put further financial strain on college students who already struggling with increasing tuition bills and escalating expenses.  A June 2007 Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA) report, “Turn the Page,â€? stated that the average U.S. student spends $700-$1000 per year on textbooks — approximately 20 percent of tuition at an average university and half of tuition at a community college. Textbook prices have increased at four times the rate of inflation since 1994 and continue to rise, often due to specific ploys by publishers to protect profits.  Research demonstrates that the rising costs of textbooks is not inevitable and that policy solutions exist to make textbooks part of an affordable college education.

In recent years state legislators have introduced or passed legislation to rein in soaring textbook costs.  Examples of state legislative action include requiring that bookstores and publishers offer both bundled and unbundled course materials; that publishers provide summaries of changes in updated text editions; and that faculty consider cheaper options or submit their course material lists by a specific deadline so students have the opportunity to shop around for the best price.

To date at least 34 states have proposed or passed legislation to control textbook costs, including measures to prohibit inducements to professors for adopting a particular textbook.  At least five states have passed price-disclosure bills and about 10 states mandate and regulate how college textbooks are packaged by publishers, chosen by faculty or sold by bookstores.  A sampling of introduced and passed state legislation are:

• Connecticut HB 5527, sponsored by Roberta Willis, requires textbook publishers to disclose their prices and history or revisions to faculty who order books and requires state universities to make financial aid available by the first day of the term, to expedite the purchase of books.
• Virginia HB 1478, sponsored by Glenn Oder, requires the governing boards of public institutions of higher education to implement policies, procedures, and guidelines that encourage efforts to minimize the cost of textbooks for students at colleges and universities.  The guidelines must ensure (i) that faculty textbook adoptions are made with sufficient lead time to university- or contract-managed bookstores to allow for the maximum opportunity to purchase used textbooks; (ii) that, in the textbook adoption process, faculty affirmatively confirm their intent to use all items ordered, particularly each individual item sold as part of a bundled package, before the adoption is finalized.  If the faculty member does not intend to use each item in the bundled package, he must notify the bookstore, and the bookstore must order the individualized items when their procurement is cost effective for both institutions and students and when such items are made available by the publisher; (iii) that faculty members affirmatively acknowledge the bookstore's quoted retail price of textbooks selected for use in each course; (iv) that faculty be encouraged to limit their use of new edition textbooks when previous editions do not significantly differ in a substantive way as determined by the appropriate faculty member; and (v) that the establishment of policies must include provisions for the availability of required textbooks to students otherwise unable to afford the cost. 
• Washington HB 2300, sponsored by Rep. Bob Hasegawa and Sen. Derek Kilmer, requires publishing companies to disclose both the price of textbooks and change-of-edition information when presenting material to faculty.  
  
• Oregon SB 365, requires publishers to disclose prices and plans for new editions and also enables students to buy books separately from the bundled material (CD-ROMS and workbooks, for instance).
• Arizona SB 1175 introduced in 2008, would have required publishers to disclose a book's wholesale or suggested retail price and provide a summary of any substantial content revisions made over the book's previous version.  The bill also would have prevented faculty and staff from receiving compensation for selecting course materials.
• Colorado SB 73, requires that when a publisher provides a faculty member, instructor or other person selecting course materials at a state institution of higher education with information regarding a college textbook or supplemental learning material, the publisher should provide the following information at a minimum: the price of textbooks, history of substantive revisions, and whether the college textbook or supplemental learning material is available in another format and the price of the materials in the alternative format.  Additionally, a publisher that sells a college textbook and any supplemental learning material accompanying that textbook as a single bundle to state institutions must make the textbook and supplemental materials available as separate unbundled purchase items.
  

Seeing the benefit of state initiatives to curb textbook costs, Congress under the College Opportunity and Affordability now:

• Requires that publishers include pricing information with any other information they provide to faculty about a textbook.  Previously, faculty members, who chose required and recommended textbooks, were unaware of the associated costs.  In fact, a recent study released by The StudentPIRGs found that 77% of faculty reported that publishers rarely or never report the price of a book during sales interactions.  When price is removed from the textbook selection process, the more expensive items were often selected.  Textbook publishers were exacerbating this problem by withholding price information from faculty.   
  

• Requires that publishers offer all "bundled" textbooks for sale as unbundled items.  Often, publishers will combine supplemental items and textbooks into one package in order to force students into buying both the text and supplemental material, to justify increased prices, or to circumvent the used book market.  Supplemental items, however, often do not contribute to the educational value of a textbook.  In fact, PIRG research found that 65% of professors report they “rarelyâ€? or “neverâ€? use the supplemental items included in bundled textbooks. According to The Student PIRGs about half of all textbooks are bundled. 
  
• Requires institutions to the maximum extent possible, to provide the prices and ISBNs of required and recommended textbooks when students register for classes.  Textbooks are an unpredictable expense.  Students often find out their bill when they go to the campus bookstore the week before school starts and are not able to plan ahead for the cost.  Furthermore, students do not always have their book lists in time to shop for better deals online.

More Resources

Federal Lender Reforms Targeting Conflicts of Interests Followed State Investigations

Taking a page from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, lender reform provisions in the College Opportunity and Affordability Act create protections for students from the college loan industry.  Cuomo's investigation in New York state focused on alleged inappropriate relationships between lenders and schools.  He alleged that certain lenders were put on schools' "preferred lender" lists because they offered institutions a cut of their profits.

After the passage of the COAA, Cuomo stated "[t]his historic legislation allows the rest of the nation to follow New York State's lead in cracking down on the deceptive student loan industry."  According to Cuomo, the COAA addresses widespread conflicts of interest in the student loan industry by requiring colleges and universities to develop a code of conduct with respect to federally guaranteed loans that:

• Prohibits "revenue sharing," a practice where a lender provides a payment or other benefit to a school in exchange for the school's promise to recommend that lender to students;
• Prohibits financial aid officers from accepting any favors, meals, entertainment, or other gifts from a lender;
• Prohibits financial aid officers from assigning first-time borrowers to particular lenders and from refusing to certify loans based on a borrower's selection of a particular lender; and
• Prohibits the college and university from using a lender's employees to staff the financial aid office or a financial aid call center.
  

The Act also includes requirements related to private loans, such as:

• Prohibiting private lenders from offering gifts or other items of value to colleges or financial aid officers in exchange for advantages related to the lenders' loan activities;
• Prohibiting private lenders from charging prepayment or repayment penalties;
• Prohibiting misleading 'co-branded' marketing, where a lender or marketer uses a school's name, emblem, mascot, and/or logo to create the false impression that the school has endorsed the lender;
• Requiring private loan providers to inform borrowers of the availability of federal aid and the interest rates available in connection with federal loans; and
• Requiring private loan providers to provide uniform, detailed, and timely disclosures to borrowers regarding the interest rate and other terms of offered loans, enabling borrowers to better understand the cost of their loan and to comparison shop for the best deals.
  

More Resources

Other Key Provisions in College Opportunity and Affordability Act

Building on New Federal Student Aid and Tuition Transparency Provisions: The new federal legislation includes improvements in financial aid and tuition transparency.  States should consider how their programs can build on and reinforce these new provisions, including:

• Increased Grant Money:  The legislation increases the maximum federal Pell Grant (grants that do not have to be repaid and are awarded based on financial need and college cost) to $9,000 from a little less than $5,000.  Additionally, Pell Grants will now be available year-round, instead of only during the academic year.  This will help nontraditional students who take summer classes, or students who want to take summer classes to get their degree faster, reduce the overall cost associated with post-secondary education.
• Easier Financial Aid Application:  The bill will also make it easier for families to complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).  A more streamlined FASFA process will hopefully increase the number of low-income families, first-generation college students, or other demographics that often do not have the guidance, fill out the complicated forms apply for federal aid.  According to a study conducted by the American Council on Education, as many as 1.5 million college students who probably would have qualified for Pell Grants in 2003-4 did not apply for federal financial aid.  More outreach is needed to inform low- and moderate-income students about the availability of financial aid and the application process.  
• Loan Forgiveness:  Under the Direct Loan Program, those who choice to serve the public interest can have part of their loans forgiven.  This includes teachers, some faculty, school counselors, librarians, early childhood educators, speech-language pathologists and audiologists, nurses, mental health professionals and others.
• Increased Accountability:  Establishes a University and College Accountability Network (U-CAN), which is part of an effort to make college tuition costs more transparent.  The legislation requires campuses to report extensive information, such as institutional mission, student-faculty ratio, tuition fees, graduation rates, and safety plans.

More Resources

College Affordability and Financial Aid: What States are Already Doing

Providing Financial Aid

Regardless of the current economic slump, many policymakers believe it is essential to maintain (or even improve) access to higher education – a belief crouched largely in their understanding of the social and economic benefits of an educated citizenry.

Affordability is a function of both the tuition prices charged by institutions, as well as the financial aid that is made available to students and their families to help them pay for college.  The average tuition fees of public colleges have risen considerably in the last year.  Compared to the 2006-2007 school year, students are paying 6.6 percent more at four-year in-state schools and 5.5 percent more at four-year out-of-state schools. In dollar amounts, those increases meant that the average cost of tuition and fees for in-state students was $6,185, or $381 more than last year. For out-of-state students, it was $16,640, or $862 more than the 2006-7.  Two-year schools, which are normally the cheapest option, have also seen an increase of 4.2 percent in a year-over-year comparison.

There are three major types of monetary awards that states generally award: need-based grants, non-need and merit based grants, and loans.  Financial aid grants do not need to be paid back, while loans must be repaid upon graduation. 

According to a report published by the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, states awarded approximately $9.3 billion in student financial aid for the 2006-2007 academic year.  The majority of state aid came in the form of grants, with more than $3.7 million grant awards made, representing about $7.6 billion in need and non-based grant aid.  Nine states, California ($763 million), Illinois ($446.7 million), Indiana ($331.8 million), Florida ($486 million), New York ($864.9 million), New Jersey ($280.6 million), Pennsylvania ($468.5), Texas ($410.9 million) and Georgia ($493 million), granted about 60% of all grants.

South Carolina, Washington DC, Indiana, Georgia, and New York provided the greatest amount of grant aid on a per capita basis.

Dual Enrollment Programs

Financial aid although necessary in order to ensure college is affordable for all, is only one of an array of policies that states can adopt to ensure that earning a post-secondary degree is affordable.  As seen with textbook reform legislation, states can provide students with more than just direct aid by implementing policies which reduce the amount of money students must spend to earn a post-secondary degree.  One such policy, which has gained momentum in the states over the last few years, is the implementation of comprehensive and well-funded dual enrollment programs.

Dual enrollment programs allow high school students to simultaneously earn credit towards a high school diploma and a post-secondary degree or certificate.  Depending on state policies, these programs are also called "dual credit" or "concurrent enrollment."  According to the U.S. Department of Education, college credits earned prior to high school graduation reduce the average time-to-degree and increase the likelihood of graduation for the students who participate in these programs.

Almost every state has enacted some form of dual enrollment policies, according to the Education Commission of the States.  While dual enrollment programs potentially have enormous benefits, it is important that state leaders consider how to best design their programs, so that it benefits as many students as possible and does not have the unintended affect of creating a divide between different demographics.  Some important issues to consider when creating or updating a dual enrollment program are:

• P-16 Collaboration:  Dual enrollment can be a mechanism for aligning high school and post-secondary education, not merely a strategy for moving advanced students out of high school.  The alignment of high school exit standards with college admission standards helps prepare all high school students for college-level learning.
• Funding:  It is important to make sure that there is equitable financing to ensure that economically disadvantaged students can garner the same benefits as other students from dual enrollment programs. 
  
• Programs Must be Made Widely Available:  Dual enrollment can have a positive impact on the access to and attainment of a post-secondary credential for underrepresented students if the programs are made more widely available and publicized to all demographics.
  
• Transferring Credits:  There must be an easy transfer of course credits from high school to college and from community college to four-year institutions. 
  

  Some states have recently expanded their dual enrollment programs. 

• In Indiana, HB 1246 establishes the concurrent enrollment partnership to coordinate dual credit programs among Indiana high schools and state educational institutions.
• In Louisiana, SB 482 opened the door for non-public and home school high school students to take part in dual enrollment offerings.

• In North Carolina, Learn and Earn Online, gives high school students access to online college credit courses.  Qualified students in participating public high schools can take a variety of online college-credit courses at no cost to them or to their families.  Students earn both high school and college credit for completed courses.  Access to these courses is provided during the regular school day and an online course facilitator will assist students in the classroom.
• In Nebraska, the legislature approved an increase of $65,500 to the Access College Early program for the 2008-09 year.  The program pays the tuition costs for low-income high school students taking college classes.  Last year, the original appropriation of nearly $50,000 lasted only a few months. 

More Resources

Conclusion

A college education provides individuals with the ability to earn a higher income, have more job flexibility and to broaden their skill sets.  Yet, as the cost of higher education across the country is rapidly increasing, too many students are unable to attend institutions of higher education due to financial constraints.  Increasingly, even students who do attend and graduate from a higher education institution are affected by soaring tuition and related fees, leaving school with increasing amounts of debt, which impacts career, family and lifestyle choices for years to come.  The newly enacted College Opportunity and Affordability Act, along with state policies to ease the costs of post-secondary education and to promote affordability are important to ensure that higher education is a possibility for all. 

Please shoot us an email at dispatch@progressivestates.org if you have feedback, tips, suggestions, criticisms, or nominations for any of our sidebar features.