Rethinking Textbook Costs: A Call for Change in Education

In my college experience, each semester began in a familiar way: receiving a list of required textbooks from my syllabi. I would then spend a considerable amount of money searching for used copies, often only to find that I barely opened them. This was sometimes due to my own lack of motivation, but more often, it was because professors opted to rely on their slides instead of the textbooks they had assigned.

While my experience may not represent every student, I believe this kind of waste is fairly widespread and largely avoidable. The more significant and perplexing issue is illustrated in the accompanying graph: despite the availability of online educational resources and rising tuition fees, textbook prices have surged by around 200% over the past two decades. Students burdened with debt face additional costs from textbooks that they are supposedly required to purchase.

I don’t intend for this to sound conspiratorial; the publishing industry is complex and extensive. Although sales have declined and the market landscape has shifted due to used book websites and e-books, the leading publicly traded publishers (with the exception of Scholastic) have experienced disappointing stock performance in recent years. Additionally, the reasons behind rising tuition are difficult to pinpoint. In some respects, it’s unfair to blame publishing companies for the price increases or to fault colleges for not developing more affordable alternatives to traditional textbooks. However, with so much high-quality educational content available for free online, it’s our responsibility as consumers to seek alternatives and demand better from higher education institutions.

While I can't provide a definitive reason for the dramatic rise in college textbook prices—though I suspect it stems from a mix of declining profits from e-books and secondhand sales, as well as a degree of market monopolization by a few underperforming publishers—I would like to focus on potential solutions.

Moving Forward

It is crucial that we find ways to lower college costs, especially as tuition continues to climb and the value of a college degree as an investment diminishes. Even though textbooks represent only about 10% of educational expenses, their steep price hikes and potential for replacement make them a strategic starting point for reducing overall college expenditures.

Pushing for Open Source

I realize this may be a controversial suggestion, especially coming from an educator, but I consider Wikipedia to be a generally reliable source. There is often much debate about its credibility. Despite being a go-to resource for millions, it is often dismissed as untrustworthy in formal educational settings. While there are valid concerns regarding misinformation, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia allows for rigorous discourse over the accuracy of its content. As danah boyd points out in her insightful book It’s Complicated, Wikipedia could be seen as a credible "site for knowledge production," potentially offering more accurate information than traditional sources.

Initially, this may seem hard to believe. The idea that uncredentialed individuals can create a knowledge base that rivals established educational institutions is radical, yet it makes sense when we consider the pressures under which publishers operate. Publishers are frequently commissioned to produce textbooks that align with state educational standards. In essence, they are incentivized to present whatever narrative their funding sources dictate.

Consider the case of Texas history and science textbooks: the Texas Board of Education defines the standards and narratives to be included. Even when these narratives are problematic or factually inaccurate, publishers comply and produce texts that distort history.

Ultimately, publishers tend to yield to governmental demands, which raises questions about their institutional credibility.

Conversely, Wikipedia relies on a democratic editing process, where changes are contested and validated through a reputation system based on user expertise. While it isn't flawless, this system may be less prone to error than conventional educational resources. We should be cautious about blindly accepting the argument that "it can't be trusted!"

I am not suggesting that colleges abandon textbooks in favor of Wikipedia; that would be impractical. However, many areas could benefit from the Wikipedia model. How many of us have turned to Wikipedia for reliable information after struggling with a textbook? Personally, I frequently did so during challenging courses. My point is that the open-source model exemplified by Wikipedia could be adapted for various academic fields.

Take, for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This open-source resource is highly regarded in the field and shares attributes with Wikipedia. Its innovation lies in the involvement of professional philosophers who write entries that can be edited by peers. Publishing an entry is recognized as a legitimate academic contribution, often listed alongside journal publications on CVs. I have encountered SEP entries as required readings in numerous philosophy classes.

This model presents a viable open-source alternative that could be applied across different disciplines, potentially reducing reliance on traditional textbooks. It sustains itself by ensuring that contributions are valued academically, thereby attracting qualified authors whose work can be collaboratively refined by a community of scholars.

Private and Government Incentives for Textbooks

This idea parallels the concept of offering government incentives for medical research. Given the high costs of drug development, pharmaceutical companies often rely on intellectual property rights to recoup their investments. If the government provided funding for drug development and awarded prizes for successful innovations, it could maintain ownership of the intellectual property and offer medications at cost.

We could apply a similar approach to textbooks. If federal accreditation bodies mandate specific content for certain courses, they could establish open incentives for textbook development. Unlike the current contractual system, the government would hold the copyrights, enabling them to distribute textbooks online at significantly lower prices than traditional publishers. This shift would necessitate a greater transition to digital textbooks, but it could open up new opportunities for smaller publishers and independent authors to compete for these incentives. For instance, if a new introductory economics textbook were needed, individual economists could vie for the grant rather than relying solely on established publishers.

A textbook prize system could also address many costs associated with distribution and sales, which are significant expenses for publishers. If the government provided textbooks for courses it already regulates through accreditation, it could effectively manage distribution costs.

Some institutions are already exploring this approach. My alma mater, Ohio State, utilized a government grant to develop its Calculus 1–3 curriculum, resulting in a free textbook for a common general education course.

Encouraging Local Curriculum Adjustments by Educators

The primary driver for change in textbook usage lies with educators themselves. Professors need to become more aware of the financial burden their choices impose on students. This requires a fundamental empathy for student financial challenges, which can be surprisingly absent.

For instance, I took a Psychology course that required a textbook priced around $65 for a used copy. The teaching assistants encouraged us to purchase it, but it wasn’t until three weeks into the semester that the professor revealed it was "not really required but nice to have." This oversight resulted in a collective cost of $10,000 for the class, bordering on negligence, particularly when many students face issues like debt and food insecurity.

Beyond general empathy and common sense, here are several actions professors can take to alleviate costs:

Accept used textbooks. If a new edition includes additional questions or content, provide those through photocopies or omit them.
Avoid over-recommending books. If it might not be covered, don’t require it. If only a passage is needed, photocopy that passage instead. If tests and lectures are solely based on slides, there’s no need for a textbook. In reviewing my library, I found 17 textbooks costing about $500 that I was required to buy but never used. This is common, and reselling these books is often difficult.
Whenever possible, utilize free resources.
Consider seriously using open-source content, such as Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Favor less expensive versions of essential textbooks.
Eliminate assignments requiring hard copies of textbooks. While e-books can reduce costs, it’s essential for professors to make allowances for students to use digital formats. For example, I had classes where I had to submit annotations of a physical book, which compelled me to purchase it instead of accessing a free PDF.

Promoting Smaller Publishing Houses

I generally approach claims of corporate conspiracies with skepticism. It’s easy to construct compelling narratives without solid evidence, and many such claims are unfounded. However, I have encountered questionable practices in the educational publishing industry. A mentor from a previous internship, who worked as a salesperson for a major publisher after teaching, often recounted how she was pressured to promote new textbooks to financially constrained school districts, preventing them from purchasing used textbooks that were in good condition and compliant with state standards. Despite the need for cost savings, these districts were frequently exploited by the profit-driven motives of major publishing companies.

I worry that large publicly traded publishers, driven by growth, may engage in more questionable practices than smaller private publishers. While I lack concrete evidence to support this, it is a concern worth considering. Even without proof of outright malfeasance, there are valid apprehensions about the practices of the major five publishers. I’m not arguing they are monopolies, but that’s beside the point. Poor business practices should be avoided, and we should strive to minimize our dependence on major publishers.

Schools and Educational Systems Developing Curriculum Without Textbooks

The charter network where I work has developed its own curriculum across all classes, eliminating the need for textbooks. We create our own materials and refine them for consistency across the system. This approach is not uncommon. Networks like Achievement First have pioneered similar practices, and many of their lesson plans are publicly accessible.

As educators, we should be accountable for developing the content expertise necessary to create curricula without relying on textbooks. This task has become increasingly manageable, given the vast array of educational resources available online. On a productive day, I can create homework, worksheets, and lesson plans in as little as 20 minutes. I’m not an exceptional educator; the abundance of online resources makes it feasible. This expectation could be normalized across the education sector. While it may lead to more hours for teachers, it could significantly reduce the billions currently spent on K-12 and college textbooks.

I don’t claim this to be a comprehensive analysis of the issue. However, it’s vital to raise awareness about the absurdity of textbook pricing. Given the complexity of the market, these challenges won’t be resolved through large-scale state reforms alone. Much of the responsibility lies with local changes driven by consumers and educators who are more cognizant of pricing and potential exploitation in these markets.