Billing students automatically for textbooks? Look elsewhere to solve affordability issues

Some Canadian universities are exploring automatic textbook billing programs — sometimes called academic materials programs or “inclusive access” programs. These are institutional agreements with vendors to provide digital access to course materials, and automatically charge students for them as part of their fees. Concerns with rising textbook costs are a reality for many students. These are often described as a pressing challenge in policy discussions.
The Canadian Association of Research Libraries has raised concerns about automatic textbook billing, including potential threats to faculty freedom, student privacy and access to diverse learning materials. As professional academic librarians and faculty members, we share these concerns and agree with some student groups that argue automatic textbook billing programs are the wrong answer to textbook affordability challenges. Here’s why. Role of libraries Along with course instructors, librarians play critical roles in supporting student success by providing equitable access to learning materials. Libraries are positioned to play a role in bolstering equitable access to learning materials for students and supporting faculty to use library collections as well as openly licensed and low- or no-cost materials for teaching and learning where possible.
Libraries have missions of building and providing access to collections that support teaching and learning, especially at small and mid-sized institutions where collections focus on undergraduate courses. They do this through things like textbook buying programs, eBook licensing and journal subscriptions, as well as working with instructors to make specific resources available. Studies show that libraries’ lending or licensing of course materials can reduce student costs. It can also improve access and engagement with materials. Claims, evidence and faculty perspectives To better understand how Canadian universities are addressing course material affordability, we reviewed publicly available policies, campus initiatives and library programs at 22 mid-sized universities (with 7,000–20,000 full-time students). We also conducted an online survey in English and French, targeting tenured, tenure-track and sessional faculty members at these universities. We received 322 responses from nine provinces, representing faculty from a range of academic disciplines and various levels of teaching experience. Participants responded to multiple choice, item-ranking and open-ended questions about selecting course materials for a recently taught course and choosing materials more generally. Faculty reported a wide range of approaches to course materials. Some faculty are embracing the digital learning tools offered by commercial textbook publishers to engage and motivate students, and value these tools as solutions to the workload challenges of teaching large classes. But, while some rely on commercial textbooks, many use Open Educational Resources, library-licensed materials or freely available content. About 34 per cent of faculty reported not using a textbook at all, instead curating materials that are relevant to their course outcomes and that reduce or eliminate costs for students. This range of practices reflects deliberate, faculty-led strategies, also documented elsewhere in other research, to balance affordability, accessibility, quality and relevance — approaches that institution-wide billing programs are not designed to support. Measuring student success Proponents of automatic textbook billing programs have highlighted benefits, including increased course completion rates, grades and cost savings. However, faculty in our survey emphasized broader measures of student success. They cited outcomes that are well-established aims of university study, such as academic research competency, information literacy and critical thinking skills. They also described their course materials in terms of helping students develop these skills, not just providing access to content. Faculty noted challenges with digital-only textbooks, including poor readability, limited usability and restricted rental periods. Many highlighted the importance of diverse, relevant content from a range of creators reflecting diverse perspectives. These include print-based and independently published materials unavailable from major vendors. While a majority of faculty in our study were concerned about cost, quality and relevance are their primary concern, and many are responding in context-sensitive ways to the related challenges of affordability pressures and shifting student learning needs. Local solutions In a publishing landscape marked by consolidation, elimination of print and restricted digital lending, automatic textbook billing programs may limit faculty choice, reduce diversity of materials and constrain equitable access. Decisions about course materials reflect instructors’ professional judgment, subject-matter expertise and knowledge of student needs, and are central to academic freedom in teaching.
Faculty we surveyed were clear that course material selection should remain the purview of academic staff, not administrative or non-academic units. This includes the freedom to choose materials, determine how they are used and accessed and decide whether students must pay for materials to learn in their courses. Textbooks could be free if universities rewarded professors for writing them

The answer to textbook affordability isn’t to hand course material decisions to publishers. It’s in partnerships with libraries and investments in open education programs and services that help faculty make better, more equitable choices.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.