1

From: Jason Lorgan, Negotiator for Public Four-Year Institutions of Higher Education [Primary]

To: Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee 

Date: February 8, 2024

Re: Books and Supplies as Part of Tuition and Fees (668.164(c) and (m))

During the two decades leading up to 2016, the cost of books, course materials, supplies, and 

equipment for college courses increased by 88 percent,1 more than nearly any other college student 

expense. As a result of increasing costs, many students chose not to purchase required materials, 

contributing to poor academic outcomes. According to a 2014 survey by U.S. PIRG, 65 percent of 

students decided not to buy a textbook because of the cost2 and 94 percent of those students worried it 

would negatively affect their grade. 

In response to this crisis of cost and the related impact on student outcomes, many institutions have 

implemented affordable access programs – often referred to as “Inclusive Access” or “Equitable Access” 

– that deliver instructors’ selected materials to students on the first day of class at a significant discount 

to the price a student would pay to purchase the same material at retail. The cost of course materials 

are included in students’ tuition and fees with these programs, eliminating the need for students to pay 

out of pocket. Institutions communicate fees to students and provide easy, web-based paths to opt out 

of the program. To further reduce cost, many of these institutions also encourage adoption of open 

education resources (OER) to be utilized alongside paid materials.

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Education, under the Obama-Biden Administration, explicitly revised 

federal cash management regulations (34 e-C.F.R. §668.164 2016) to allow the cost of books and 

supplies to be included in tuition and fees in settling ledger accounts as long as colleges and universities

(a) provide students the ability to opt-out, and (b) ensure textbooks are priced “below competitive 

market rates.” These regulatory changes have proven to be astoundingly successful. In under a decade, 

the cost of course materials have dropped significantly and student outcomes have improved. In fact, 

affordable access programs have contributed to a 57 percent decline in student spending on course 

materials over the past decade, while other college costs such as tuition and student housing have 

continued to rise3

. Students have also benefited academically from having access to affordable materials 

on the first day of class, rather than spending up to several weeks seeking alternatives and falling behind 

in class as a result.

Given the success of these programs, we have strong concerns with the regulatory language proposed 

by the Department of Education because it removes the very provisions that have been so crucial to 

improving the affordability of course materials and guaranteeing student access. The proposed language 

would result in the elimination of many innovative programs across the country and undermine shared 

goals to improve affordability and student outcomes in higher education.

1 Tracy A. Hurley and Amir Fekrazad. Inclusive Access and Open Educational Resources E-Text Programs in Higher 

Education. P. 177. June 2020. Link: E-Textbooks, Inclusive Access, and Academic Performance | SpringerLink. 2 U.S. PIRG. Fixing the Broken Textbook Market: How Students Respond to High Textbook Costs and Demand 

Alternatives. P. 4. January 2014. Link: Fixing Broken Textbooks Report.docx (publicinterestnetwork.org). 3 Student Watch. Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Course Materials. June 2023. Link: Student Watch Reports a 57% 

Decline in Student Spending on Course Materials over a Decade - AAP (publishers.org) 
2

With that said, it has been eight years since the rules governing these innovative affordability programs 

were developed, and best practices have emerged to ensure the promised value is being delivered to 

students. Therefore, there are ways to improve the existing regulations to raise standards for everyone. 

We urge the Department to consider common-sense modifications to the current cash management 

regulations to enhance transparency and protections for students without undermining institutions’ 

ability to continue offering programs that reduce course materials costs.

Affordable Access Programs Have Reduced the Cost of Textbooks

Affordable access programs have contributed to a significant drop in the cost of textbooks for students, 

particularly for low-income students.4 Multiple studies have demonstrated the impact of these 

programs on affordability. According to independent research by Student Watch, total course material 

spending for required materials in the 2022-2023 school year fell to $285 per student, approximately 60 

percent less than spending in 2007-2008 when students paid $701, on average, for course materials.5

Additionally, current student spending has also declined 57 percent over the past decade.6 Confirming 

this important trend, the College Board’s 2023 Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid Report found 

that students now spend an average of just $310 on textbooks annually.7

Affordable access programs have demonstrated significant apples-to-apples savings compared to 

alternate purchase models for the same course materials, as institutions can utilize the power of bulk 

purchasing and other means to secure considerably lower prices on behalf of students. A study of nearly 

27,000 courses across institution types from Fall Term 2023 found that students in affordable access 

programs saved an average of $24 per material, a 30 percent savings compared to prevailing market 

pricing for the same material. – i.e., the access program cost of the required digital courseware or etextbook was much lower than the retail market price for the same digital courseware or e-textbook.

These savings have been secured in an increasingly robust and competitive market among publishers 

participating in affordable access programs. As of fall 2023, at least 550 publishers and learning tool 

providers offered discounted affordable access program pricing, up from only 25 publishers in 2017. 

Importantly, we expect these trends to continue as competition from smaller publishers and new 

market entrants complements pressure from other low- and no-cost material initiatives, driving large 

publishers to continue providing lower pricing to students in affordable access programs.

Affordable Access Programs Improve Academic Achievement, with Strong Student Support

In addition to reducing student costs, affordable access programs ensure students have required course 

materials on the first day of class, allowing them to engage in learning, discussions, and assignments 

from the outset. Several studies examining the effectiveness of affordable access programs have shown 

statistically significant increases in student success rates. 

4 Michael R. Moore. Inclusive Access Course Materials: An Analysis of Waukesha County Technical College’s 

Inclusive Access Program. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 23, No. 3. September 2023, 

pp.58-73. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v23i3.34262 5 Student Watch. Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Course Materials. June 2023. https://www.nacs.org/nacsstudent-watch-report-course-materials-spending-dropped-increase-in-digital-preference. 6 ibid 7

 College Board. Trends in College Pricing. 2023. https://research.collegeboard.org/trends/collegepricing/highlights
3

In a 2020 book by Tracy Hurley and Amir Fekrazad, researchers found that students enrolled in 

affordable access programs experience higher success rates at lower cost than students outside the 

program:

The data from this study supports the hypothesis that institutional e-textbook programs – which 

ensures students have access to required course content by the first day of class – are effective in 

increasing student success rates. In addition, historical price information confirms that [affordable 

access] e-textbook programs are effective at reducing the costs associated with textbooks and, 

accordingly, the cost of higher education.8

Recent independent academic research has also shown that these programs particularly benefit 

underserved student populations with substantial increases in course completion rates among at-risk 

groups, including Black students (up 21 percent) and students over the age of 25 (up 6 percent).9

 

The combination of cost savings, academic impact, and convenience offered by affordable access 

programs has generated strong student support for these programs. A recent survey of over 100 

campuses across two-year and four-year institutions gauging student perspectives on affordable access 

programs10 found:

● 86 percent of students stated they were better prepared for the academic term.

● 83 percent of students stated affordable access programs had a positive impact on their success 

in the current term.

● 75 percent of students stated such programs helped them achieve better grades in the current 

term.

● 78 percent stated that affordable access programs increase the likelihood they will continue 

their education at the school.

● 91 percent of students stated that they found it convenient to have their course materials 

bundled by the institution.

Reflective of this broad student support, several student associations have taken action to formally 

ratify or endorse these important access programs. For example, The Senate of the Associated Students 

of California State University, Long Beach approved Resolution #2023-03 stating:

...in order to advance affordability, accessibility, predictability, and sustainability of textbooks at 

CSULB...the Associated Students Inc. Senate and Board of Directors supports the 

implementation of Equitable Textbook Access and the evolution of textbook affordability at 

CSULB...11

8 Hurley, T. A., & Fekrazad, A. (2020). E-Textbooks, Inclusive Access, and Academic Performance. In T. Hurley (Ed.), 

Inclusive Access and Open Educational Resources E-text Programs in Higher Education. pp. 177-184. Springer, 

Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45730-3_15 9 Michael R. Moore. Inclusive Access Course Materials: An Analysis of Waukesha County Technical College’s 

Inclusive Access Program. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 23, No. 3. September 2023, 

pp.58-73. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v23i3.34262 10 Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. New Study Highlights the Positive Impact on Student Outcomes of Barnes & Noble 

Education’s First Day® Complete Equitable Access Program; Results Driving Rapid Growth of the Model across 

Colleges and Universities. July 2023.

11 https://www.csulb.edu/sites/default/files/2023/documents/D1TA%20Resolutionpdf
4

Affordable Access Programs are Complementary to OER Initiatives

Affordable access programs preserve the academic freedom of instructors to teach from whatever 

course materials they would like, whether commercially developed or through no-cost OER. Many 

campuses have strong OER programs that operate alongside affordable access programs that further

minimize the cost of commercial content options. 

Iowa State University’s Open & Affordable Education Committee captures the complementary nature of 

these programs on its website:

We promote the use of free and low-cost instructional materials such as: open educational 

resources (OER), Immediate [Inclusive] Access materials, library-licensed content, and other 

affordable course materials for our students.12

Similarly, California State University’s Affordable Learning Solutions, a leader in innovative strategies for 

reducing course materials expenses, cites “Immediate Access” programs as a valuable asset to 

containing costs for students, noting: 

Digital textbooks in these programs may be discounted 60 percent or more from print rental and 

print purchase price or discounted up to 25-60 percent from the already low digital rental 

price.13

Affordable access and OER programs can and do thrive alongside one another, and have both 

contributed to the declines in student spending described above.

Opt-Out Affordable Access Programs are More Beneficial to Students than Opt-In Programs

Prior to the emergence of affordable access programs, course materials purchasing was effectively “optin,” putting the responsibility on students to find and purchase their own materials. The emergence of 

“opt-out” affordable access programs gave institutions the bulk purchasing power to drive down costs 

and ensure course materials access for many students who might not otherwise be able to afford or 

easily obtain required course materials.

Opt-out programs are the most effective way to provide students access to all of their required course 

materials on or before the first day of class. This approach gives students free access to all their course 

materials throughout the add/drop period (usually two weeks), although they may choose to opt out of 

the program at any time up to the end of that period. In contrast, “opt-in” programs require that the 

student proactively sign up for the program before they are provided with digital access or sent any 

physical books. In practice, this means that many students may not have the required books for much of 

the add/drop period. Worse still, some will not get access to those books at all. 

Opt-out and opt-in affordable access programs would likely have markedly different pricing and student 

participation profiles, with opt-in programs eliminating much of the cost reduction and outcomes 

progress associated with these programs as they stand today. With lower opt-in participation rates, 

prices will likely be higher for both participating and non-participating students and more students will

12 https://www.oer.iastate.edu/ 13 https://als.calstate.edu/lower_cost_course_materials
5

go without the required course materials that are essential to their learning – with particularly 

detrimental impact to the most disadvantaged students. 

Students would also feel increased costs given that reclassifying part of tuition and fee costs to exclude 

books and supplies will reduce students’ ability to claim the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit (only available 

through tuition and fees) and sales tax relief in the majority of states that tax course material 

transactions outside of these programs. Moreover, the mechanics of an opt-in program would challenge 

the predictability for program administrators that is central to keeping costs low for students and thirdparty payers such as school districts for concurrent enrollment programs. With greater uncertainty as to 

how many students and which course materials will be included, institutions will be required to secure 

significantly more physical inventory – further driving up prices for all students. 

In short, moving back to the opt-in-centric market would result in dramatically increased costs and 

reduced timely access to books and supplies, which will be felt acutely by the neediest students. Rather 

than continue the opt-out approach that treats all students equitably, the Department’s proposal will 

once again ensure there are two classes of students – those who can afford their textbooks at whatever 

the cost and those student financial aid recipients who cannot and will therefore be at an even greater

disadvantage.

Recommendations to the Department - Areas for Clarification and Alternate Language

As with any innovative new program, there has been some differentiation in how affordable access 

programs have been implemented across the country. We are strongly in favor of enhancing the existing 

regulations to address concerns about “bad actors.” We recommend any changes focus on the following 

areas of improvement: 

• Increasing timely access to materials: Ensure institutions provide students with the ability to 

obtain books and supplies in tuition and fees by the first day of class but no later than the 

seventh day of a payment period.

● Increasing cost transparency: Require institutions to disclose to students the cost of the fee or 

the prorated amount if books and supplies are included in tuition. 

● Expanding opt-out capabilities: Require institutions to provide students ample time to opt-out 

of affordable access programs. Students should have the opportunity to opt out through the 

institution deadline by which they must decide about enrollment in a course. Institutions should 

also be required to have a web-based opt-out capability that is featured prominently for ease of 

access and usability through the add/drop period.

We also recommend the following additions: 

● Reinforcing price disclosures: Remind institutions of their obligations under 20 U.S. Code § 

1015b even when course materials are included in tuition and fees. This is the requirement for 

institutions of higher education, college bookstores, and publishers to provide pricing and other 

critical information to help students purchase course materials.

● Preserving student choice: Preserve (m)(3) to ensure students continue to have the option of 

opting out of the method an institution provides for students to obtain or purchase books and 
6

supplies by the 7th day of the payment period. The Department’s reasoning for this provision in 

2010, which was affirmed in 2015, remains sound and the language should be retained. 

We believe that these themes include common-sense improvements to the current cash management 

regulations that will increase protections for and transparency to students, while continuing to provide 

them with critically important course materials that are high-quality, affordable, and essential to being 

able to learn effectively from the first day of school.