A question I have been asked many times over the last few years is whether I have a list, or know if one exists, of all the institutions who have adopted course materials intervention models like Inclusive and Equitable Access. In my conversations with various stakeholders I’ve seen bits and pieces of lists. Many of them are incomplete or lack key details about the institutions. I have always wondered why one didn’t exist. Surely, there had to be someone who compiled a detailed list.

Let’s Build It

As many of you know, I transitioned out of working in and around course materials in a direct, day-to-day capacity almost a year ago. So, I haven’t had the time or resources to dedicate to making a list. However, after an intense conversation with some campus leaders a few months ago, I decided I needed this list, even if just for myself. So, I set out to do it. It took several months of nights and weekends, but here we are. I have a…partial list. I’ve scoped the top 1,000 institutions by headcount according to available IPEDS data to determine if they are using a course materials intervention model like Inclusive and Equitable Access.

Approach and Process

Creating a list of just names of institutions using  course materials intervention models wasn’t going to cut it.  I needed to understand which schools were using these models, where they were located, their size, whether or not they were a Minority Serving Institution, and some other data points about them I wasn’t sure I wanted or will even use. The usefulness of this list was going to be determined by how detailed I could make it.

I started with IPEDS. My institutional selection condition was Title IV (federal financial aid) participation status. If the institution wasn’t participating in or eligible for Title IV, they didn’t make the list. After I had my list of 5,918 institutions, I had to select my variables. Beyond the IPEDS ID and institutional name, I have 23 other potential IPEDS variables by which to segment. To round out the top 1,000 list with information not available in IPEDS, I used a combination of personal knowledge and comprehensive desk research. There are some limitations to this approach which I will address later.

By the Numbers

There are over 5,900 institutions of higher education who are participating in or eligible for Title IV federal financial aid funding, according to IPEDS. These range from schools with 10 students to over 200,000 students. Focusing on the Top 1,000 institutions (16.90% of the total available institutions), I found there are 524 (52.40%) institutions using some variation of a course materials intervention model like Inclusive and Equitable Access. Of those 524 institutions, 411 (78.44%) are using Inclusive Access and 113 (21.56%) are using Equitable Access.

As we review some of the data, remember this data is only from the Top 1,000 institutions by headcount per IPEDS. Chat 1 highlights inclusive access programs by state. California leads the way with 45 institutions using some sort of course by course access model and Texas is second with 30.

Chart 2 examines the number of institutions in the top 1,000 using a campus-wide model. Again, California leads the way with 12, but Texas with 11 and Florida with 9 are close behind.

Something I, and many others, have wondered over the last few years is whether or not there is a particular type of institution that is more likely to adopted these course materials intervention models. I think the next few charts give us a pretty good picture from the Top 1,000. Admittedly, it is very possible these graphs change as we expand the list from 1,000 to 2,000 and beyond. Chart 3 examines access program types by institutional size. For this chart, institutional size can be read as FTE or Full-Time Equivalent, which is a different metric than the headcount metric with which I started. I like this metric because it buckets institutions into groups more easily than using the widely varying headcount metric.

Chart 4 looks at access program types by sector. There are four sector types in this Top 1,000 segment: Private For-Profit (4Y+), Private Not-For-Profit (4Y+), Public (2Y), and Public (4Y+). In this sample, we can see that Public (4Y+) institutions have more widely adopted Inclusive and Equitable Access. This aligns with anecdotal evidence and things I have heard over the last few years . It is cool to see it validated in the Top 1,000 list.

Chart 5 is just for fun. Since I had the variable, and we had already looked at program types by state, I figured why not? IPEDS has a region variable where they bucket institutions based on their geographic region. The Southeast region leads the list with 139 access programs followed by Far West (79) and Great Lakes (74).

Limitations

There are a few important limitations to this work that we need to address:

• The list of institutions and variable data are from IPEDS, which means I have no control over the variable data or its accuracy. Institutions self-report data to IPEDS.
• I could have made an error in contributing or not contributing an IA/EA program to an institution from my desk research.
• Multi-campus institutions only count once – sometimes. There are at least two schools in the Top 1,000 that I personally know have multiple campuses and are using IA or EA. IPEDS data counts those institutions as one single institution, therefore they are only counted once in this research. They were most likely counted as individual campuses in previous attempts I have made to understand the scale and scope of IA/EA. I am sure this limitation will be an area of contention once the list is complete.
• This is not, and was never intended to be, scientific research,

Wrap Up

This is just the start. Over the next few weeks and months, I will continue to scope the IA/EA market in hopes of presenting  a more accurate and detailed picture of what the adoption of Inclusive and Equitable Access looks like across higher education. We hope that you found this first part of our work helpful or insightful.

If your campus is looking for support adopting a course materials intervention model like Inclusive or Equitable Access or evaluating your current program, we have limited space for 2025 to add new clients to our growing consulting portfolio. Contact us today to learn how we can help you drive unparalleled access to course materials and increased student success for your campus.

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

-MM

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)

If you have any familiarity with higher education, you have some idea of luminary theorists Vincent Tinto and Alexander Astin. Tinto’s groundbreaking research on student retention has significantly shaped our understanding of why students drop out of higher education. Among other factors, Tinto identifies academic difficulty and a disconnection from the educational community, also identified as social integration, as reasons students drop out. Additionally, Astin’s seminal Input-Environment-Output model provides a framework for understanding the dynamics of student development and academic success. His model suggests ‘Input’ factors, such as student demographics and prior educational experiences, interact with the ‘Environment,’ which includes educational settings and resources, to produce ‘Output,’ or educational outcomes and student success. Higher education has historically grappled with these issues, and it still does today. I think that Equitable Access course materials intervention models have the potential to mitigate the issues of which Astin and Tinto have made us aware. I thought it would be interesting for us to explore the connections between Tinto’s drop out factors, Astin’s I-E-O model, and Equitable Access.

Equitable Access

Let’s start with how I understand Equitable Access course materials intervention models. Equitable Access is a revolutionary course materials intervention model that standardizes the cost of course materials through a flat fee structure, ensuring that every student in every course has immediate access to required materials from the first day of class. By doing so, it aims to level the academic playing field and create a more inclusive educational environment.

Tinto’s Drop-Out Factors

Vincent Tinto’s work has highlighted two factors that contribute to student drop-out:

• Academic Difficulty: Students who struggle academically, sometimes due to a lack of access to required course materials, are at a higher risk of dropping out.
• Disconnection: A sense of disconnection or lack of engagement with the academic community can also lead to retention and persistence issues.

Impacting Academic Difficulty Through Equitable Access

A significant barrier to academic success is the cost of and access to required textbooks and course materials. Students who cannot or do not acquire their required materials are at a distinct disadvantage, which can lead to poor academic performance and, ultimately, attrition.

How Equitable Access Helps Academic Difficulty

By ensuring that all students have immediate access to their required course materials, Equitable Access eliminates or reduces the access and affordability barriers. Institutions that have implemented this model show promising results. For instance, my research on participants vs. non-participants in an Equitable Access model shows a +15.58% difference in course completion rate for participants, and +1% increase in course completion rate in a pre/post study. Additionally, surveys from the University of California – Davis and San Diego State University found more students have their required course materials with Equitable Access than before, more students than not would recommend the Equitable Access program to other students, and a majority of students who opted out of the program did not secure the required materials for two or more classes.

Mitigating Disconnection Through Equitable Access

Tinto identifies a sense of disconnection or lack of social integration as another significant factor contributing to student drop-out. Students who do not feel integrated into the academic community are more likely to leave.

How Equitable Access Helps Mitigate Disconnection

Without having the required course materials, students cannot engage in the classroom, with their peers, or with the course content. They are not able to participate in class, in group assignments, or reference the materials; not to mention the stigma of not being able to afford or acquire the required materials. By creating universal access to the required course materials, students have the required materials for all their courses. This means they can be fully engaged with the necessary resources and state of mind to focus on their studies – not on their lack of resources. Ensuring all students have unimpeded access to their materials fosters a sense of community among students and the classroom.

Synergy with Tinto’s Model

The implications of Equitable Access align well with the challenges identified in Tinto’s research. By ensuring equal access to academic resources and fostering a sense of community, Equitable Access can serve as one approach to combat both academic difficulty and disconnection.

Astin’s Input-Environment-Output Model

Alexander Astin’s Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) model offers a comprehensive framework that outlines the factors influencing student success in higher education. The ‘Input’ factors incorporate variables like student demographics, academic background, and prior educational experiences. Students carry these factors with them when they enter higher education. These ‘Input’ factors interact with the ‘Environment,’ which is the educational setting, resources, and experiences provided by the institution. This interaction ultimately leads to ‘Output,’ which manifests as a variety of different educational outcomes such as academic achievement, retention, and overall student success. Broadly, Equitable Access can enrich the educational ‘Environment,’ making it more conducive to learning and academic success.

Equitable Access and Astin’s I-E-O Model

• Enhanced Environment: Equitable Access directly impacts the ‘Environment’ component of Astin’s I-E-O model. By making course materials accessible, the Equitable Access removes two of the most significant barriers in higher education – access and affordability. This ensures that all students, regardless of their ‘Input’ characteristics, have equal access to course materials. In doing so, Equitable Access creates a more equitable and inclusive ‘Environment.’
• Improved Output: With an enhanced ‘Environment,’ we can expect a more meaningful ‘Output’ in the form of student success, retention, and academic achievement. Students who have immediate access to course materials are more likely to be engaged in their coursework, participate in class discussions, and perform well in assessments. This can lead to higher retention rates, better grades, and, ultimately, a more successful academic journey. A more meaningful ‘Output’ aligns with my research theoretical lens of Expectancy (Vroom) and Self-Efficacy (Bandura).
• Can Easier Access to Course Materials Improve the ‘Environment’? The answer to this question is ‘yes’. Easier and more convenient access to course materials not only improves the ‘Environment’ but also has a multiplier effect on ‘Output.’ When students are more engaged and faculty can tailor instruction more effectively, the institution as a whole can benefit from higher retention and success rates. This creates a virtuous cycle where improved ‘Environment’ leads to better ‘Output’.

Wrap Up

The challenges of student retention and attrition are complex and require a multifaceted approach – multiple parts of the institution working together. Singularly, Equitable Access will not solve these challenges. However, when used in conjunction with efforts institutions are already using to improve student success, it can be effective in addressing the challenges raised by the work of Astin and Tinto. Course materials interventions, but Equitable Access specifically, are not just about making course materials more affordable. They are about creating an educational environment where every student has an equal opportunity to succeed.

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

-MM

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.

Rashad Nelms, Associate Vice President for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategy and Innovation at Indiana University Bloomington recently posted a question on LinkedIn that asked “Would you deliver higher education differently if you were starting an institution or company today? And if so, how would it differ”. This is an interesting question for many higher education stakeholders given the challenges higher education is currently facing. However, I want to shift this question/idea specifically to course materials. I want to repropose the question as “would you deliver course materials differently if you were starting an institution today”?

Find & Acquire

As the course materials and acquisition process shifts towards Inclusive Access, Equitable Access, and Open Educational Resources, I think this question looms large for course materials. By all accounts, course materials are still a very important part of higher education in the Unite States. However, the current and most prevalent course materials acquisition and delivery model is archaic and obsolete. I call this course materials model “find & acquire” while others call it “student choice”. This model requires students to figure out what they need, where it’s located, and if they have the resources to acquire it. This may require students to navigate multiple e-commerce platforms or physically go to a campus or off-campus location and it all takes time away from their other life responsibilities and obligations. Students are required to have their course materials but receive little help in course materials acquisition and delivery process. Why?

From Scratch

The process for course material acquisition and delivery is shifting. Among other things, the growth of Inclusive Access and Equitable Access are powering it. The shift away from “find & acquire” or “student choice” is being met with resistance from a variety of stakeholders. However, if most of us were to start an institution today, from scratch, including course materials in the cost of tuition or attendance would be a no brainer. We would do everything in our power to make sure our students, regardless of gender, race, age, and socioeconomic status, had everything they needed to be successful in our new institution. We would ensure that our institution was free of friction and barriers that are known causes of failure, stop-out, and drop out.

However, in the present “find & acquire” models of course materials acquisition and delivery, we ask students to stretch their resources – be it time or finances. Institutions who still embrace the “find & acquire” models are sending a message to students that the inequities and challenges of this model are the student’s responsibility to bear alone and that you only have the right to be successful in higher education if you have the socioeconomic background or resources to do so.

Wrap Up

Given what we know about the impact course materials can have on a student throughout their higher education journey, why would we not make sure that they had access to one of, if not, the most important educational/learning resource? I accept that some may feel the issues are more complex, but to me it is simply about students and putting their course materials in their hands and on their devices. Course materials intervention models like Inclusive and Equitable Access do not change faculty pedagogy or academic freedom. They do not change how administrators go about their day-to-day work. These course materials interventions are about students and providing them the necessary resources to be successful from day one.

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

-MM

The one constant in course materials over the last ten years: change. This is a refreshing thought given the stagnation of course materials over the first 140 years of the college bookstore/course materials landscape. Two of the most revolutionary changes have been the introduction of Inclusive and Equitable Access. At end of November 2022, I posted an article about the growth of Equitable Access from before AY19-20 through AY22-23. This was a great opportunity to understand how Equitable Access had quickly risen since 2020. The rapid adoption of Equitable Access has the potential to change course materials and higher education. In this blog, I am sharing my Equitable Access growth predictions.

Looking Back

In my last article on Equitable Access growth, I shared that I collaborated with stakeholders at, what I consider, the 5 of the top 6 bookstore management vendors to get their Equitable Access store counts. Originally, I had identified 245 Equitable Access accounts for AY22-23. Since then, I was able to get the 6^th bookstore management vendor to share their store counts and I got a better picture of the independently managed bookstore market. This new information changes my AY22-23 account number from 245 to 264. I feel that adding the 6^th bookstore vendor and the independent market gives us a better look at how Equitable Access might grow. Lastly, I have changed my reporting from Academic Year (AY) to Fiscal Year (FY). Given that most institutions have Fiscal Years running from July 1^st through the following June 30^th, it felt like this change is more in line with potential Equitable Access adoption reporting timelines.

Equitable Access Growth Predictions

As we head into the Fall 2023 semester, Equitable Access is continuing its rapid growth. In the graph below, the red line denotes where we are today and to the right of the red line is where I predict Equitable Access to grow over the next few years. By the end of Spring 2024 (FY24) there will be at least 355 Equitable Access programs. If vendor Equitable Access growth trends continue, I expect there to be at least 845 Equitable Access programs across higher education. That gives Equitable Access programs a growth rate of 1,124% since FY20. Based on my research, Equitable Access had a growth rate of 414% from FY20 to FY24 (current) and will continue at a growth rate of 138% from FY24 (current) to FY28. I believe my calculations and expected growth for FY27 and FY28 might be a little conservative. It is possible there could be more than my predicted 845 Equitable Access programs by FY28.

Equitable Access Market

Knowing and understanding how far Equitable Access has come in such a short time is valuable information. If your institution is considering or exploring Equitable Access, it’s reasonable for you to wonder how prevalent this course materials intervention model is across higher education. So, to do that, I want to put the adoption of Equitable Access across higher education into context. According to IPEDS data, there are roughly 3,620 postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States. So, if we take the 355 Equitable Access programs for FY24 and divide it by the 3,620 postsecondary degree-granting institutions, that means that roughly 10% of all postsecondary degree-granting institutions are using Equitable Access in FY24. Looking towards FY28, the 845 projected Equitable Access programs would represent over 23% of all postsecondary degree-granting institutions having adopted Equitable Access.

Wrap Up

There are a lot of numbers to digest here. There are plenty of interpretations to be made. What I love most about this work and being able to put this together is letting practitioners, stakeholders, and observers make their own assessments of the information. I think the biggest takeaway from this work is that Equitable Access is not a fad. It is not a trivial movement. Equitable Access has staying power. It will, over the next five, alter the course materials/college bookstore landscape unlike anything we have ever seen or experienced. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

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