Affordable College Textbook Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 5, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to lower college textbook costs for students by promoting the creation and adoption of open educational resources and increasing price transparency in the textbook market.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a competitive grant program to expand the use of open textbooks in higher education, aiming to reduce costs for students. It also amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to enhance transparency requirements for college textbook pricing, including disclosures about open educational resources and student data privacy for digital materials.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the high cost of college textbooks is a significant barrier to higher education, and this bill directly addresses that by fostering the creation of free, accessible open textbooks and empowering students with better price information. They contend it will save students billions annually and make efficient use of taxpayer funds.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the potential administrative burden on institutions to implement the new grant program and transparency requirements. Some traditional publishers may also express concerns about the competitive impact of freely available open educational resources on their business models, or the complexity of new data privacy disclosures.
The bill is concise and clearly written, allowing for a thorough understanding within a short timeframe.
Section 3
Establishes Open Textbook Grant Program
This section creates a new competitive grant program, administered by the Secretary of Education, for institutions of higher education or consortia. Grants will support projects that expand the use of open textbooks, including professional development for faculty, creation or adaptation of open textbooks and supplemental materials, and research on their efficacy. Grant recipients must ensure that any new copyrightable materials are released under a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable open license, and are made freely available online in accessible, machine-readable formats.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this program directly addresses the financial burden of textbooks, fosters innovation in educational materials, and leverages public funds for broad public benefit by making resources freely available. They believe it will lead to significant student savings and improved access to learning materials.
Critics contend
Critics might raise concerns about the quality control of newly created open textbooks compared to commercially vetted materials, or the administrative overhead for institutions to manage the grant and resource creation. Some may also question the long-term sustainability of maintaining these resources without continuous funding.
Tradeoffs
The bill navigates the tradeoff between achieving cost savings for students and ensuring the quality and academic rigor of educational materials. It also balances federal investment with institutional autonomy in curriculum decisions.
Section 4
Amends Higher Education Act to Enhance Textbook Price Transparency
This section amends Section 133 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand and clarify textbook price information requirements. It updates the definition of 'open educational resource' and mandates that publishers disclose whether materials are OERs and provide summaries of student data collection and use for digital textbooks. Institutions are then required to disclose this information, including OER status and links to data privacy summaries, on their internet course schedules. It also strengthens requirements for institutions to assist college bookstores in sourcing lower-cost options and maximizing format availability.
Section 6
Mandates GAO Report on Textbook Costs and OER Implementation
This section requires the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) to prepare and submit a report to Congress within three years of the bill's enactment. The report will examine the cost of textbooks to students, the implementation and effectiveness of the amended textbook price information requirements (from Section 4), the extent of open textbook use at institutions, and how institutions are tracking the impact of OERs on instruction and student learning outcomes.
This provision amends the definition of 'open educational resource' in section 133(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The new definition specifies that an OER is a teaching, learning, or research resource 'offered freely to users in at least one form' and that 'resides in the public domain or has been released under an open copyright license that allows for its free use, reuse, modification, and sharing with attribution.'
Section 4(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for updating and clarifying existing legal terms, rather than an attempt to obscure the provision.
Case for: Supporters argue this updated definition provides crucial clarity and consistency for what constitutes an OER, ensuring that resources funded or promoted under the Act truly meet the criteria for open access and reuse, which is fundamental to the bill's goals of reducing student costs.
Case against: No significant opposition is typically raised against clarifying definitions, though some might argue about the specific wording if it were perceived to exclude certain types of 'open' materials or impose overly restrictive licensing requirements.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of resources eligible for the grant program and subject to disclosure requirements, potentially influencing the development and adoption of OERs by providing a clear standard.
These provisions require publishers to provide a summary of terms and conditions regarding how student data is collected and used through digital college textbooks or supplemental materials, including whether students can opt out. Institutions are then mandated to provide a link to this summary on their internet course schedules for any digital materials.
Section 4(2)(C) and Section 4(3)(B)(E)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for adding specific requirements within an existing framework, rather than an attempt to hide the provision. It integrates a new policy concern (data privacy) into an existing regulatory structure.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a critical consumer protection measure in an increasingly digital learning environment, giving students essential information about their data privacy when using required course materials. It promotes transparency and empowers students to make informed choices about their personal data.
Case against: Publishers might argue that creating and maintaining these summaries for all digital products adds an administrative burden and could be complex given varying data practices and privacy regulations. Institutions might also face challenges in ensuring these links are consistently provided and updated.
Estimated impact: Increases transparency and student awareness regarding digital privacy practices associated with educational materials, potentially influencing publisher data practices and student choices. It addresses a growing concern in digital education.