Mr. Sharphorn began his remarks by noting that he was at the University of Michigan and has dealt with many faculty and student issues. Former Executive Vice Chancellor Terry Sullivan was instrumental in his recruitment. His career has been in higher education law.
He also noted that the University of Michigan has constitutional autonomy. The legislature there cannot pass a law telling the university what to do. No law like the six-drop law could be passed in Michigan.
Mr. Sharphorn stated that he is interested organizations and how they function. He wants to be helpful and not be seen as part of a bureaucracy. Rather, he wants to find ways to provide maximum discretion for institutions and faculty.
Having been told that the Faculty Advisory Council was interested in policy review, Mr. Sharphorn provided a handout describing a model policy for amending the Handbook of Operating Procedures at a University. He pointed out that if a policy was originated from a campus, it comes to his office for review. Importantly, the institution should indicate that the proposed policy has gone through appropriate review. If a policy was originated centrally, there still should be way to make sure appropriate groups have had input in its development.
Representative Morrison commented that the conflict of interest policy was a legislative mandate and did not allow much discretion. Despite some issues being raised, there was a deadline of January 1 that did not have much time for changes. This was unfortunate and we would not act that way unless it was legislatively mandated.
Mr.Sharphorn commented on student discipline procedures, stating his belief that there should be heavy faculty involvement in the academic side of student misconduct. However, what is considered to be an academic matter depends on the area. The selling of drugs might be viewed as more academic in a medical school than on an academic campus.
Regarding noncompete clauses in contracts, Mr. Sharphorn commented that, within the UT System, these might be used only at UT Southwestern. Such clauses were used at the University of Michigan for clinical faculty. His understanding is that their use is not prohibited, but that courts tend to want them narrowly drawn. Sometimes these clauses are used to protect the patient base of a clinic. He stated he will double check to determine whether there is no law against doing this to a state employee.
There followed a series of comments and questions to which Mr. Sharphorn responded, and these are paraphrased below:
Q: Noncompete clauses put a burden on recruiting and the Faculty Advisory Council will probably forward a resolution to eliminate them. R: It might make sense to consider this issue on individual campuses rather than at the System level.
There followed a discussion about a chapter about research supported by the tobacco industry. The issue had more to do with secrecy and with academic freedom. Mr. Sharphorn commented that a global statement that research should be transparent and not kept in secret might be workable. A different question is whether a university should refuse money from tobacco even if all laws are followed.
Mr. Sharphorn commented that, in the future, he wishes to deal with issues of how to handle troubled and troubling students and staff. This will be high on his list of priorities.
Q: Do we need to change the Regents’ Rules to develop a new policy on troubling students? R: We are looking for a way to have more than one person on campus to be charged with these matters. However, this is a problem we are still working on.
Q: The provost on our campus claims to be the ultimate interpreter of Handbook of Operating Procedures. This raises problems of transparency. R: A President might designate the Provost to interpret the HOP, but Regents would have that ability and, hopefully, the Office of General Council, will be consulted in difficult cases.
Q: At what point do departmental policies require review by higher-level administration? A: I do not really know at this point.
12:45 PM
Karen Lundquist, Senior Attorney, Office of General Council |
Ms. Lundquist had heard the question about legislative advocacy, and remarked that a faculty member can call a legislator or legislative staff person to protest a bill, but cannot use State time or resources in doing so. If the call is during work hours, a faculty member should try to document that he or she is not on work time. Indeed, it is probably better not to call during work time. It might be advisable to use a cell phone while on lunch break. Care is required, because the lobbying law is what legislators will use to fight agencies they don’t like. The law states that it is allowed to provide information in response to a request. However, it is best to go through governmental relations person. One can also contact legislators on personal matters if one is not using state resources. One must always be clear that one is not speaking for the university.
Q: Now that Representative Morrison has asked for our input, can we feel free to contact her? R: We would still recommend that you go through Governmental Relations.
There followed a discussion about how a faculty member might disagree with administration, and that this might make it difficult to communicate with the legislature through Governmental Relations. In this connection, Mr. Sharphorn noted that he has on occasion to take the side of faculty against administration. It also was noted in the course of the discussion that Government Relations people can provide information upon request and use state resources in doing so because communicating with the legislature is part of their job descriptions.
In summary, there was a consensus that faculty can respond to request for information from a legislator, and can also contact a legislator “on our own dime,” taking a personal day or whatever, and not making use of university resources. We can also write letters (not on University letterhead), and can even use our titles so long as we are clear that we are not speaking for the University. It was noted that the relevant law is Chapter 556.004 of the Government Code.
|
1:22PM
|
Committee Report from Health Affairs (see attached).
Health Affairs offered a resolution regarding noncompete clauses (see attached resolution III). A motion to accept the resolution was made and seconded, and it passed with one opposed and three abstentions.
|
1:30 PM |
Campus Reports (cont’d) |
2 PM |
Meeting adjourned |
Appendix
Resolution I:
UT System FAC Resolution
Regarding The Student Advisory Council Recommendations
Where as; the UT System Student Advisory Council presented the following nine recommendations to the Board of Regents on May 14, 2008,
Be it resolved: the UT System Faculty Advisory Council endorses these recommendations.
Passed 5/23/ 2008
Recommendation 1
Each campus should model the on-line course instructor and course evaluation survey results tool used at The University of Texas at Dallas. The course instructor and course evaluation surveys should be linked to the on-line course catalog and be made readily available to students during registration periods from the registration menu.
Recommendation 2
Each campus should implement a policy encouraging professors to post course syllabi on-line preferably before the first registration period but at least before the first day of class.
Recommendation 3
A recommendation from the 2004-2005 Academic Affairs Committee of the Student Advisory Council encouraged each institution to develop and promote an honor code. We reiterate our support for this idea and ask again that it be made a priority at the U. T. System level. Each campus president should be charged with the task of convening a group of students, faculty, staff, and administrators to develop and implement an honor code.
Recommendation 4
Concerned with campus safety, we request that each institution implement a criminal emergency response system in order to avoid additional potential crimes against students on campus. We ask the U. T. System to look at the possibilities of a Shared Services Contract in order to keep costs low when shopping for a criminal emergency response system.
Recommendation 5
We commend the report from the Task Force on Doctoral Education and Post-Doctoral Experience. To continue this goal of improving the doctoral education and post-doctoral experience and to better recruit and serve graduate students, graduate housing must be addressed for graduate students.
Recommendation 6
We recommend that a student representative from the SAC be included in the evaluation, analysis, and investigation of developing a standard of student health care for undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. Once established, the standard should be a required goal for each of the student health care facilities in the U. T. System.
Recommendation 7
Conduct a survey to ascertain the adequacy of student health insurance in the U. T. System. The results of this survey should be used to study the possible development of a Tiered Health Insurance System with options for additional coverage for students with specific needs .
Recommendation 8
Concerned with the Archer Center, we wish to express our support for the program, and encourage the U. T. System to offer a similar program during the summer whether it is an abbreviated version of the Archer Fellowship or a new service targeted specifically for summer students, when more students are likely to take time away from their home institution .
Recommendation 9
We recommend that U. T. System and its Governmental Relations office institute a policy to effectively communicate legislative issues to student leaders during the next legislative session. We recommend that students be designated as campus liaisons in the information-sharing process.
Resolution II:
UT System FAC Resolution
Regarding Textbook Study Group Recommendations
Where as; the UT System Faculty Advisory Council recognizes the rising costs of textbooks and supports minimizing those costs while maintaining the academic freedom of faculty,
Be it resolved: the UT System Faculty Advisory Council endorses the Report and Recommendations from the UT System Textbook Study Group.
Passed 5/23/2008
Report and Recommendations of the University of Texas System
Textbook Study Group
Revised: May 22, 2008
In the fall of 2007, Chancellor Mark Yudof asked Executive Vice Chancellor David Prior to create a study group to develop recommendations on how the University of Texas System, working through its institutions, could reduce the costs students experience in buying textbooks.
This current study group recommends action to be taken by the University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council and, subsequently, the individual campus faculty senates and administrative officers. In the short-term, faculty members selecting learning materials, being mindful of the costs, are the key to controlling and, possibly reducing the expense student face with regard to textbooks.
Introduction
Over the last several years, considerable attention has been focused on the college textbook market. Compared to changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), college textbook prices have risen twice as fast as the rate of inflation. Students, faced with ever increasing tuition, have been very vocal about rising textbook costs.
According to a recent survey conducted by The College Board, full-time students on average spent $942 for textbooks in 2006-07. While this figure is absent of any deductions for financial aid, it should be pointed out that, on average, grant aid is insufficient to cover textbook expenses for low-income and moderate-income students.
The American Association of Publishers reports that 20 percent of students go without purchasing textbooks. This could be due to the fact that students use library copies, borrow from friends or forgo using a textbook because of cost.
A recent report issued by the General Accounting Office cites four major reasons for escalating textbook prices. These include textbook bundling, frequent updated textbooks, bookstore markup, and university profit.
Students, college administrators, textbook publishers, bookstore managers, faculty, state and federal legislators are all in engaged in efforts to find a solution to the problem.
Understanding the Textbook Market
The textbook market is made up of four segments—new texts; used texts; course packs; and course technology. The majority of the market is new and used texts—although course packs and course technology are being used more frequently. Roughly 98 percent of course material sales are from new and used textbook purchases.
Typically, publishers produce textbooks and market them to instructors who choose and assign textbooks. In 2004, industry consolidation led to five of the largest publishers providing textbooks for over 80 percent of the market. This consolidation has arguably led to decreased market competition.
Bookstores stock new and used textbooks from wholesalers and student buyback programs. Used books are purchased from a wholesaler or a student for 50 percent of the new retail prices. If the textbook is not going to be used at the institution again but can be used at another institution, the wholesalers buys the textbook and the student gets from 5 to 35 percent of the new retail price. Students may sell their textbooks back to bookstore or to an online buyer or trade the textbook. If a new edition of a textbook is released or no buyback is possible, students get nothing.
Increasingly students are turning to online bookstores in an effort to save money on their textbook purchases. Bigwords.com and Amazon.com are two examples of online companies that stock commonly used collegiate textbooks. Approximately 23 percent of students purchase their textbooks online. The National Association of College Bookstores has estimated that about one-third of those textbooks are purchased from the college bookstore web site.
Appendix A of this report shows 4 examples of typical first and second year Spring 2008 required textbooks of four majors at the University of Texas at Austin. What these examples illustrate is that if a student is resourceful, he/she can realize considerable savings on their textbook purchases. In some cases a student could save over 50 percent of their textbook costs.
College bookstore sales of textbooks are based on requirements by a professor, regardless of format or type of publication. The National Association of College Bookstores estimated U.S. college bookstore sales of $10.5 billion for the 2005-2006 academic year. Roughly 60 percent of the sales revenue of college bookstores, $6.5 billion was from the sale of college textbook/course materials.
Reasons for Rising Textbook Costs
Textbook bundling
Typically sold as a single unit, “bundles” are packages that contain a textbook along with other course materials that may include study guides, CD-ROMS, and pass codes to textbook-companion web sites. The biggest objection to bundling is that other materials included in the “bundle” are not used enough to justify the extra costs. Those in favor argue that since more and more students arrive for their freshman year unprepared for the rigors of college work, bundles or supplemental materials are essential. A poll released in 2005 by Zogby International found that:
- 75% of professors either required or recommended that their students purchase textbook packages that include supplemental materials,
- 84% professors argued that their students absolutely must have the required textbooks to get a good grade in their courses.
- 76% actually told their students that they needed to use the texts to get a good grade.
Behavioral assessment and intervention team policy These findings were echoed in a 2006 study by Zogby International commissioned by the Association of American Publishers. That study found that:
- 55 percent of entering freshman were not ready for college-level studies
- 65 percent of faculty say that supplemental course materials help retain student who might otherwise fail to complete a course or drop out of school
- 80 percent said that less-prepared students would do significantly better in introductory courses if they spent more time using supplementary materials
- 79 percent of this faculty surveyed believed that students would do better if they used supplementary materials.
- 86 percent required or recommended supplementary materials
- 90 percent believed that less prepared students would do better if they spent more time reading the textbook and
- 30 percent of faculty used the publishers’ online homework, while 19 percent used the publishers’ online quizzes
What is generally missing from the discussion of textbook bundling is the cost effectiveness of textbooks and other learning materials. What is known is that pass rates, retention rates and grades improve when students utilize the materials bundles with their textbooks.
Frequently updated textbooks
Another argument is that frequently advanced is that updated textbooks negate the used book market. In general new textbooks are bought back from students at 50% of the new price. If textbooks are frequently updated the buyback value declines substantially. Students may be purchasing new textbooks with the expectation that new textbook can be resold to the bookstore.
The 2005 Zogby International survey found that:
- 80% of those professors surveyed believe that it is important that the material in texts used for their courses be as current as possible
- 62% report that they prefer to order texts with the most recent copyright date.
Bookstore markup and university profit
According to the National Association of College Stores NACS 2007 College Store Industry Financial Report “college bookstores returned an average of 13.3% of sales back to their institution-- average net income of 7.5% of net sales to their institutions and average of 5.8% of net sales to support campus activities such as scholarship funds, donations of merchandise, advertising dollars to school media, store revenue paid to institutional accounts, rent paid to the institution, non-store administrative salaries, and alumni gifts”.
Table 1 below shows where the new textbook dollar goes.
Table 1
Anatomy of the New Textbook Dollar
Cost Element |
Description |
Amount |
Publisher’s Paper, Printing, Editorial Costs |
All manufacturing costs including paper, editing, storage, distribution, record keeping, billing, publisher’s offices and employee salaries and benefits |
.321 |
Publisher’s marketing |
Marketing, advertising, promotion, publisher’s field staff, professors’’ examination copies |
.153 |
Author Income |
Author’s royalty payments |
.116 |
College bookstore Personnel |
Employee Salaries and Benefits |
.108 |
Publisher’s General Administrative |
Federal, State and local taxes |
.099 |
College Store Operations |
Insurance, utilities, building and equipment, rent and maintenance and data processing |
.072 |
Publisher’s Income |
After tax income |
.070 |
College bookstore Income |
Pretax income |
.044 |
Freight Expense |
Freight costs from publisher’s warehouse to college bookstore |
.017 |
Total |
|
1.00 |
As the table shows, 76 percent of the new textbook dollar goes to the publisher, while 24 percent goes to the retailer. The single largest cost element of the new textbook dollar, manufacturing costs and publisher employee salaries and benefits, account for 32 percent.
The largest percentage of stores are owned or operated by higher education institutions. While most are institutional, they may also be contract managed, cooperatives, or owned by student associations. Table 2 below indicates the affiliation of UT System academic institutions and bookstores that serve their populations.
Table 2
Contracted Bookstore Services at U. T. System Academic Institutions
Institution |
Contracted Bookstore |
Company |
U. T. Arlington |
Yes |
Follett Corporation |
U. T. Austin |
No 1 |
|
U. T. Brownsville |
Yes |
Barnes and Noble |
U. T. Dallas |
Yes |
Barnes and Noble |
U. T. El Paso |
Yes |
Follett Corporation |
U. T. Pan American |
Yes |
Follett Corporation |
U. T. Permian Basin |
Yes |
Follett Corporation |
U. T. San Antonio |
Yes |
Follett Corporation |
U. T. Tyler |
Yes |
Texas Book Company |
1 Informal arrangement of a retail (not textbook) store, to feature books and authors of non-textbooks in its store.
Solutions
Short-term
Short-term solutions involve government intervention into the marketplace, or restrictions on publishers, retailers and faculty at the university level.
At the federal level mandated price controls could be employed to restrict the rate of increase in textbook pricing. At the state and local university level, state legislators and university administrators could restrict the use of revised editions, or employ buying consortiums.
Indeed, legislation proposed by the 80 th Texas Legislature was focused on some of these short-term solutions. Appendix B of this report gives a synopsis of proposed legislation from 80 th Texas legislative session.
At the university level local administrators and faculty senates could work together to put into practice guidelines that would help students purchase textbooks at a lower cost.
Faculty guidelines could require that textbook lists are submitted early enough for bookstores to take advantage of buybacks and the used textbook market, urge faculty to consider multi-semester adoptions, use old editions even though the revised edition has been released and post textbook lists and ISBNs online.
Bundled textbooks and associated materials should be used only when materials will be actively used by the instructor.
Most importantly, by making textbook lists available early, students, who wish to do so, can shop for textbooks online and save significant amounts of money (see Appendix A).
In May 2006, the Academic Senate of the California State University system passed resolution AS-2747-06/FA (Faculty Role in Mitigating Textbook Costs) which recommended that their colleagues take the following actions to mitigate the costs of textbooks for California State University System students (see Appendix C):
- work with bookstores to arrive at mutually acceptable timelines for text adoption;
- submit textbook requests within mutually acceptable timelines to ensure the availability of textbooks through the campus and other local bookstores;
- notify campus bookstores as early as possible about re-adoptions of previously used textbooks to allow current students who wish to sell their copies back to the campus bookstore and;
- communicate clearly with publisher representatives and bookstore owners about textbook pricing concerns and options.
Notwithstanding the affordability issue, the resolution also reaffirmed the right and responsibility of faculty to select teaching materials with intellectual content and teaching effectiveness as the prime considerations.
Textbook rentals and textbook swapping as well as increasing library reserves (E-reserves and textbook donations) have also been used at some institutions.
While most solutions focus on making changes directly to the textbook market, others look at providing increased financial aid to help cover rising costs. Bookstores at the University of Washington and Portland State University offer need-based textbook scholarships for students who are having trouble paying for textbooks.
Some states have addressed this issue by providing additional aid. Georgia and South Carolina provide extra state aid to help defray textbook costs.
Long-term
The textbook industry is in transition and that transition is in part being driven by technology. Longer-term solutions to the escalating costs of textbooks point to the digital marketplace as a method to lower costs. Those solutions include electronic textbooks, no-cost online textbooks, Open Educational Resources and Print on Demand Services. These longer term solutions are in their infancy and are being tested in a limited number of cases. All provide great promise in helping to hold down prices.
Electronic books (E-books) can be provided to students in various formats from unprintable pdf documents to desk top editions that reside on a student’s desktop for the duration of course to textbook on CD. Despite its appeal, research indicates that students still want to have a printed copy of the material.
This fall 2008, The University of Texas at Austin and John Wiley & Sons will partner in a pilot project to provide eBooks to students in certain science and mathematics courses at the University. The exact number of courses and format of the eBook are details that are yet to be finalized. The goals of the pilot are to assess digital demand, assess print option value, examine the Library’s role and develop a new sustainable model.
E-books can be provided to students at roughly 50 percent of the cost of a new hard copy. These saving occur because publishers do not have to incur printing or production costs. In addition it is much easier and cheaper to update an e-book.
Open Education Resources involves the sharing of digital learning resources at no charge over the internet. OERs have been around for more than 10 years. The often cited Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT) developed by California State University (CSU) is an example of how OERs could work. MERLOT contains 16,000 teaching materials and allows faculty collaboration and development of course materials.
Similarly, Connexions, and Open Education Resources project at Rice University uses materials gathered from professors as well as students to develop courses and freely share the materials.
Print on Demand Services use a digital download to print, bind and cover a textbook. Colleges and bookstores purchase machines to print course materials available in print-on-demand format or those available in the public domain. The University of Texas Co-op Bookstore uses a print-on-demand machine to print course packs and textbooks. Students pay only the costs of printing the materials.
Recommendations of the Textbook Study Group
Changing technology and changes in the delivery of knowledge on campuses across the country are reshaping the textbook industry. Eventually the industry will become a digital marketplace where printed course materials are no longer what are expected.
The industry is beginning to embrace these changes and together with colleges and universities are exploring models that will yield profit to the industry as well as deliver the needed course materials to students and faculty. In addition, digital textbooks would always be current and provide more equal access to learning materials.
In the short term college administrators and faculty should do the following:
- require that textbook lists are in early enough for bookstores to take advantage of buybacks and used textbook market,
- urge faculty to consider multi-semester adoptions,
- use old editions even though the revised edition is released,
- post textbook lists and ISBNs online in a timely manner so that students can shop the least expensive alternative, and
- use bundled textbooks and associated materials only when materials will be actively used by the instructor.
Additionally, institutions should use their influence or contracting power to encourage publishers and bookstores to limit textbook prices and offer used books or less-expensive alternatives
Until such time that more sophisticated electronic solutions become available to reduce textbook costs, the committee recommends that the Faculty Advisory Council of the University of Texas System adopt these recommendations and forward them to the campus faculty governing groups and campus administrators for action. This recommended action is similar to the action taken by the Academic Senate of the California State University System in March, 2006.
Resolution III:
UT System FAC Resolution
Regarding Non-Compete Clauses
Whereas; there are non-compete clauses being placed in UT System Component
faculty employment contracts,
Whereas; this impedes the rights of faculty members to self determination,
Whereas; this has a detrimental impact on recruiting new faculty,
Whereas; this violates the Texas principle of free market rights,
Be it resolved: Non-compete clauses should not be included in UT System
Component faculty employment contracts.
Passed 5/23/08
The Study Group members include: Jim Studer, Chair, Office of Academic Affairs, Edward Baldwin, Office of Academic Affairs, Lisa Baird, Office of Finance, Kent Kostka, Office of General Counsel, and
Carlos Martinez, Office of Governmental Relations.
|
