From the recent historic investment in Zero Textbook Cost degrees to individual campus’ achievements, over the past year California has a lot to celebrate when it comes to strides in open education—yet a lot of work remains to be done. “Navigating the Changing Landscape of Textbook Affordability” leaned into the spirit of celebrating the wins and buckling down for the work with a panel of student leadership and issue area experts sharing their experiences and perspective.

Continue reading

On March 10, 2022, during Open Education Week, join the Michelson 20MM Foundation to learn more about the current state of textbook affordability at the UC, CCC, and CSU systems and pose questions to those on the ground.

Continue reading

In 2005, Danny Murillo arrived at the security housing unit at Pelican Bay State prison, where he would remain in solitary confinement, known as “the SHU,” for the remainder of his sentence. It wasn’t long before his fellow inmates encouraged him to take advantage of the limited educational resources available in the SHU.

Continue reading

“Inclusive Access,” “First Day Access,” and “Equitable Access” may stir images of students using their course materials without barriers; however, the new website created by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) tells a fuller picture. Rather than a product in and of itself, “inclusive access” and similar programs are a billing mechanism which adds the cost of course materials directly to student’s tuition and fees. This Michelson Spark Grant funded resource from SPARC, with partners from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the Student PIRGs, ISKME, and others, provides institutions, educators, and students with resources and tools to determine if inclusive access makes sense for their campus. 

In the past, when considering if such a contract was an appropriate fit it was challenging to find information beyond the marking materials for the products themselves. To address that, InclusiveAccess.org provides easy to understand perspectives on the different questions educators and institutions should be asking before signing on such as, What are the savings? Can students retain access to materials? What about student data? 

“Right now, inclusive access has largely been driven by vendors who go to campuses and offer a program. And that’s backward, we want people to decide for themselves,” Nicole Allen, SPARC’s Director of Open Education shared with the Chronicle of Higher Education. 

To do so, the website also links visitors to a contract library of similar deals across the country, giving a broader perspective on what many of these deals contain and powerful questions for policymakers concerned about the rising costs of higher education. 

The launch of the website was met with a positive reception from the higher education community as a whole–both the Chronicle of Higher Education and Cory Doctorow covered the launch of InclusiveAccess.org. Doctorow‘s thread breaks down the long term trends and practices that allow publishers to “make out like bandits, at students’ expense” with the new billing mechanism as part of a long term move towards industry consolidation. 

This is not the first time we have worked on this issue. In 2020, the Michelson 20MM Foundation funded US PIRG’s research into automatic textbook billing through the Spark Grant Program resulting in “Automatic Textbook Billing: An Offer Students Can’t Refuse.” The report analyzed the automatic textbook billing contracts of 31 colleges across the country and found that almost half of the contracts failed to disclose discount structures, nearly seventy percent of discounts disappeared if participation quotas were not met, and a third had uncapped annual price increases. 

Over the next months and years, we are excited to work with our partners across the higher education, nonprofit, and policy communities to continue to ensure students have real inclusive and equitable access to their course materials. 

Michelson 20MM is a private, nonprofit foundation seeking to accelerate progress towards a more just world through grantmaking, operating programs, and impact investing. Co-chaired and funded by Alya and Gary Michelson, Michelson 20MM is part of the Michelson Philanthropies network of foundations.

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a Michelson Spark Grant recipient, released the findings of its latest study examining the murky tactics textbook publishers are using to boost flagging profits, often at the expense of student choice. “Automatic Textbook Billing: An Offer Student Can’t Refuse?” spotlights how under new contracts struck between publishers and institutions of higher education, students are being automatically charged for digital learning materials and deprived of the opportunity to shop around. The report reveals some troubling trends that call into question whether these terms are in the best interest of students and faculty.

Supported by a Michelson Spark Grant, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) embarked on a first-of-its-kind review examining a new business model that textbook publishers are employing to maintain their position of power in the broken textbooks market. Last month, PIRG released the results of its study in the report, Automatic Textbook Billing: An Offer Student Can’t Refuse?

Following decades of exponential growth that far exceeds inflation, textbook prices have plateaued in recent years as the result of affordability measures such as the used book market and open textbooks. To combat their declining profits, publishers have entered into contracts with institutions of higher education that leverage their new “inclusive access” programs, which can be more accurately described as automatic billing.

Automatic billing allows publishers to add the costs of course materials directly onto a student’s tuition bill. The long-term goal of this model is to promote digital textbook access codes. These codes act as a subscription that provide access to a publisher’s digital library and homework submission platform for a set amount of time. Students are unable to access learning materials after their subscription ends, and since they never own a physical product, they are unable to recoup their costs on the used textbook market.

PIRG reviewed 52 contracts struck between textbook publishers and 31 institutions of higher learning, representing some 700,000 students. The report reveals troubling clauses that are often contained within these contracts, which do not have the interest of the students or faculty in mind. Some of the key findings include:

• Half of all contracts failed to fully disclose their discount structure
• 42% of contracts place limits on schools publicizing these partnerships
• 68% of contracts contained quotas for student subscriptions, which, if not met, would cause the discounts to be eliminated. However, these discounts would be federally required if the student were billed via an opt-out charge rather than automatically
• A third of all contracts allow uncapped annual price increases
• A fifth of all contracts cap the number of students who can receive print editions at 15% of the course enrollment

The clauses call into question whether textbook publishers are focused on providing benefits to their student consumers. Many of the contracts provide incentives for administrators to push faculty to adopt automatically-billed access codes. Furthermore, restrictions on publicizing these arrangements – and responses PIRG received when filing their records requests – reveal that publishers do not want the true nature of these contacts to come to light.

Some publishers may contend that this model provides value to students. If this were true, students would be clamoring to opt into these charges. However, the programs are set up in a murky way that undermines meaningful price transparency and choice for students and faculty.

PIRG’s report is a great resource for campus administrators as they evaluate whether automatic billing contracts are best for their students. The document offers a set of guiding questions institutions can use when making course materials decisions. It also provides recommendations for schools seeking to renegotiate existing automatic billing partnerships in order to best serve students.

We are proud to support PIRG in furthering consumer protections for students in the textbook and instructional materials market. We hope the findings galvanize the adoption of materials and contractual terms that promote choice and long-term affordability.