Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Acme Summit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ACME summit draws mixed faculty reactions; FAC calls for deeper follow‑up on developmental education
Summary
At an ACME summit attended by FAC members, participants largely urged revision of the ACME proposal rather than adoption as written. Faculty emphasized corequisite models, the need for funding and implementation detail, and concern that a broad scale‑up could push students into online pathways inappropriately.
FAC members who attended an ACME summit reported that the summit gathered feedback from faculty and other stakeholders and that most participants favored significant revision or replacement of the ACME proposal rather than adopting it unchanged.
The summit used structured activities (whiteboards and sticker voting) to solicit participant priorities; FAC members said a plurality of attendees favored substantial revision or replacement. Summit leaders — identified by FAC members as including James Gentile and Rashida Williams — presented findings and invited feedback. FAC members said summit organizers recorded suggestions and pledged to incorporate faculty feedback into the report the provost would deliver to the Board of Regents.
Faculty discussion at the FAC meeting focused on how developmental education should be handled. Several speakers supported the corequisite gateway approach (for example, ENGL 101 with support) as a way to boost student progress, while others warned that removing developmental courses altogether would harm students who need more instruction. FAC members stressed the need for better data on student throughput — including information about students who entered but did not persist — before approving large structural changes. Several participants urged that PA 12‑40 (the statute referenced in discussion) and its implementation remain a part of the conversation, noting that K‑12 alignment, funding and clear statutory compliance are needed for sustainable change.
Attendees raised concerns about implementation funding and operational details including staffing, technology, and the risk that incentives could push students toward fully online tracks unsuited to their needs. Some faculty noted successful local examples of gateway plus support models and urged broader investment in those approaches rather than wholesale modality shifts.
FAC agreed to reserve time at a future meeting to hear a fuller presentation by faculty involved in ACME and to request more disaggregated data on student outcomes and equity impacts before recommending systemwide structural changes.
