FAC hears mixed views on ACME plan to phase out standalone developmental courses

Faculty Advisory Committee members and ACME co‑leads spent more than an hour debating whether Connecticut State Colleges and Universities should eliminate standalone developmental English and math courses and replace them with co‑requisite supports, bridge programs and high‑school partnerships.

ACME co‑lead James Chantille, a faculty member at CT State Manchester, said the policy goal remains to place more students directly into college‑level courses with concurrent support. “We know that we currently have, open enrollment institutions … and that is very important when you consider the varying levels of preparedness,” Chantille said, framing ACME as an attempt to increase access while addressing large equity gaps.

Why it matters: Committee members said the debate is not only pedagogical but also political and financial — the students most likely to be placed in developmental courses are disproportionately Black, Hispanic and part‑time, and many come from underfunded K–12 districts. Several FAC members warned that removing developmental courses without significant state resources, targeted bridge programs and professional development for faculty could push vulnerable students out of higher education.

Discussion highlights

- Placement, data and implementation noise. Stuart, the ACME math lead at CT State Middlesex, said math pathway and co‑requisite changes launched in fall 2023 but the “data…needs to be taken with a grain of salt” because placement practices and assessment differ across campuses. He said success‑rate analysis is unreliable until placement and assessment are uniform.

- Equity and student experience. Rashida Williams, English faculty and ACME co‑lead, said developmental course rigor varies across campuses and sometimes leaves students unprepared. “Some students are being set up to fail,” Williams said, arguing that if developmental courses continue they must be thoroughly revamped to prepare students for college‑level work.

- Support, resources and professional development. Multiple faculty said ACME can work only with smaller class sizes, more embedded tutoring, summer bridge programs that are free to students, and substantial professional development. Faculty repeatedly linked success to available resources rather than to a single curricular model.

- Math pedagogy and pathways. Stuart and other math faculty emphasized a shift from algorithmic drills to reasoning and active learning; ACME’s math pathway model includes quantitative reasoning, statistics and college algebra options to align courses to program needs.

- Students who are long out of school. Several speakers noted an often‑overlooked group: adult learners who have been out of school for a decade or more and may need different transitional supports than recent high‑school graduates.

Directions and follow‑up

- ACME leads said they have collected student survey data: “we have been surveying the CORAC students — we surveyed over 2,000 incoming students and a smaller end‑of‑semester sample of about 600,” Chantille said, and asked the committee for help getting instructors to administer surveys to raise response rates.

- FAC chair said she would circulate a list of follow‑up questions to ACME leads and requested written responses to specific implementation and data questions.

Decisions: No formal vote was taken. ACME co‑leads reiterated that the policy goal is phase‑in of co‑requisite placement or transitional/bridge programming prior to college entry; however, speakers repeatedly emphasized that many students will still need targeted transitional programs and that the system lacks resources to meet those needs now.

Context and background

ACME builds on prior work under Public Act 12‑40 to limit developmental sequences and expand embedded/co‑requisite models. Speakers recalled that intermediate algebra requirements were reduced and math pathways introduced; ACME’s proposals aim to expand those ideas systemwide while addressing campus variation and equity gaps. Committee members and faculty urged the state to fund transitional programs and the professional development needed to implement reforms systemwide.

Ending

FAC members asked ACME leads to provide more consistent, campus‑level placement and outcome data, higher survey response rates and an implementation plan that specifies resources, summer bridge design and partnerships with high schools. The committee agreed to continue the conversation and requested written follow‑up on the committee’s list of questions.