Needed: A Single Electronic Source for Textbooks

By JOSEPH STORCH

Students still obtain most educational content through textbooks and other printed materials, in the same way they have for centuries. But as technology has changed, they've been able to gain access to more of that content digitally — and often illegally. In fact, without some action, we in higher education will soon reach a tipping point, as the recording industry has, from which it will be difficult to recover.

We have a brief opportunity, right now, to create a new model for educational-content distribution: a single source for all the textbooks and other sources of information that any student could possibly want, whether it's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or the Harvard Law Review; The Federalist Papers or the Financial Times. By doing so, we could lower students' costs, protect copyright, strengthen the publishing industry, reduce inefficiencies in distributing content, and help conserve the environment.

As textbook costs have increased, students have begun scanning and illegally sharing books over peer-to-peer file-sharing networks to save money. But when students do not purchase their textbooks, everyone loses out: Publishers and authors lose revenue, professors have a harder time teaching unprepared students, and colleges struggle to keep the bookstore profitable.

There are a few reasons for the current situation. First, many students view textbooks as they do other media, such as music or movies: They're less interested in amassing great libraries of books (or CD's or DVD's, for that matter) than in accessing the contents thereof in a convenient and portable manner that they can revisit later.

Another problem with the standard textbook-purchase system is that, for financial reasons, few students buy optional books, some students don't buy all mandatory books, and some don't buy any textbooks at all. Single textbooks can cost hundreds of dollars, especially when bundled with CD or DVD programs that often go unused. Additionally, paper books are often inefficient: Students required to purchase a 13-chapter textbook may study from only a few chapters and never read the remaining ones.

College and graduate students as a group are often financially strapped. Costs have risen sharply, and more students work in part-time or full-time jobs while attending college. Many students are forced to decide whether to spend money on textbooks or on rent, utilities, clothing, child care, or food. Perhaps not surprisingly, they often don't choose textbooks.

It's time to shift the text-selling system from one between publishers and students to one between publishers and colleges. A consortium-style agreement between the latter two groups would make it advantageous for all publishers and higher-education institutions to participate. The consortium could charge participating colleges a single price for unlimited access, based on their number of full-time enrollments, or FTE's. Each college could then pass that charge on to students as part of tuition or through a dedicated fee, or even seek private donors to help defray the cost.

Institutions acting as single payers on behalf of their students would create cost efficiencies, allowing each student to pay a lower net cost for the single digital source than for purchasing textbooks individually. With the cost included in tuition or charged as a dedicated fee, students could then use financial aid to pay for access.

Such a program, along with an aggressive push to help all students use the content via digital readers or laptops, would help ensure equal access to educational information. A single price per student would guarantee that students at the smallest colleges could enjoy the same intellectual feast as students at the largest and wealthiest universities. Those studying at community colleges and research universities, public and private, large and small, would have access to the same content, allowing them to browse, learn, and choose research areas based solely upon interest — not upon the limitations of their library, school subscriptions, or personal bank account. Additionally, authors and publishers of more-obscure works could see a jump in their readership because of the new, broader audience.

Students would reach the content though a secure Internet portal, using a single password, via computers, digital readers, or cellphones. Digital-rights-management software could ensure that only enrolled (and, thus, paying) students see the content. For a fee, alumni could purchase subscriptions as well.

The system should work with course-management software. Every student's account would have a folder for each course, loaded with the mandatory and optional readings. Students could arrange their content in a calendar mode so that readings pop up or arrive by e-mail on the day they should be read. Students would make electronic markings on the document, save those notes, and e-mail them to professors and classmates. Professors could attach digital questions or even entire tests to the content itself, allowing them to know, in real time, that their students are reading and understanding the assignments.

As publishers become more comfortable with the system, they could create content digitally, not simply offer digital versions of their printed material. A PDF version of a textbook differs significantly from digitally created content that includes active links, video, charts, graphs, and interactive opportunities for users. Imagine if students could simply hit an "update" button on a text, and a publisher's most current version would appear. That would lead to more cutting-edge information for students and fewer outdated textbooks in the landfill.

The key to making a single-price system rewarding for publishers would be a pricing structure based on both market share and royalty payments. Each publishing company, journal, or other content provider would receive a percentage of an institution's enrollment fee based on their market share, and when students select material, the provider would receive a royalty in the form of a "micropayment." The amount of the micropayments would differ based on the format of the content — whether it is a textbook, trade book, journal article, magazine article, and so on — and its production costs. While a flat FTE rate would provide a floor to preserve the publishing industry, such micropayments would act as a market incentive for publishers and other information producers to find best sellers that could accumulate significant revenue.

To alleviate any risk that small publishers might get shut out by a giant consortium, a committee made up of representatives from the publishing industry, faculty members, and students and supported by consortium money could be charged with finding innovative and useful content to add to the system. New providers could be allotted a base fee, as well as micropayments, for a predetermined probationary period. If students like and use the content, that provider would remain in the consortium.

To help ensure availability to all potential users, the consortium could offer grants for the research and development of improved handheld readers and for financially disadvantaged students.

For students who for medical, religious, or other reasons require paper copies, content could be printed for a small fee. In fact, in the early years of the system, campuses could choose to print content gratis for those students without digital access. Even with students printing some or all content, the system could save considerable paper, require less landfill space for discarded textbooks, and save the energy currently used to transport and store them.

Since all enrolled students would have unlimited access, there would be little incentive to share the materials illegally. Authors and publishers would receive payment for all access to their products — albeit at a different rate than they are accustomed to. There would be no secondary market for used books, in which publishers receive nothing, and no more incentive to meaninglessly update textbooks simply to sell new editions.

As with any fundamental market shift, content providers and students would surely feel uneasy at first. But by getting ahead of the illegal-download curve and transforming content-delivery methods, we could create a system that allows institutions to provide texts for students, students to keep costs low, and publishers to preserve their business. The intent is not to remove books from our culture: Library shelves should still be stocked with books, and bookstores could go on selling. The intent is to provide an alternative for students.

Now that we are firmly in the digital age, it is time to shift the paradigm for students from a system of information for sale to one where unlimited access is a basic right.

Joseph Storch is assistant counsel in the State University of New York's Office of University Counsel. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of the State University of New York.

http://chronicle.com
Section: Commentary
Volume 55, Issue 22, Page A32