I'm just a lowly adjunct, but I sense that one barrier to open textbook adoption is the accreditation process. I don't know exactly the connection, but I get the feeling that the department can check some box if they say that all their lower division calculus courses are taught with Pearson's book, for instance. Sort of a "no one ever got fired for choosing IBM" type situation.
Anyone have any insight to this? I only have a sample size of two... which leads me to believe not all departments worry about this so much.
One suggestion is "there should be established procedures for periodic review of the curriculum... should include careful scrutiny of course syllabi, prerequisites, and textbooks."
As much as I hate to say it, there are legitimate reasons for carefully controlling the curricula in lower division courses. A big one is: transfer credit. People get pissed when it's difficult to transfer their cheaper CC credits to a larger university.
The easiest way to solve these problems is by dictating curricula. But, unfortunately, the Pearson's of the world feast on the resulting homogenized market.
This is similar to my problem with Common Core. Everything in Common Core is perfectly reasonable. But now we have one giant textbook market where Pearson dominates with their products which now bear a "Common Core approved" label on the cover.
I expect it varies a lot from school, region, accrediting body, etc., but I worked for a school administration and taught as an adjunct for a spell and mostly the teachers themselves decided the books and were approved so long as the cost was reasonable and the books were easily available. A free textbook published independently would actually have more or less been automatically approved. it was a small school of a few hundred students focused on humanities. YMMV.
Schools buy Pearson because Pearson has strong marketing and is the biggest obvious choice, and because Pearson helps schols exploit their students by selling customized (not nationally standard!) hard-to-resell textbooks. Not the only well-developed choice.
> "Common Core approved"
This does not exist, so you have no problem with Common Core. Common Core is an open standard, not a certification. Any book can be Common Core aligned, and any school board can choose to certify a book within their jurisdiction.
Common Core is a standard (checklist of abilities students should learn), not a curriculum.
Ilustrated Mathematics ( https://illustrativemathematics.org/math-curriculum/ ) is a curriculum, which is Common Core aligned, that fills in details of the standard. IM certified partners who each publish books. (Both open and proprietary partners exist) This is closest to the accredidation you mention.
Yes, accreditation is an expense. That expense can be paid by donations, grants, or government payments.
There are currently 3 textbook publishing partners of Illustrated Mathematics.
Cengage and McGraw-Hill are major textbook publishers, who are not Pearson.
Illustrative Mathematics's publishing partners are also not Pearson.
Illustrative Mathematics (used in various school districts) is based on Open Up Resources, a Creative Commons -licensed curriculum https://openupresources.org/math-curriculum/ that includes teacher/home/student lesson plans (not exactly a text book, but K-12 school curriculum is designed to be led by a teacher, not self-studied.)
CC was definitely used as an excuse to push unnecessary materials and not just by Pearson (I was using them as a bit of a bogeyman).
Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making with the Illustrated Mathematics link.
Perhaps I muddled my point by bringing up Common Core (I have no experience at that level, I just expect there's a similar dynamic). And to repeat... my point was that some departments dictate the textbook choice and curricula of their lower division courses (often with good intentions!)... but when they do it's often easiest to standardize courses using a big publisher's materials. Good old fashion vendor lock-in.
Anyone have any insight to this? I only have a sample size of two... which leads me to believe not all departments worry about this so much.
Edit: see these MAA guidelines: https://www.maa.org/programs-and-communities/professional-de...
One suggestion is "there should be established procedures for periodic review of the curriculum... should include careful scrutiny of course syllabi, prerequisites, and textbooks."
As much as I hate to say it, there are legitimate reasons for carefully controlling the curricula in lower division courses. A big one is: transfer credit. People get pissed when it's difficult to transfer their cheaper CC credits to a larger university.
The easiest way to solve these problems is by dictating curricula. But, unfortunately, the Pearson's of the world feast on the resulting homogenized market.
This is similar to my problem with Common Core. Everything in Common Core is perfectly reasonable. But now we have one giant textbook market where Pearson dominates with their products which now bear a "Common Core approved" label on the cover.