Two (More) Battles Brewing

Early last year, the University of California Academic Senate changed the system’s policies to essentially ban students from earning a fully online bachelor’s degree from any of its 10 campuses. The decision drew both internal and external criticism that the university was ignoring the potential benefits of virtual learning—and troubled some UC administrators and regents who believe the governing board must have a say in changing the institution’s degree offerings.

Late in 2023, faculty leaders and administrators at the university hatched a compromise: a 20-member presidential task force to look into the efficacy of online degree programs and evaluate instructional modalities. University leaders characterized the committee as a way to “provide for high-quality in-person, hybrid and online offerings for students, including innovations that promote engagement and learning no matter where students are located.”

While at its core the tension at UC is over the quality of online education, it is also noteworthy for what it says about the balance of power and authority in shared governance at an institution that takes that value more seriously than most. In questioning the action of the Academic Senate to bar online degrees, regents clearly believe that decisions on which academic programs the university offers, and how they are delivered, falls under the regents’ authority.

In preparation for the U.S. Dept. of Education’s negotiated rulemaking beginning Monday, Jan. 8th, to review the current education code on Cash Management, which allows for institutions to charge student accounts for course materials as part of tuition and fees (also known as Inclusive Access, Equitable Access, First Day, Complete, AutoAccess, etc.), the Dept. release proposed language which essentially eliminates the ability for institutions to continue to run these programs as is. Instead, the proposed language would only allow for a similar program when institutions demonstrate a health or safety reason for including books and supplies in tuition and fees or if the institution is the only option for students to access the supplies or course materials.

SPARC has been monitoring this new development and happy to share more background. The Department of Education has started a negotiated rulemaking process to review several areas of higher ed regulations, including a section called "Cash Management." This section includes the provision adopted in 2016 permitting institutions to include the cost of books and supplies in tuition and fees without student authorization, which opened the door to the proliferation of the inclusive access textbook billing model. 

As one of its updates to the Cash Management regulation, the Department has proposed eliminating the books and supplies provision due to concerns over transparency and student choice—concerns which have long been echoed by student and consumer advocates. SPARC is supportive of the Department’s proposal and included it as our primary recommendation in the 2023 public comment period. While the proposal would not actually eliminate inclusive access programs, it would impact how many are currently implemented. For example, programs may shift to being opt-in (rather than opt-out) so that course materials aren’t automatically billed without student authorization.  

Here is the Department’s description of the proposed change:

“Eliminate the provision allowing institutions to include the cost of books and supplies as part of tuition and fees (§ 668.164(c) and (m)). Current regulations permit schools to automatically charge students for books and supplies as part of tuition and fees, without student authorization, even when the materials can be obtained from a source other than the institution. The regulations permit these charges if the school has a contract with a third-party publisher or retailer, offers the books “below competitive market rates,” and gives students a way to opt out, so long as the student can obtain the books and supplies by the seventh day of the payment period. The Department is concerned that lack of disclosure and transparency limits students' ability to find less expensive materials or assess if their school is offering the most affordable arrangement. Under the proposal, we would maintain the allowance for including books and supplies in tuition and fees when institutions demonstrate there is a compelling health or safety reason, or if the institution is the only option for students to access the books or supplies.”

Monday’s hearing is only the beginning of a long process that will play out over many months. SPARC will be in attendance at the hearing and will keep the community informed of opportunities to weigh in. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or hear additional discussion about this on your campuses.