Considerations

Pricing associated with Inclusive and Equitable Access programs is seldom transparent. Discounts may depend on the negotiating ability of the campus entities involved in the process. Federal regulations require institutions to offer the cost of books and supplies in tuition “below competitive market rates," which means the price charged to students is generally below the price available to the public. Institutions are expected to demonstrate that they have researched available prices of books and supplies before including the cost in tuition and fees. Pricing models of books should be reviewed carefully since access models, formats, binding, and condition can influence pricing.  

Using the online system may be the only way for students to submit their homework or take tests. In those cases, opting out of Inclusive and Equitable Access is not truly an option for students. They cannot pass the class without the full package. 

Vendors and publishers often use their own separate platforms for content. Each platform may require a unique log-in. Dealing with a variety of platform interfaces, linking capabilities, setup steps, opt-out procedures, and other issues can cause confusion for students, instructors, and campus program administrators. 

While some course content available through Inclusive and Equitable Access platforms can be downloaded for offline use (often in proprietary software), some content cannot be accessed without an internet connection. 

Access terms may vary by title. If access beyond the course term is negotiated, students will likely have to find the content on the publishers’ and vendors’ proprietary platforms rather than in the LMS and login credentials may be required.

Curricula, syllabi, and the ways that faculty teach may be restricted by these programs, and agreements can limit the number of choices available to support curricular content. Since Inclusive and Equitable Access programs are frequently negotiated by higher-level administrators, instructors may not be included in decisions that influence their pedagogy.  Restrictive and narrow contract language can bind instructors and students. 

Students must agree to the privacy terms, which allow for the collection of personally identifiable information as well as technical and behavioral data.  These data are shared and analyzed in ways that are out of the control of the user or institution (for example, view details of Cengage’s practices surrounding the use of personal information here and McGraw Hill's practices here) . Behavioral analytics may in some cases be shared with the instructors; this sharing happens without the permission of the affected students. Publishers say the analytics enable instructors to monitor class progress and follow up with students who are not doing the readings or engaging with the materials. In reality, instructors may not have easy access to the analytics or use them. Institutions are often in the dark about the details of information being collected, the reason it’s being collected, with whom it’s shared, and who owns and retains it. The privacy of our stakeholders is dependent on the sensible collection, protection, and security of any data collected through Inclusive and Equitable Access programs.

Opt-out rates tend to be low so publishers sell more books. With the use of digital course materials, publishers earn revenue on every sale. Rental and used print textbooks may be more affordable options for students, but inclusive access reduces the availability of those in the marketplace. Publishers and vendors also gain valuable market research and usage statistics from the student data collected by their analytics systems. Administrators should know how student data is being collected, used, and possibly sold (for example, view details of Cengage’s practices surrounding the use of personal information here). 

OER and library-licensed materials offer greater advantages and cost savings, but if those are unavailable and Inclusive and Equitable Access content is offered at a significantly reduced price, that is preferable to paying full price for a new hardcover textbook (or trying to pass the class without the course materials). Also, digital packages can represent a savings of time and energy for faculty, many of whom carry heavy teaching loads and rely on these programs and their inclusion in course management systems to provide reliable administrative solutions to classroom management. Equitable Access programs that charge a flat rate fee for course materials across all disciplines may reduce the barriers to pursuing degrees in high-cost disciplines (e.g. STEM fields), although flat fees may result in higher costs for other disciplines. It is important to note that fees may be reassessed each year (e.g. UC Davis Equitable Access).

When these programs are required for successful completion of a course, students must decide between withdrawing from the course, failing or doing poorly, or paying for access to the content. This removes students’ agency to find course materials through other means.  Students pursuing higher education come from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds and automatically billing students for course materials disempowers them from making choices about what they can afford. These programs may provide equal access to course content for students, but they are not equitable.

The Virginia Course Materials Survey (2021) highlighted the challenges students experience with these programs. Although not explicitly asked, students repeatedly shared their experiences. The following responses illustrate: 

"Access codes especially are a stressor because it is almost impossible to find a more affordable alternative" (Student respondent, 2021, Virginia Course Materials Survey). 

"The cost for access codes is ridiculous! And it’s not possible to look around for cheaper since it can only be purchased at the bookstore. I’ve had to miss an assignment waiting for a pay day to purchase an access code" (Student respondent, 2021, Virginia Course Materials Survey). 

Osterman, A. C., Rondeau, S., O'Gara, G., Kirschner, J., & Thompson, L. (2022). Virginia course materials survey: Results and findings. https://vivalib.org/ld.php?content_id=68792540