“Assemblyman Curt Hagman’s E-Reader Textbooks Bill Signed into Law by Governor”
… was the title of a press release that just flew in through our transom demanding to be read.
In this Santa Ana barrio classroom, impoverished students are able to use e-Readers to … HEY, that’s not Santa Ana!
SACRAMENTO – Assemblyman Curt Hagman’s (R-Chino Hills) Assembly Bill 133, also known as the “e-Reader Bill,” was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. AB 133 requires that all publishers or manufactures who sell print textbooks to K-12 school districts in California also provide those textbooks in a digital format that can be viewed on e-reader devices.
“I would like to thank Governor Brown for his support of this measure and for signing it into law,” said Assemblyman Hagman. “AB 133 will place California on the cutting edge of technology use in the classroom and enhance our children’s educational experience by allowing them to utilize technology to which they are already accustomed.”
Currently, California K-12 school districts are mandated to provide all students print textbooks as their basic learning materials. Recently, the advent of e-readers has allowed these texts to be published digitally and downloaded on e-reader devices, giving students a new medium to receive, and actively engage with, the material. As our children have already been using e-readers, tablets and other technological devices for years, implementing their use in the classroom will bring California up to speed with other parts of the world such as South Korea, China and Taiwan that have already begun to implement e-readers as standard learning tools.
Assembly Bill 133 is the first step in laying the groundwork for the full integration of modern technology in the classroom.
This is probably a good idea — and only “probably” because in general the wealthier subset of students will have e-readers and the less wealthy won’t, so the advantages of such a bill will accrue mainly to the “haves.” (Watch, for example, for e-Reader versions of texts to always be available in the most current editions while paper versions are allowed to lag behind by an edition or two — or four.) So, it adds to social stratification, which surely doesn’t bother Hagman, by making education better for the haves than for the have-nots — but if it saves money overall then maybe that could be used to aid those who don’t benefit from it directly.
(One crazy idea: the school districts could provide poorer students with e-readers so that they can gain the same benefits as their wealthier peers. Of course, that raises the question of what to do when they get lost. The e-readers, not the students.)
Anyway, that’s not my point. My point is that if it’s more profitable for companies to produce e-reader editions, then the market should magically lead them to do so without regulation. That we need to pass a law in this circumstance implies that this wasn’t happening on its own. That in turn implies that it wasn’t profitable. And that in turn implies that this new law imposes a new cost on businesses — in this case, in the textbook industry. Larger publishers will probably better be able to adapt to this requirement than smaller ones, leading to concentration of market share within those larger corporations — which again is not likely something that will bother Asmb. Hagman.
So the next time you see someone like Curt Hagman complaining about government imposing expensive regulations on the commercial sector, remind of his pride in this bill. (Of course, that pride may be grounded in this bill’s doing good things for Chino Hills, Diamond Bar and Yorba Linda while being of less help to less wealthy areas — in which case he won’t see any contradiction. Rules, as we often see in our local governments, are made to be broken — at least for the right sorts of people.
A strong case can be made that the economics of e-readers will actually be a greater benefit to the poor that the rich. One e-reader can last a few years at a cost less than even one years new textbooks made of paper. As well the extreme portability of them helping to reduce chronic back problems, locker clutter and might even get them to read more because of availability.
A strong case can also be made that the poor don’t have e-readers. And, if they do have them, they may be more likely to be lost or stolen (and in any event not replaced.)
The real story could be that the profit margin for selling paper books to government run edu-monopolies is huge, and providing digital data a lot less so. In fact it would likely cut into those profits. That would explain why “the market” hasn’t pushed in this direction. The big publishers have a virtual text book monopoly, too. It’s all real cozy which is why so many textbooks are crappy – another subject.
True, but making it mandatory and providing them customers at the same time might make it profitable. If school districts offer digital textbooks to whoever wants ’em, they can save some money (since digital books tend to cost less than hard cover editions). That money can then be used to subsidize e-readers/e-reader rentals. So to start, some kids will have electronic books, and others hard covers. Over a period of time, hard cover books will become obsolete since they will be replaced by what should be cheaper e-readers, and a lower cost of production.
I suspect that the book sellers are actually happy about this.
It’s not more profitable or indeed they would be doing it. And there’s no “magic” involved.
Yes, it is not more profitable. That is what I said in the very first…..word.
My comment was really addressed to the author who brought up the issue of a free market straw man so he could knock it over.
He is arguing against a premise that nobody asserted.
School textbooks are about as far removed from capitalism as anybody could imagine: big publishers doing business with big educracy.
Is this too complicated for you, David? It’s a government mandate to private industry that (even though I agree with those who think that it may eventually help profits) in form a conservative like Hagman would usually find offensive (or at least pretend to do so.) Yet, here he is, strewing flower petals as he announces his new regulation.
What do you mean by “arguing against a premise”? The premise I argue for (or actually “from”) is that this is a regulatory imposition on private enterprise. My conclusion: I therefore find Hagman’s celebration of it ironic (if not downright funny.) Now, are you arguing against my premise or what?
It may be good policy; after all, Brown did sign it. What interests me is that it is the kind of mandatory government regulation that conservatives like Hagman generally denounce. And while “[t]hat money can then be used to subsidize e-readers/e-reader rentals,” that doesn’t mean that it will be — because (Hagman types would say) it would teach them to accept government handouts. (If such free e-readers for students ever do come into being, I expect them to carry mandatory ads for military service and don’t commit insurance fraud and maybe Pepsi, which students would have to click through and acknowledge before getting to the lessons.)
They could have done something less than mandating this. They chose not to. I find that interesting.
As a service professional in prepress services for over 20 years I have some insight and some baggage in this discussion. I just want to get that right up front, I make a living feeding printing plates to presses that eat paper at 100’s of feet per minute.
There is some very informative stuff here: http://tablets-textbooks.procon.org/
I think it’s a great tool in so many ways that I would certainly like to see the digital book format for my daughter in college, who’s waiting for her books to arrive right now…
I think the state of print text books over all, is pretty pathetic. At least with e-books they can be updated, they can be instantly available, multiple books in one small light package.
If some backwood district wants to take out one portion of the book because of some local sensitivities they can do it without screwing up everybody else. Not that I favor that for those kids affected, but at least they don’t have to drag everybody else down too, which does happen now, when they are edited and printed to satisfy the largest buyers. They aren’t all backwoods either unfortunately. E-versions can be custom edited.
The bonus as well with a smart e-reader, is instant access to the rest of the internet’s resources as well. If the subject strikes a cord in the book they are reading or a word unknown, it can be researched.
I’m not a big fan of the ipads or other higher end devices. I want to see a $200 or so, device in a ruggedized 8-10″ form factor with a usb port. Something simple and durable that a kid might have for 2 years or so. It really shouldn’t be that hard to do. Provided by the schools, they should be able to do this cheaper than paper books if it’s managed right.
As much as we may not like it, our children will probably not live in the same kind of world we have, so we need to teach and train them for the world they are getting. Frankly I doubt my daughter will have as many books in her life as I do now and I have no space to hold them all.
I wish I could digitize some or all of them. It would make looking up that ingredient list at the grocery store easier, if I could consult my CRC Physics & Chemistry manual while I was trying to figure out what they put in that can before I bought it! (the book weighs about 10 lbs, more than the geode bookend next to it)
AB 133 is a great tool to move us in that direction. It requires that digital copies be available, not that they must be used. Those who can figure out how to make it work, will in my humble opinion, being doing themselves and our children a favor.
I think it was a great bill!
Again — what interests me is not the merits of the bill itself, but the “government interventionist” philosophy behind it. If this is good governance, so are lots of other things that conservatives would denounce as a matter of form, without even getting to content.