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.

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.