Do textbooks have a place in the library?

Do textbooks have a place in the library? What is that place? Should libraries play a role in providing textbooks, or is that beyond our scope? For the entire span of my career, my colleagues and I have debated these questions, discussing the inclusion of textbooks in academic libraries’ collections as a matter of philosophy, policy, and practicality.

Reasons provided for including or excluding textbooks in the library's collection vary. Arguments against cite the prohibitive cost to acquire even a single copy of required textbooks for a given student population. At my own institution, a back-of-the-envelope calculation estimates a cost approaching $1.9 million University-wide per semester for undergraduates alone. This certainly does not present a sustainable economic model. However, many of our libraries do provide at least some textbooks via Course Reserves. “You might not have to buy this one” is the tag line we use in publicity to catch students' attention, alerting them to the Course Reserves service. Rapid obsolescence and replacement due to the frequency of new editions that would tax the funding model are also cited as reasons against libraries supplying textbooks. Finally, in an era when allocation of space is so closely scrutinized, locating shelving for a collection of that size would prove challenging.

Another argument against including textbooks in libraries is the potential for loss or shrinkage when course textbooks are made available in a library's collection. A spate of thefts prompted us to remove business-related textbooks from open stacks reserves and place them on closed reserves where access was controlled by the checkout process, driving reserve circulation up by at least 30% in a single year. Clearly, competition for these resources is keen. Frequently, we hear from students studying in the library who stepped away briefly, leaving their own textbooks unattended, only to find they have disappeared when they return.

Replacing a lost textbook is no trivial matter. The College Board estimates students spend about $1,300 annually on their textbooks (College Board, n.d.a). In fact, in my experience, the cost of a single text varies but can often reach $300 or even more. The Student Government Resources Center cites a recent Student Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) poll indicating as many as 65% of students forgo purchasing a textbook because they just cannot afford it (Senack, 2014). It stands to reason that this would have a huge impact on their success—and subsequently, student retention rates. If academic libraries are capable of playing a role in students' success, shouldn't they? Anecdotally, we found at my own library that a textbook on reserve is often used by only a few students who appear to alternate use, checking it out for 2-hour intervals, which suggests that most classmates have purchased the textbook, but the one on course reserves was available to someone who perhaps could not afford to purchase their own copy. This measure of student support highlights the role of the library in student retention.

A somewhat condescending argument, in my opinion, suggests that students should be expected to bear the expense of their own education, including textbooks. However, with the high and rising cost of education in every category of higher education, doesn't the institution have a responsibility to do something to offset that (College Board, n.d.b)?

In response to these costs, state and national legislation, responding to consumer complaints, have imposed regulations to make course-related costs transparent. Pennsylvania's College Textbook Affordability, Accountability and Accessibility Act now requires faculty to make specific title and edition information available at the time a course posting is offered so students are able to calculate the full cost of the course and research alternative sources for their books (General Assembly of Pennsylvania, 2010). This law follows The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. Other states have enacted similar legislation, which proves popular with legislators and their constituents, such as Florida's 2016 College Education Access and Affordability Bill (Rick Scott, 45th Governor of Florida, 2016).

Three years ago, our University President focused attention on six overarching themes, among them affordability: “It's impossible to ignore the national discussion on the accessibility of a higher education. Student debt and the cost of education are increasing …,” he said (Penn State, 2014). Since then, the University has determined to take steps to make education more affordable. Our capital fundraising campaign emphasizes scholarships to offset students' costs. For the past two years, the annual Day of Philanthropy has highlighted the Libraries Textbook Fund, which has now raised funds sufficient to provide an income from the endowment (Penn State. University Libraries, 2016).

Attention has turned toward Open Educational Resources (OER) as a means to more affordable course content. In our push toward OER, the Provost asked the Libraries' Dean to chair the University's Open Educational Resources Task Force, which was charged in part with examining approaches for affordable course content. Simultaneously, Dean Dewey charged a Libraries Task Force, which I cochaired, to take “… a multi-pronged approach to advancing OER … including building on our course reserve, Learning Management System (LMS) integration work, textbook program, publishing program, ScholarSphere (the digital repository) and other initiatives.” Our final report listed nine recommendations, leveraging the Libraries' resources, that will help make education more affordable and advance the adoption of OER by the University, including carving out a role for an OER librarian, which was carried forward to the University's OER Task Force report and implemented in 2017 (Penn State, 2016).

The question is, “Who will support textbooks—e-, open, or otherwise?” Will we turn to campus information technology (IT), the bookstore, the course management group, or will it be the library? I will make the case for the library: We are perfectly poised to embrace this work, as this issue of Journal of Access Services will illustrate. Libraries have long since turned to digital resources to satisfy readers' needs, driven by economic factors and scalability. With this transition came a technological infrastructure and expertise to deliver digital content such as journals, databases, and e-reserves as well as end-user support. We are skilled in administering publication via course management software and institutional repositories.

Libraries definitely have a place in the provision of course materials, including textbooks. We are a part of the conversation and play a role in delivery. Libraries are already well on the way to making textbooks more affordable. There is no single successful method, no single effective tactic; each library has taken a different approach. This issue of Journal of Access Services is rich with examples; included are a case study on providing textbook access to international students, a description of a textbook lending program focused on low-income students in which the library and a campus social services agency collaborate, and an article about the creation and assessment of a textbook program based on course enrollments. Libraries are leaders in affordable course content, and textbooks in libraries, no matter the format, is one way to get there.