Advisory Committee for Textbook Specifications
Analysis of the Overweight Backpack Phenomena
(Updated Summer 2003)

Considerable attention has been given in the media recently to the problem of schoolchildren suffering back pain and potential spinal injury as the result of carrying around overloaded backpacks. Legislation has been passed in two states (California and Tennessee) that would impose limits on the weight of textbooks and at least seven other states have seen legislation introduced intended to address this problem (GA, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PA and SC).

Although the research on the subject of backpack-related injuries to students is fairly recent, there exist conflicting views as to the size and significance of the problem. Supporters of the need for limits on the weight of textbooks usually cite data collected by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from emergency rooms which found in 1999 "more than 3,400 pupils between 5 and 14 years of age sought treatment in hospital emergency rooms for injuries related to backpacks or book bags." According to the CPSC data, from 1994-2000, more than 23,000 youths, ages 6 to 18, were treated in emergency rooms for backpack-related injuries.

However, in a recent article entitled, "Acute Backpack Injuries in Children," in the January 2003 journal, Pediatrics (Vol. III, No.1 pp.163-166), a panel of medical researchers analyzed the CPSC data and found that only a small percentage of backpack injuries treated in emergency rooms are related to the weight of the backpack. According to this study, most backpack-related injuries were caused by "nonstandard" use of a backpack, including tripping over it or getting hit with one. The study found the most common backpack-related injury was tripping over the backpack (28%), followed by getting hit by the backpack (15%) and wearing it incorrectly (13%). Back injuries comprise only 11% of the injuries suffered by students, with head injuries the most common (22%).

This study raises serious doubts as to the health damages of wearing heavy backpacks. However, this study, as is the CPSC study, is limited to only emergency room data. No studies exist that examine the broader picture of student back injuries, so it is primarily anecdotal evidence and media coverage that has shaped this debate.

Doctors suggest a child’s backpack should not exceed 15 percent of the child’s weight. But the problem is not only the weight of the backpack, but also how it is carried. The American Chiropractic Association estimates about one-third of America’s schoolchildren carry their backpacks improperly slung over one shoulder instead of two, as backpacks are intended to be worn. Educating students, parents, and teachers on the proper way to carry a full backpack would do a lot to help eliminate a lot of backache and possible injury.

Because the weight of textbooks is often cited as a primary cause of backpacks being overweight, the National Association of State Textbook Administrators (NASTA), the Book Manufactures Institute (BMI), and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) have been looking into possible ways to make textbooks lighter.

These three organizations constitute an organization known as The Advisory Committee on Textbook Specifications (ACTS). ACTS has, for 60 years, been the body responsible for developing the standards and specifications to which all textbooks, widely used in this country, are manufactured. These standards are set forth in a publication entitled, "Manufacturing Standards and Specifications for Textbooks," commonly referred to as the MSST.

Because textbooks are subjected to considerable "wear and tear" during their daily use and are typically replaced only every six years on average, they must be manufactured to high standards of durability.

In the winter of 2001, ACTS began looking into what are the causes of this relatively recent "overweight backpack" phenomena and possible solutions to this problem. After hearing from a variety of experts it became clear that the overweight backpack problem is a result of multiple factors, many of which are not related to the weight of textbooks. But since ACTS does establish the manufacturing standards for textbooks, the first issue it examined was whether it could modify those standards in such a way as to help reduce the weight of textbooks.

It found that yes, paper weight could be reduced from the minimum of 45-pound paper for most textbooks, to a lighter weight, and the MSST could allow soft covers instead of the hard covering now required. However, either or even both of these changes would have resulted in only a marginal reduction in the weight of a 700-page textbook. The downside of reducing these manufacturing requirements would be a reduction in the durability of textbooks. Less durable books mean they must be replaced more often, perhaps annually, and this would result in a significantly increased cost to school systems. Thus, ACTS did not feel the marginal reduction in the weight could justify the increased cost and thus did not recommend changing the MSST standards.

At the ACTS summer meeting in July 2003 the Committee was asked to look into a new type of cover material, which could significantly reduce the weight of textbook covers without any loss in durability. Tests will begin immediately by the BMI representatives to confirm whether or not this material would be suitable for classroom use. In addition, the Technical Director of ACTS was instructed to go through the MSST and identify any areas that could be modified to help reduce the weight of textbooks. It is hoped the results of both of these investigations will be completed by the end of this year (2003) so that changes to the MMST (if warranted) could be made in early 2004.

For example, most textbooks are made with 45 lb. paper. Moving to a 40 lb. sheet can reduce textbook weight by 12% depending on the type of cover stock used. Currently the MSST allows for use of 40 lb. paper in certain circumstances and perhaps there can be greater use without any loss in durability of the instructional materials.

The problem, however, is not that a single textbook weighs too much. While it is true textbooks have gotten larger and heavier over the last decade, not one single complaint, nor expert, was found who claimed a child can be harmed by carrying a single textbook or even two. The problem of overweight backpacks is the result of a child carrying most, if not all, of their textbooks, as well as a multitude of other items ranging from extra clothing, makeup, lunch, and CD players in their backpacks, all at the same time.

The two main reasons why schoolchildren today are carrying around heavy backpacks relate to lockers.

One simple way to help reduce the size and weight of backpacks is to provide all students with lockers and enough time between classes so they can use them. But lockers can cost up to $150 each and require considerable maintenance, so this solution is not without cost.

Two other causes of this problem relate to increased academic and curricula standards adopted by all states during the last decade. It is a common misperception that textbook publishers determine the content of the instructional materials they publish. Thus, it is sometimes asked why publishers just can’t produce a textbook that covers less content and therefore is lighter weight. The reality is, textbook content is dictated by the state or local school system that purchases the books, not the publishers.

A publisher who wants their materials adopted for use in a state must first make sure its materials have covered all the state’s academic and curriculum standards. Some critics complain about textbook content being "a mile wide and an inch deep." So the problem is not that publishers are covering curricula more than necessary. Thus, one potential way to reduce the size and weight of textbooks is to reduce the scope and range of the various state curricula standards.

This decision is well beyond the control of NASTA, BMI or AAP members, and is not one any of these organization is advocating. However, it could reduce the size and weight of textbooks without increasing their costs.

Because of increased emphasis on improving the quality of education, as well as greater accountability on teachers and schools for achieving this goal, there has been an increased emphasis on homework during the last few years. More teachers giving more homework requires more students to carry most, if not all, their textbooks to and from school on a regular basis. While students would no doubt like less homework, and it could give some relief to the heavy backpack problem, it may not be a good education policy.

Another innovative idea to solve this problem is book bags on wheels, much like suitcases with wheels that are in widespread use today by travelers worldwide. This concept allows students to transport their textbooks and other belongings with little or no risk of back injury. These products are currently available at modest cost, about equal to a regular backpack. Ironically, some schools are "prohibiting" students from using wheeled book bags inside the school building. Reasons given for this go from safety risks (students tripping over them, which from the CPCS data they are already doing any way with over-the-shoulder backpacks), to not wanting to scratch the paint in the hallway. Another factor is that some students don’t think book bags with rollers are "cool" and like improperly carrying the backpack on one shoulder, they would rather be "cool" than safe.

Electronic delivery of education content was another option explored. Certainly, at some point in the future, delivery of instructional content on a CD ROM, in an E-book or via the Internet will substantially reduce, if not eliminate, the need for students to carry around printed textbooks. Today, all the major publishers are developing various ways of delivering materials in a digital format. What makes this option not a viable solution for the foreseeable future is the absence of the hardware available to every student needing access to this digital content. Nationwide, schools average only one computer for every five students. Millions of students do not have computers or access to the Internet at home. E-books and other portable reading devices exist, but are still prohibitively expensive. Until the "digital divide" can be completely eliminated, there are major equity problems in relying on electronic delivery of content. As promising as technology is, our nation is years away from replacing the printed textbook as the primary educational tool in our classrooms.

What, if anything, can be done with printed textbooks to help address the overweight backpack problem? There are two options that have emerged, dividing books into multiple volumes, or purchasing classroom sets of textbooks, in addition to students having a book they can keep at home.

Dividing a 750-page textbook into two volumes results in an increased cost of production. Break the same book into three volumes and the additional cost is even higher.

A typical 750-page textbook, costing $50.00, divided into two volumes, could cost $5 to $8 dollars more. This is a ten to fifteen percent increase in the cost for exactly the same quantity of content.

In addition to costing more, there are increased logistical problems. There are twice as many books that must be processed, and this results in increased time and labor cost on the school systems, as well as the publishers.

Finally, not all teachers use the materials in the order printed in the textbook. For example, if a history teacher wants to cover materials in chapters three and seven, and those chapters happen to be in different volumes, then the student must take both books to class or home, thus compounding rather than solving the problem.

For these reasons, when publishers have tried to produce multiple-volume materials, they have generally not been well received by the marketplace.

The last option is to purchase a classroom set of books, in addition to each student having a book they keep at home. This option has been the choice of many school districts as the least costly way to address the problem of children carrying overweight backpacks. The only downside of this solution is that it does result in some higher costs, but not as much as one might initially suppose.

Under this scenario, each student is given a textbook for each subject, which they keep at home. The school then purchases a set of books that are kept in the classroom. The students don’t have to carry their textbooks to or from school, nor even carry them from one classroom to the next or back to their lockers. For example, an eighth grade math class has, six classes per day and each class averages thirty students. The school buys one hundred-eighty math books (one for each student), then thirty more to keep in the classroom. If the math book cost $50, the increased cost for purchasing a classroom set is $1500 or a 16% increase.

However, because the books are not carried around all day, there is less wear and tear, few get lost and thus replacement cost diminishes dramatically, reducing the net cost increase to 10% or less.

One of the academic benefits of the dual set approach is that it eliminates one of the most common excuses for not doing homework - "I forgot my book."

The last option, which occasionally is mentioned, is reducing the size of textbooks by eliminating much of their graphic content. Implicit in this suggestion is an assumption that photographs, drawings, charts and graphs are extraneous to the learning process and thus can be eliminated or substantially reduced without reducing the educational value of the written text.

But research into how the brain works and how a child learns shows the clear value of using visuals to supplement, and in some instances replace, the written word.

Not all children learn the same way; some learn best from reading the written words, and others learn best from seeing a graph or visual depiction. Most children benefit from a combination of both written words and visuals.

One of the biggest challenges facing teachers, parents, and educational publishers, is getting and keeping students interest in the content they need to learn. Thus, making textbooks visually interesting and appealing helps to engage students and increases the likelihood they will actually read the information, ideas, and other intellectual content contained in a well-designed textbook. Reducing textbooks to all or mostly printed words would be about as interesting and engaging as reading a telephone directory, and would do great harm to their educational value.

In conclusion, there is no single perfect solution for solving the "overweight backpack" problem. While there are numerous potential solutions, none is a perfect "no cost" solution. Options like lockers, multi-volumes or classroom sets, will cost more money, and in today’s tight budget situation, the trend is for cutting funding for education, not increasing it. So where will these additional funds come from?

Options like reducing the size and scope of academic and curricula standards or cutting back on homework don’t cost dollars but certainly may have "academic cost" associated with them.

If additional dollars can be found to buy a set of textbooks for the classroom, in addition to buying one for each student to keep at home, this seems to be the most workable solution until such time as electronic delivery becomes a viable option.

As this report demonstrates, even if one assumes there is a problem of overweight backpacks, this is a complex situation, which does not lend itself to a simple solution. All the potential solutions involved increased costs to the taxpayers who pay for textbooks in our nation’s public schools. At this time, neither California nor Tennessee has implemented the legislative mandate to reduce the weight of textbooks. But there exists a very real possibility that states could elect different if not conflicting standards. Many states electing different manufacturing or weight standards would be a major problem for publishers and book manufacturers, and is exactly the kind of problem which 60 years ago led to the creation ACTS to solve.