Course materials have had a bad rap in the affordability conversation in higher education.

They’re widely recognized as expensive, but rarely seen as a potential cost reducer. When leaders talk about affordability, attention usually turns to tuition, housing, and financial aid.  Textbooks and digital course materials are often assumed to be something students will manage on their own, borrowing from a friend, waiting to buy, or skipping a purchase when money is tight.

That assumption held for years, until institutions began paying closer attention to what happens in the first weeks of class. Early-term data revealed a clear pattern: students without access to required materials started behind, participated less, and disengaged more quickly.

At the same time, institutions were seeing course material costs rise without clear ways to alleviate them.¹

Together, these insights forced a rethink. Course materials weren’t peripheral. Not only were they one of the earliest points where affordability, access, and student success come together, but they are also one of the most solvable challenges institutions face.¹

To understand how course materials got left out of conversations about student success and affordability, let’s revisit the myths that shaped this thinking. Busting these myths will hopefully reveal how course materials may be one of the most powerful, and overlooked, solutions for improving student success and addressing affordability in higher education.

Myth #1: Access to Course Materials Doesn’t Influence Early Engagement or Retention

The Reality: Access to required materials, especially on day one, directly shapes early engagement, momentum, and persistence.¹

For years, course material access was treated as a downstream issue, rather than something incorporated into the learning experience.

Early-term data tells a different story. When students start a course without required materials, participation drops , early assignments suffer , and engagement slips quickly.¹  Faculty notice it immediately; institutions see it later in persistence and retention.

At Dallas College, only 28 percent of students had all the required materials on the first day of class before adopting an Affordable Access model. Once day-one access became standard,students started stronger and early friction dropped , contributing to improved persistence and retention.²

The takeaway is simple : course materials don’t just support learning. They determine how learning begins and ultimately shape long-term retention and student success.

Myth #2: Course Material Costs Are Always Rising, and There’s Nothing Institutions Can Do

The Reality: Course materials are one of the few higher-ed cost categories that have become more affordable over time.¹

Rising costs in higher education often feel inevitable, and course materials are usually lumped into that narrative. Except the data doesn’t support it.

Since Affordable Access programs were introduced in 2015, the growth in course materialprices has slowed dramatically from rising more than 6 percent a year to barely increasing at all.  During the same period, students’ average spending on course materials fell by about 40 percent.¹

The pricing difference is also tangible at the course level. One study found that while the average digital list price for course materials is $91 per course, students enrolled in Affordable Access programs pay closer to $58 per course, an average savings of 36 percent per class.  Across a full academic year, students in opt-out Affordable Access models save approximately $650 on average.¹

This shift didn’t happen by chance. It followed a structural change in how materials were delivered by moving away from fragmented, student-managed purchasing toward institutionally coordinated access.¹

This shows a clear and hopeful message: affordability wasn’t out of their hands, it was specifically designed to alleviate the issues plaguing affordability.

Myth #3: Affordable Access Sacrifices Quality and Stifles Faculty Choice

The Reality: Affordability and academic rigor are not tradeoffs.¹

Lower cost often raises an immediate concern: what gets cut?

In practice, institutions implementing Affordable Access models report the opposite. When students have guaranteed access to required materials from day one, faculty spend less time troubleshooting and working around delays and more time teaching. Course pacing improves, and early assignments are completed as intended.²

Importantly, affordability does not require giving up faculty freedom . In most models, instructors retain full control over which materials they adopt, including publisher content, digital tools, or OER, while students benefit from clear pricing and easy access.³

Lower cost doesn’t sacrifice integrity. It removes problems that never belonged in the classroom.

Myth #4: Digital and Online Learning Are Still the Exception

The Reality: Multi-modal teaching is now the norm.⁴

For a long time, digital learning was treated as a niche only useful in certain contexts, but secondary to “real” instruction.

That distinction no longer holds. Nearly half of faculty now teach at least one online course, and more than a third teach across multiple modalities, blending face-to-face, hybrid, and online instruction.⁴

As teaching becomes increasingly multi-modal, course materials must be designed to support learning across formats. Affordable Access models reflect this reality by integrating materials directly into the learning management system, ensuring consistent access regardless of modality.⁵

Digital access isn’t a trend anymore . It’s how learning happens.

Myth #5: Faculty Don’t Like Affordable Access Models

The Reality: Faculty support grows once programs are implemented.¹

In these conversations, faculty often show concerns about academic freedom around accessibility in course materials but experience changes perception.

Data shows that around three-quarters of faculty want their institutions to maintain or expand Affordable Access models once implemented, citing day-one access and reduced student confusion as a main benefit.¹

On campuses like Florida State College and Dallas College, faculty adoption expanded rapidly as results became clear, students arrived prepared, fewer class periods were lost to access issues, and instruction became smoother.¹

Faculty support for Affordable Access grows when they see consistent benefits for students and instruction.

Myth #6: Opt-in Affordable Access Models Benefit Student Choice

The Reality: Opt-in options often reduce participation and widen opportunity gaps.¹

Participation rates average roughly 96 percent in opt-out models and closer to 33 percent in opt-in models. The students most likely to miss out are often first-generation, Pell-eligible, or balancing work and family responsibilities.¹

Opt-out Affordable Access models still preserve choice, students can opt out, but access is guaranteed by default. Materials are available on day one, and no one falls behind simply because they missed a step.⁵

Choice without structure can lead to uneven outcomes. Thoughtful design produces results that improve student success, increase affordability, and make the learning experience smooth for everyone.

Myth #7: Students Prefer to Shop for Course Materials on Their Own

The Reality: Students value ease and availability over shopping variety.¹

When given the option to secure materials automatically at a lower, predictable price or navigate multiple platforms, deadlines, and editions on their own, most students choose simplicity.¹

Campuses consistently find that when access is guaranteed and pricing is transparent, opt-outs are rare. Students don’t opt out because they feel constrained, they opt in because friction has been removed.¹

Students aren’t asking for more decisions. They’re asking for fewer obstacles between them and learning.

When the Myths Fall Away

Taken together, these assumptions have contributed to course materials being viewed as operational rather than strategic.

When institutions look at the full picture, a different story emerges. Course materials shape how students begin. Access affects momentum. Design choices influence opportunity. And affordability is far more within institutional control than many assume.¹

Across campuses that have innovated on how materials are delivered, results are consistent: students start prepared , faculty spend less time troubleshooting , early barriers give way to engagement , and costs come down through coordination, not compromise.¹

The most important lesson isn’t about busting any single myth. It’s about what happens when course materials are treated as an integral aspect of academic infrastructure rather than a retail transaction.

And when institutions design for that reality, the impact shows.