BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 48
AUTHOR: Alquist
AMENDED: March 23, 2009
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: May 6, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : College Textbooks
SUMMARY
This bill requires that any individual, firm, partnership,
or corporation that offers textbooks for sale at the
University of California, the California State University,
and the California Community Colleges, make them available
for sale in an electronic format, as specified, by January
1, 2020.
BACKGROUND
Current law requires publishers and producers of
instructional materials for students attending the
University of California (UC), the California State
University (CSU) and California Community Colleges (CCCs)
to provide the material, at no cost, in an electronic
format for use by disabled students.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires any individual, firm, partnership, or
corporation that publishes textbooks offered for sale
at the University of California, the California State
University, and the California Community Colleges, to
make them available for sale in an electronic format
by January 1, 2020. Additionally it:
a) Prohibits the price of the
electronic version of the textbook from being any
greater than that charged for the printed
version.
SB 48
Page 2
b) Requires the electronic version to
contain the same content as the printed version.
c) Authorizes the electronic version to be
copy-protected.
2) Defines "textbook" for purposes of the bill's
provisions and excludes novels from the definition.
3) Clarifies that the bill does not authorize the use of
instructional materials in a manner that violates
federal copyright laws, as specified.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill ? The California Public Interest
Research Group (CalPIRG) released a study in January
2004 that found that students spent an average of $898
per year on textbooks in 2003-04, based on a survey of
521 students at seven UC campuses. According to the
author, digital textbooks are the future of the
textbook market and have the potential to
significantly reduce costs, increase options for
students and open up the market for more competition.
In addition, the author asserts that these textbooks
ensure that college students are equipped with 21st
century skills necessary to succeed in today's digital
world.
2) Unintended effect ? Currently this bill prohibits the
price of the electronic version of the textbook from
being any greater than that charged for the printed
version. While it is clearly the author's intent that
the price for the textbook be a cap on the price of
the electronic version, could the bill have the
unintended effect of increasing the cost of the
textbook to supplement the cost of production for the
electronic version?
3) Enforcement ? Is it the intent that college bookstores
be prohibited from offering these textbooks for sale,
or that faculty be prohibited from requiring textbooks
from a publisher that does not comply with the bill's
provisions? Staff notes that many students access
providers of textbook materials via the internet and
SB 48
Page 3
do not use campus bookstores for this purpose. It is
unclear how the requirement established by this bill
would be enforced.
4) Textbook definition . Current law includes a
definition for "textbook" which is consistent with the
definition included in this bill. Staff recommends
the bill be amended to cross reference the definition
in Education Code section 66406.7 in order to ensure
ongoing consistency in the use of the term as it
relates to colleges.
5) Related legislation . SB 216 (Liu), which was heard
and approved by the Senate Education Committee on
April 22, 2009, requires the CSU Trustees and the
Community College Board of Governors, and requests the
UC Regents, to post a list of required textbooks for
each course and for the coming term on their Internet
Web sites not less than 30 days prior to the first day
of class, including the price charged by the campus
bookstore for each required textbook.
6) Previous legislation .
a) AB 2477 (Ch. 556 of 2004) Required the CSU
Trustees and CCC Board of Governors, and
requested the UC Regents to work with the
academic senates to encourage faculty to give
consideration to the least costly practices in
assigning textbooks.
b) AB 1548 (Chapter 574 of 2004) required
publishers and college bookstores to disclose
certain information and to require faculty and
other textbook adopters to follow specified
practices in the adoption and purchase of
textbooks. SB 832 of 2007 would have required
textbook publisher to provide prospective
purchasers at public and private postsecondary
education institutions with specified
information. SB 832 was vetoed with the
following message:
I am returning Senate Bill 832 without my
signature. I am supportive of efforts to address
the cost of college textbooks and share the
SB 48
Page 4
concern that these education costs have an impact
on the affordability of college for many
students. However, this bill focuses strictly on
textbook publisher policies and fails to
recognize that the affordability of textbooks is
a shared responsibility among publishers, college
bookstores, and faculty members. Therefore,
instead of this bill, I am signing Assembly Bill
1548. Many of the same concepts in SB 832 are
included in AB 1548, but AB 1548 recognizes the
shared responsibility and attempts to address the
issue in a more comprehensive manner.
SUPPORT
Associated Students of the University of California Davis
California Association of College Stores
California Communities United Institute
California Postsecondary Education Commission
California State Student Association
OPPOSITION
None received.