal status quo continues to prevail. The Library: championing Open Educational Resources (OER) and providing print & digital resources as well as course reserves for students. The Bookstore: one stop shop for all paid course materials; the intermediary between professor adoptions & student acquisition and the official retailer of the campus. Both entities are frequently distrustful of each other’s competing interests and students get stuck in the middle.

However, a campus does not have to remain divided. There is another way forward that uses a student-centric approach that is full of collaboration, shared goals, and a lasting partnership that will benefit all parties involved. A meaningful relationship between a campus Bookstore and Library can be a game changer for everyone. At San Diego State University, the SDSU Bookstore has an extremely strong relationship with the SDSU Library founded on the shared goals of removing barriers to student access to course materials and improving academic success.

Surfacing Library Materials

The Library is responsible for curating materials that will benefit campus stakeholders. Unfortunately, faculty and students are not always aware that needed resources are available through the Library. This is where the Bookstore can step in to assist. As the repository for all course materials related information, the Bookstore is in a unique position to help bring course materials available through the Library to the surface.

At San Diego State we accomplish this during the requisition process. After a professor informs the Bookstore what materials will be used for a course, the SDSU Bookstore Course Materials staff searches the SDSU Library’s catalog to see if there is an unlimited user license eBook available.

If an unlimited user license eBook is available, the book’s specific Library permalink is provided to the faculty member with instructions on how to embed the link within the campus Learning Management System course shell. The permalink is also added to the student’s personalized booklist. Obviously, the Library doesn’t always have what professors are looking for, but there is a way to improve the odds of finding material through the Library, which we will touch on later.

Campus Advocacy

The SDSU Bookstore and Library collaborate on campus advocacy programs, participate on advisory committees together, and cooperate on the State of California Affordable Learning Solutions initiative grants. Bookstore and Library information is often packaged together, even presenting in tandem on course materials to departmental leaders and in webinars directly to faculty. Another example of the Bookstore and Library collaboration is the Course Materials Canvas Homeroom, a convenient place for faculty to see all their options for providing course materials.

Financial Partnership/Collection Building

Prior to piloting Equitable Access for undergraduate course materials, the Bookstore and Library shared information and advocacy efforts, but not finances. As part of the Equitable Access pilot, the Bookstore signed an agreement with the Library to fulfill course materials via Library-hosted unlimited user license eBooks whenever possible. Within the agreement, the Bookstore committed to investing a lump sum of money into the Library ($10,000 in year one and $15,000 in year two) for the express purpose of purchasing unlimited user license eBooks for the curriculum. The initial $10,000 investment to the Library would have provided an additional $110,000 in delivery costs savings for the Equitable Access program in the first year. However, due to the delayed availability of the Library-provided eBooks in Fall 2022, we only realized an additional delivery cost savings of just over $50,000. At the conclusion of the first academic year, using existing and newly acquired materials, we were able to deliver over 14,500 Library-provided eBooks to students. This resulted in delivery cost savings to the Equitable Access program of over $1 million. The delivery cost savings helped us save students over $7 million in the first year. (Editor Note: Current Fall 2023 savings are around $3.9 million).

Common Goals/Leveraging Unique Skills

The Library and Bookstore are aligned under the common goals of student success, retention, and affordability. We can use our unique skillsets to advance these goals. The Bookstore develops and implements course materials solutions that provide access and cost savings to students as well as peace of mind for faculty knowing their students are day-one-ready. The Library uses their vast subject matter knowledge and wide range of materials to both foster the development of faculty courses and to provide support for students. We work in tandem to support our campus stakeholders, no matter if the materials are commercial publisher content, Open Educational Resources, or Library resources. A campus no longer divided, but united, can focus its time and energy towards collaboration and reaching its shared goals.

Wrap Up

The partnership between Kate and Ben was not developed overnight. I think anyone working in and around course materials can attest to the often contentious or distrustful ‘relationship” that exists between the Bookstore and the Library. We have seen others develop relationships like this before (see UC Davis). However, this relationship is not a standard practice; it is unique. In a world where our competing interests are not so easily set aside to unite under a common goal or objective, these types of partnerships are very important. They are important because what we are trying to accomplish in serving students is much, much greater than our individual or departmental wants. Thank you, Kate and Ben, for the incredible work you do serving the students of SDSU and for helping share how your important relationship can serve as an example for others.

As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

*Kate Holvoet, MLIS, is an Associate Librarian with 25 years of academic library experience. She is the Scholarly Communication and Open Initiatives Librarian at San Diego State University, and liaison for Government Publications, Open Access, and Open Education Resources (OER).  She co-chairs the campus committee for Affordable Learning Solutions, part of a CSU-wide initiative to encourage faculty use of OER.

**Ben Compton is the General Manager, Course Materials with 22 years of collegiate retail experience.  For the last 17 years he has specialized in course materials and course materials management.  He is also a graduate of the National Association of College Stores Leadership Institute, sits on the CSU Bookstore Advisory committee, Campus eBookstore Board, Cengage Advisors Network and is co-chair of the Affordable Learning Solutions committee at SDSU.

If you have ever seen/heard me present, one of the most important parts of my presentation is my favorite quote from Lester Frank Ward, “The thing that is rare is opportunity, not ability”. Ward is credited with leading the efforts to make sociology an academic discipline in higher education in the United States. His work also furthered the concept of intellectual egalitarianism. He argued that providing equal access to education was critical to creating a more equitable society and addressing the inequalities of that society. He believed that educational opportunities should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their social or economic standing. It is my opinion and belief that ensuring access to course materials, regardless of acquisition or delivery model, for every student is a partial fulfillment of Ward’s quest for intellectual egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism

Before we can understand intellectual egalitarianism, we need to understand the concept of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a social, political, and philosophical tenet that advocates for equality among all people. The concept encompasses a wide variety of theories and movements that support the idea that all individuals should have equal rights, opportunities, and access to resources, regardless of their social, economic, and/or cultural background. Egalitarianism has had a significant influence on social and political movements like the feminist movement, civil rights movement, and LGBTQ rights movements. Essentially, it is the foundation for anyone advocating for social justice and equality.

Intellectual Egalitarianism (IE)

The Ward quote is so poignant for me is because intellectual egalitarianism is the belief that all individuals (read students) have equal potential for intellectual development and the capacity for knowledge and understanding. Furthermore, it suggests that human intelligence is not fixed and with the right opportunities and environment, people (read students) can develop their intellectual capacities. This is obviously in contrast to those who believe that specific individuals or groups are innately superior (discrimination, prejudice, racism) in terms of intelligence or cognitive abilities. Intellectual egalitarianism supports the idea that everyone should have equal access to educational opportunities and intellectual resources regardless of social background, economic status, race, or gender.

Course Materials and IE

As I said before, my belief is that increasing access to course materials for all students is a partial fulfilment of the intellectual egalitarianism Ward inspired with his work. Inclusive Access and other revolutionary course materials intervention models are the manifestation of modern-day intellectual egalitarianism in higher education. These revolutionary interventions aim to provide access to course materials to all students regardless of their social background, economic status, race, gender, or any other identifying characteristic . As these course materials intervention models remove barriers to course materials for students, they fulfill the notion that when equally resourced, all students have the potential for intellectual development and capacity for knowledge/understanding. To support this, I draw on my own research that indicates increased access to course materials can impact student outcomes.

Course Materials and IE in Practice

My conviction, regardless of strength, is insufficient. So, here are a few ways increased access to course materials promotes intellectual egalitarianism in higher education. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but provoke thought:

Reducing Financial Barriers

The historically high costs of course materials have disproportionately affected students from lower economic backgrounds. The impact of high costs has limited their access to necessary educational resources. Inclusive Access, and similar interventions, aim to reduce financial barriers by making course materials more affordable and accessible, thus promoting a more equitable learning environment.

Empowering Underrepresented Groups

Course materials interventions like Inclusive Access can support historically underrepresented student groups like first-generation students, students from low-income backgrounds, and students with disabilities by making course materials more accessible. Increased access to essential learning resources helps create a more level educational playing field. This allows underrepresented students groups to overcome some of the systemic higher education barriers that may otherwise limit their educational opportunities. This may be the mot important aspect of intellectual egalitarianism in higher education because the current “find and acquire” course materials models prevent certain student populations from choosing their preferred major or courses because of the course materials barrier.

Social Mobility

Traditionally, higher education has been seen as a key driver of social mobility. Increased access to course materials can contribute to this by providing all students with the resources necessary to succeed. When students have equal access to knowledge, resources, and course materials, they are better positioned to seek high-paying careers.

Wrap Up

Increased access to course materials creates a more equitable and just learning environment where all students can succeed and contribute to the collective intellectual growth of society. Intellectual egalitarianism is a concept. A goal. Something to strive for. While not everyone will agree with the adoption of an egalitarian model of society, we can all agree that having access to education should not be reserved for those with resources or born into a certain demographic. As course materials stakeholders, we can create a more equitable and level educational experience for all students by ensuring they have access to the requisite course materials and learning resources.

As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

Over the last five years, the growth of Inclusive Access (IA) and Open Educational Resources (OER) has sparked wild discourse within course materials and higher education. Rather than getting bogged down in the debate between the use of the Inclusive Access and OER, I want to discuss how these two course materials models can coexist and complement each other in providing students with affordable and accessible course materials. As a reminder, Inclusive Access focuses on providing, mostly digital, access to publisher driven content at reduced costs. Whereas, OER provides access to open access resources that can be used, adapted, and shared by anyone. Digital OER is generally free but print versions do cost students to obtain. So, let’s think about how IA and OER can work together to impact the most students across higher education with reduced costs and increased access to course materials.

Coexisting Course Materials

Supporters and opponents of IA and OER seem to be diametrically opposed to each other, but the reality is that both models can and need to coexist in higher education. Rather than a “one or the other” mentality, all course materials stakeholders need to embrace the other to support students on their academic journey. Here are a few ways that support the coexistence of IA and OER in higher education.

– Cost and Quality 

Inclusive Access provides students with more affordable access to publisher-driven materials, while OER offers generally free resources. Having both options available on campus can strike a balance between cost and quality. This ensures students have access to a range of materials that best fit their financial and educational needs. For students from low-income backgrounds or underrepresented student groups, this can help address issues of equity and access to higher education.

– Innovation in Teaching and Learning

Having both Inclusive Access and OER available on campus can foster a culture of innovation and creativity in teaching and learning. Faculty members can experiment with different types of resources, combining the strengths of publisher-driven content in Inclusive Access with the flexibility and adaptability of OER. This combination can lead to more engaging, effective, and student-centered learning experiences.

– Diverse Course Needs

Different courses may require different types of resources. Things like subject matter, course objectives, and learning outcomes may impact course materials choices for faculty. Inclusive Access can provide students with access to high-quality publisher-driven content that may be more suited to certain disciplines or topics. Simultaneously, OER can offer customizable and adaptable resources that can be tailored to the specific needs of other courses, particularly when faculty want to create unique learning experiences or address interdisciplinary topics.

– Faculty Choice

Offering Inclusive Access and OER options, empowers faculty members to choose the resources that best align with their pedagogical needs, course objectives, and personal beliefs about course materials and education. This can promote a sense of autonomy and ownership among faculty, as they can select the materials that best support their goals and the needs of their students. Academic freedom for faculty is paramount in higher education in the United States. Any course materials program that limits which course materials a faculty member can adopt is going to be met with resistance. Allowing faculty to choose their course materials will ensure buy-in and engagement with the materials.

– Resource Sharing and Collaboration

The availability of both Inclusive Access and OER on campus can encourage collaboration and resource sharing among faculty members. Those who have experience with either model can share their insights and experiences with colleagues. This will help build a supportive community of educators working together to improve teaching and learning.

My Position

I talk a lot about Inclusive and Equitable Access (EA), so it can appear as if I am opposed to OER. However, I have said on multiple occasions that I believe that OER has a rightful place in the course materials revolution. OER is an important element in the quest for affordability and access to course materials. Programs like the California State University Affordable Learning $olutions program is an example of how Inclusive Access, Equitable Access, and OER can live under the same roof. This type of program ensures that faculty and students have access to a range of course materials options in terms of cost, quality, and adaptability.

Wrap Up

If you have spent any time as a course materials stakeholder or observer, you are aware of the seemingly opposing forces of IA and OER. Honestly, it’s absurd to think that it must be one or the other in terms of providing or adopting IA or OER options. There is a right fit for both models and the acceptance of this by ALL course materials stakeholders is critical to serving the one higher education stakeholder that matters the most: Students.

If you would like to receive updates as new articles are posted, please subscribe below. And, as always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

Over the last few months, I have had the opportunity to speak at several conferences and webinars about my research on course materials interventions. During that time, the growth of Equitable Access has been front and center. There appears to be a lot of momentum towards the use of Equitable Access course materials models. However, the challenge is understanding what the growth of Equitable Access really looks like. Whether you work for an institution or work in the course materials field, its hard to know what you don’t know. To that end, I have been working to gain a better understanding of what Equitable Access growth looks like in higher education and I want to share it with you.

Background

As an academic researcher investigating course materials interventions, I engage with a variety of course materials stakeholders. That includes campus leaders, bookstore lease operators, publishers, and industry observers. I have leveraged my relationships with these stakeholders to understand how Equitable Access has altered the course materials landscape. This article is dedicated to sharing how Equitable Access course materials models have grown since 2019. I have compiled the number of Equitable Access programs from, what I consider, five of the top six campus bookstore lease operators from 2019 through the Fall 2022 semester. Most of this information is not available to the public. That means this is the first time many have seen this information centralized in one place. No one has compiled a list of Equitable Access course materials programs at independently managed stores yet. That is an article for another day.

Growth Parameters

Inclusive Access course materials models have been in use since roughly 2014. We can debate when or where Inclusive Access started in earnest, but I am confident in saying that Inclusive Access adoption has been steadily rising since around 2014. Anecdotally, we know the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of IA/EA programs because of remote learning and closed campuses. Therefore, I have chosen the 2018-2019 Academic Year as a starting point to examine the growth of Equitable Access. In my reporting on Equitable Access growth, I labeled the starting point as “Prior to 2019” and ended with the Fall 2022 semester.

Growth Data

Based on the bookstore lease operators I surveyed, Equitable Access adoption has an annual growth rate of 105.32% over the last four years. Prior to 2019-2020, a total of 47 campus bookstores were using an Equitable Access course materials model. As of the Fall 2022 term, a total of 245 campus bookstores were using an Equitable Access course materials model (see graph below).

There was a total of 59 Equitable Access programs in Academic Year (AY) 2019-2020 and jumped to 104 for Academic Year 2020-2021 or a 76.27% increase. Equitable Access programs among the bookstore lease operators I surveyed grew 74% between AY 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. In AY20-21 there were 104 Equitable Access programs and by the end of AY21-22 there were 181 Equitable Access programs. At the time of my survey, I only asked bookstore lease operators for their FA22 numbers because they had not solidified their SP23 Equitable Access account totals. Having only half of the AY22-23 data blunts the impact of the increase in adoption of Equitable Access for AY22-23, but it does provide evidence that Equitable Access growth is accelerating not abating.

Wrap Up

To keep things in perspective there are just under 4,000 degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the United States. Moreover, my reporting on the growth of Equitable Access is only from five of the six leading bookstore lease operators. That means that this sample reflects roughly 6% of the total degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the United States. Again, at this time, I have not compiled a list of independently managed bookstore Equitable Access programs like UC Davis, Cornell University, or for-profit institutions.

I have said numerous times on the record that I believe that Equitable Access is likely to be the dominate course materials model within the next decade. While this reporting doesn’t necessarily support or contradict my position, what the limited scope of this investigation tells us is that Equitable Access is quickly on the rise. My hope is to update this report as I receive more information over the next few months. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

I recently presented at the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) annual conference in New York City with my guy Brad Piazza. Brad is the Vice President of Academic Affairs at Waukesha County Technical College and a co-author on our recently accepted manuscript. I think our presentation went very well as there appeared to be standing room only. Brad dazzled with his humor and passion for student success and course materials. I had a few takeaways from our session.

Education

My biggest takeaway from our presentation and its response was the work still necessary to educate higher education stakeholders on current course materials interventions like Inclusive Access, Equitable Access, and Open Educational Resources. Despite the growth in adoption of these course materials interventions models, more work is needed to help administrators understand the details. My work is focused on understanding how these interventions impact student outcomes like success rate (Grade C or better) and course completion rate (Grade D or better). I don’t provide guidance on use of publisher or bookstore lease operator, but my experience in the bookstore industry allows me to provide administrators with a unique perspective. One of the biggest challenges ahead is not trying to convince higher education that anyone intervention is above the rest, but to educate them on how the intervention models can help their students succeed in the classroom.

Access or Content

What is the more important element of Inclusive and Equitable Access – access or content type? This was a great question asked during our session. As with most things in life, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Therefore, I think access is the more important of the two choices. Access means the reduction or elimination of all front-end barriers for students. Access means students not choosing between course materials and other basic needs like food or rent. I spent 13 years on the frontlines of course materials acquisitions. I understand the decisions students must make semester after semester. While there are segments of the higher education population that has no problem finding and acquiring their course materials, there are large segments of higher education’s underrepresented student population that are put in impossible situations.  However, that doesn’t mean content type is not as equally important.

Content Type

As Jason Lorgan wrote for my blog, a digital-first strategy has many benefits beyond just cost savings. The type of content used in the course materials revolution is still a very important consideration. Courseware and interactive digital textbooks provide students with a more intimate learning experience. The difference between courseware/digital textbooks and flat digital textbooks and print is how students are nudged into exploring topics further or the built-in support to help faculty support students who need it, among other things. So, the type of content can make a difference for all students.

Wrap Up

As I reflect on our ACCT presentation, those with a stake in course materials need to make more of a concerted effort to educate faculty and administrators. Less selling more educating. I look forward to seeing everyone at the Textbook Affordability Conference in Chicago November 9^th through the 11^th and at NACAS C3X in Las Vegas November 14^th through the 16^th. I will be providing course materials intervention education at both conferences, so please feel free to come say hello. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

In light of my recent article reflecting on Dr. David Wiley’s blog post, I thought discussing OER would be the most logical next article on what I consider the main drivers of the current course materials revolution.  Most of my research is focused on Inclusive Access and Equitable Access, but there is another intervention with a promise to increase affordability and access to course materials for students across higher education. This intervention is called Open Educational Resources or OER. Admittedly, I do not have a lot of personal experience with OER, but you cannot talk about course materials interventions or course materials intervention research without recognizing the potential impact of OER.

OER Defined

According to Creative Commons, Open Educational Resources are defined as “teaching, learning, and research materials that are either (a) in the public domain or (b) licensed in a manner that provides everyone with free and perpetual permission to engage in the 5R activities”. The 5R activities are retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute.  OER may be defined differently by different organizations, but what doesn’t change is that OER is mostly accessible for free online.

Content Creation

Open Educational Resources differs from Inclusive Access in how the content is created. OER content is independently created and curated by higher education faculty or subject matter experts rather than publishing companies. These faculty and subject matter experts may be highly qualified to author these materials, but there is question as to whether free Open Educational Resources receive the same rigorous peer-review as publisher content. Another challenge to OER content is a potential lack of supplemental/support material. Most publisher content includes test/quiz banks, student performance tracking, and interactive material. These may not be widely available with Open Educational Resources material.

Delivery Mechanism

Inclusive Access shares similarities in the delivery mechanism of content. Because OER is largely digital, links to the content, or the content itself, can be loaded in the Learning Management System (LMS) or posted in the faculty member’s syllabus. Like Inclusive Access, this removes the student from the acquisitions process and provides access on or before the first day of class.

OER Costs

This is another area where Inclusive Access differs from Open Educational Resources. The main benefit espoused of OER is that the course material content is free to students. Students are, mostly, not required to pay for OER is because the content is largely grant funded. Faculty or institutions that want to develop OER apply for grant funding from third parties to develop this content. With OER, if students want physical copies of the book, they can pay extra to get a physical copy. While OER is generally free, if grant funding for these materials dry up, the content may no longer be free.

Wrap Up

It may seem as if I am opposed to Open Educational Resources because of some of my criticisms. However, I strongly believe that Open Educational Resources have a rightful place in the current course materials revolution. I think OER has the ability to change the lives of students in the same way Inclusive Access can. What I am concerned about is the scalability of OER. Inclusive Access by design and implementation mechanism are much more scalable and can immediately impact millions of students. Open Educational Resources and Inclusive Access advocates are privately and publicly dueling and feuding unnecessarily. Both paradigm shifting models can coexist if they recognize their missions are the same: save students money and help students succeed in the classroom. To learn more about OER, you can visit OER Commons. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

Two days ago, one of Open Educational Resource’s leading pioneers did an abrupt about face. Dr. David Wiley, one of the most respected voices in Open Educational Resources, posted a blog article admonishing the bleak track record of OER and Zero Textbook Cost degrees and their impact on student outcomes. In the introduction to his blog Dr. Wiley wrote, “…if your primary purpose is improving student outcomes, the shrugging “sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t” uncertainty is utterly unacceptable. So I’ve been thinking more than I’d care to admit about the relationship between OER and improving student outcomes. This thinking, with all the benefit that hindsight affords, doesn’t always reflect well on some of my earlier research…”.

David Wiley

Dr. David Wiley is currently the Chief Academic Officer at Lumen Learning, among other honors and titles. His personal website positions Lumen Learning as “a company dedicated to increasing student success, reinvigorating pedagogy, and improving the affordability of education using a combination of open educational resources, learning analytics, continuous improvement, and professional development”. Dr. Wiley is credited with coining the term open content in 1998. He has also authored and co-authored several studies examining the impact Open Educational Resources have on student outcomes. This is a man that knows OER. This is a man who has dedicated his life to providing open content for thousands and thousands – if not millions – of students. So, when he says something like this, it requires a moment of pause and reflection.

OER Effectiveness

If you have spent any time reading OER effectiveness studies, you will read terms like “as good as” or “does no harm” when the study reports out about the interactions observed between OER interventions and student outcomes. In his blog he wrote, “It should surprise no one that media comparison studies find no significant difference in student learning. Why would students who use a pencil learn more than students who use a pen? Why would students who read an openly licensed textbook learn more than students who read a traditionally copyrighted textbook?”.

He continues, “When we reflect on the lessons learned from decades of media comparison studies, we shouldn’t expect to see a significant difference between students who use OER and those who use TCM. There’s no reason for us to expect that changing the copyright license of a work will impact student learning”. So, what about those handful of studies that do show some sort of positive interaction between OER and increased outcomes? He says,“…when studies find improvements in student outcomes, where are those improvements coming from? What are they attributable to? Something else. Or, as the jargon goes, confounding variables”.

Future of Intervention Research

Dr. Wiley suggests “…researchers looking for a difference in outcomes between students whose faculty adopt OER and other students whose faculty adopt TCM should explicitly describe the mechanism that they hypothesize will cause the difference in outcomes they are looking for”. He also says, “OER researchers have an opportunity to be more thoughtful about the way they control potential confounds”.

Wrap Up

As a researcher currently investigating course materials interventions like Inclusive Access and Equitable Access, this blog gives me some things to ponder about my research. Is my methodology sufficient? Are my results a result effected by confounding variables? If someone this accomplished and more noteworthy than I could ever hope to become can question his own research and its place in understanding the effectiveness of OER’s impact on student outcomes, why should I not also reflect on my own work. Dr Wiley should be commended for his public stance. He should be commended for challenging his own work. He should be commended for forcing course materials intervention researchers everywhere to pause.

I encourage you to read his blog post and his personal website. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM