Textbook rule change harms students

As a sophomore at the University of Iowa I want to focus on doing my best in class and not on whether or not I have the tools I need to succeed. That’s why I testified to a U.S. Department of Education rule-making session earlier this month — I wanted to let them know exactly how a proposed change in the rules for course material programs we use at UI would impact students.

My school uses a program called ICON Direct, which is a type of course material access and affordability program generally called Inclusive Access.

These programs operate under rules that let colleges and universities order course materials for an entire class at one time and deliver them on day one of the class. That’s a huge improvement over the bad old days when students had to wait until their financial aid was disbursed to shop for books.

The current rules also say course materials must be provided at below the competitive market rate. That means students get a deal, which is a second big improvement over the bad old days of expensive textbooks.

Another good thing about ICON Direct is that I can use Title IV money — for those readers who aren’t in college, that means grants and loans — to pay for the course materials I need, so I don’t have to go out of pocket. That’s a third improvement over the bad old days.

When I enrolled in classes at the start of this semester, I really appreciated the savings and convenience that ICON Direct delivered.

And I had a good point of comparison, too: I recently took a class that did not offer the option to purchase my book through this program. I had to spend a ton of time tracking down the book I needed for the class, only to find it was sold out at the on-campus bookstore, and at the other bookstore across town. In the end, I didn’t have the course materials I needed to study with until nearly fourteen days after the class started.

The entire experience of that process made me appreciate the ICON system.

So when I heard The Department of Education had proposed a rule change that would eliminate ICON Direct and programs like it, I was really concerned. This proposed change would take all students — everyone at the University of Iowa, and at colleges and universities across the country — back to the bad old days, to a time when every class involved hunting around for materials, stressing about getting them on time, and spending more for textbooks.

The Department of Education is saying its rule change is about student choice, but how does eliminating a really good option add up to more choice? And who would choose to pay more money for more hassle?

I testified at the Department of Education because I wanted the folks in Washington, D.C. to understand the real-life benefits of these programs, and to warn them of the negative impact that their proposal would have on real-life students. I think that they should support programs that work — like our ICON Direct — and keep moving forward into the future, rather than retreating into the past.

Peyton Weber is a marketing major at the University of Iowa.

Correction: The original version of this article incorrectly stated federal financial aid funding as “Title VI.” It has been corrected to reflect that federal financial aid is granted under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. We regret the error.