Finally, Some Good News for Students: The College Textbook Market Is Changing
By Jonathan Helwink
Published 11.2.2026

For years, college textbooks were the classic example of a broken marketplace in higher education. As prices climbed, students had limited affordable options. Years ago when I was a professor, I saw students desperately search for used copies or rentals, while others simply went without.

But, recently, something has changed. And it's a rare bright spot in an otherwise ever-expensive higher education system.

According to the 2026 Student Watch report, students spent an average of $338 on required course materials during the 2025–26 academic year, compared with $701 in 2007–08. That's a remarkable shift at a time when families are rightly demanding greater affordability and value. In fact, course material costs have declined even as tuition, fees, and room and board have continued to rise.

The question now is: How can policymakers continue encouraging competition and lower costs while ensuring students have access to affordable course materials and meaningful choice?

Affordable Access programs are part of the answer. Textbook affordability programs allow colleges to leverage their purchasing power to negotiate lower prices with publishers and course materials providers, helping students save money while ensuring that they have the materials they need on the first day of class. Affordable Access programs vary, but can offer print textbooks, digital materials, or a combination of both, including open educational resources. At their core, the programs promote affordability, competition, and choice while preserving flexibility for students and faculty.

The results speak for themselves. Independent research published in 2025 found that students participating in Affordable Access programs saved an average of 36%, paying $58 per course compared with a $91 average digital list price. The same research found that 61% of students preferred obtaining materials through access programs over purchasing, renting, or borrowing on their own, while 75% of faculty surveyed wanted to maintain or expand these programs. Importantly, when participating in these programs, students retain the ability to compare prices and opt out. Together, these findings point to a model that promotes affordability, transparency, competition, and choice without requiring every student or institution to take the same approach or use the same materials.

A professor teaching literature may need students to work from a particular translation or printed edition. A science instructor may prefer interactive digital courseware. Students may have their own preferences, accessibility needs, or financial constraints. None of these choices should be determined solely by how an institution purchases and distributes course materials. Faculty should retain control over what they assign, and students should have meaningful options for obtaining it.

That last point matters. Affordability and academic freedom should reinforce one another, not compete.

The shift towards digital materials could be mistaken for evidence that print books have lost their place in higher education. Recent student research found that 37% of students preferred digital materials, compared with 32% who preferred print. Digital materials offer immediate access, portability, and accessibility features, while physical books remain valuable for courses and students who prefer them. No matter what student preferences are, good policy should leave room for both.

Transparency and student choice are essential to making these programs successful. Colleges should ensure that students understand their course material costs, can easily compare prices, and have a straightforward way to opt out if another option better meets their needs.

In fact, existing federal regulations already recognize the importance of these protections. Qualifying arrangements for books and supplies must meet conditions regarding below-market pricing, timely access, and student opt-out rights. The goal should be to maintain and strengthen transparency and consumer protections, while also preserving the flexibility to negotiate lower costs and meet their unique curriculum needs.

I saw the value of these types of efforts when I watched students struggle to afford textbooks. My classroom was filled with struggling urban community college students who were balancing so much in their lives, including the time, energy, and financial costs of school and textbooks.

I also supported this approach when I served as an attorney at the U.S. Department of Education during the first Trump administration, and I continue to believe that thoughtful federal policy can protect consumers without limiting the innovative solutions colleges develop to serve their students. The Department's focus on affordability and competition presents an opportunity to reinforce that balance.

Higher education needs more pathways that deliver value, not fewer. And federal policy needs to align with the needs of all students. Some students, especially at elite institutions, may prefer, and can afford, traditional hard-copy textbooks. But when students are still struggling to afford college, policymakers should welcome models that put downward pressure on prices, give all students more options, and help ensure that every student can succeed in classes with the materials that they need to succeed.

The college textbook and supplies marketplace has come a long way from the days of unchecked price increases. Now, the task is to keep that progress moving.

Jonathan Helwink is a former tenured history professor and served as an attorney at the U.S. Department of Education during the first Trump administration and is currently principal at Helwink Legal Group, PLLC. His practice focuses on helping colleges and universities stay ahead of regulatory and accreditor compliance demands, manage internal and external investigations, and strategically engage with regulators and government representatives.