E-Book Renewal: Unlimited Access vs. Per-Circulation
You are the media specialist at a high school of 2,100 students. The district's e-book platform contract expires in 10 weeks. Vendor A offers unlimited simultaneous access to 18,000 titles for $12,000 a year. Vendor B offers per-circulation pricing: 3,000 circulations included, then $1.50 each, capped at $6,000, but only 9,000 titles. Last year students logged 4,200 e-book circulations, 60% in one popular fiction genre; 180 students have IEPs or 504 plans, and 14% are English language learners. The accessible-reader compatibility of Vendor B is not documented; Vendor A has a current VPAT showing screen-reader support. Your print collection is 22,000 volumes with an average copyright date of 2002. The principal wants the cheapest option. The district purchasing office requires a documented rationale and a 3-year projection.
1. How would you evaluate the two vendors beyond the sticker price? Identify the data and criteria you would put in a decision matrix.
Read the worked answer
I would build a decision matrix with weighted criteria: cost at projected usage, title breadth and curriculum alignment, accessibility, privacy and data terms, training and support, and contract flexibility.
Cost: At 4,200 circulations, Vendor B costs $3,000 plus 1,200 times $1.50, or $4,800, below its $6,000 cap. If usage grows to 7,000, it hits the cap at $6,000, still cheaper than Vendor A. But cost per circulation depends on title availability; a cheap platform that lacks assigned titles shifts cost back to print or interlibrary loan.
Titles: Vendor B has half as many titles. I would check overlap with the curriculum, the popular fiction genre, Spanish-language and hi-lo titles, and titles used by students with IEPs.
Accessibility: Vendor A has a current VPAT. Vendor B has none, which is a serious gap given 180 students with IEPs or 504 plans. I would require a VPAT or equivalent documentation before considering B.
Privacy and support: I would review data-sharing terms, authentication, training, and exit provisions. A three-year projection should include likely usage growth and staff time.
2. The principal directs you to choose Vendor B because it is cheaper. How do you respond, and what compromise or pilot would you propose?
Read the worked answer
I would agree that cost matters and show the numbers, but I would frame the decision as cheapest option that meets the school's legal and instructional requirements, not cheapest sticker price. At current usage, Vendor B may save about $7,200 a year, but the savings are uncertain if its 9,000 titles do not support the curriculum or if its accessibility is undocumented. A platform that cannot serve students with disabilities may create a separate obligation to provide an equivalent accommodation, which can cost more than the subscription difference.
Compromise or pilot: Ask Vendor B for a VPAT, an accessibility roadmap, and a list-overlap report. If it will not provide them, I would recommend Vendor A for one year and use the year to negotiate better pricing and collect usage data. If B does provide documentation, I would propose a one-semester pilot with a defined group, tracking circulation by title, accessibility complaints, and staff troubleshooting time. I would also ask whether the district can combine purchases with other schools for leverage.
I would put the recommendation in writing with the 3-year projection and a clear risk statement, so the principal is making an informed decision rather than an uninformed one.
3. What should happen to the aging print collection if the district moves toward e-books?
Read the worked answer
I would not treat the e-book decision as a reason to freeze or abandon print. The average copyright date of 2002 signals a weeding and replacement project, not a wholesale shift. I would use a systematic weeding method, checking circulation, curriculum alignment, accuracy, and condition. Health, science, technology, and geography titles are the most likely to be dangerously outdated; literature, history, and primary-source materials may remain useful.
Budget balance: I would protect print spending for pleasure reading, hi-lo and ELL materials, and subjects where e-book licenses are weak or expensive. Print also matters for students without reliable home internet or devices. I would shift some reference and periodical spending to databases, but not eliminate print reference without checking whether teachers assign it.
Process: produce a shelf-by-shelf plan, discard or replace the worst titles, and report the collection age profile to the principal. I would also check whether the e-book platform can fill curriculum gaps before canceling print subscriptions. The goal is a mixed collection with documented currency, not a symbolic move to digital.