Overview
As part of the output validation phase of the Education Futures planning process, the Education Futures Planning Task Force deployed a campus feedback survey to gather structured input from faculty, classified professionals, and administrators on the draft plan. The survey was open from March 30 through April 18, 2026, and collected 40 responses. Results were used to inform final revisions to the plan prior to governance review.
Respondents
The 40 respondents represented all three primary employee groups at the college. Faculty comprised the largest share of respondents (70%), followed by administrators (13%) and classified professionals (18%). The survey was distributed through internal campus channels.
Equity & IDEA Assessment
Respondents were asked three Likert-scale questions about the plan's equity framing. Across all three questions, a strong majority agreed or strongly agreed that the plan addresses equity commitments (75%), positions IDEA as core to its purpose (85%), and locates responsibility for inequity in institutional systems rather than in students (80%). A small number of respondents selected Neutral or Disagree, and their qualitative comments called for greater specificity and more explicit naming of impacted communities.
Theme Ranking
Respondents ranked the five strategic capability themes in order of importance. Using a weighted scoring method (1st place = 5 points through 5th place = 1 point), the results were as follows:
| Rank | Strategic Capability Theme | Score | 1st Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Develop Flexible, Responsive Educational Models | 136 | 11 |
| #2 | Center and Build Human Connection in the Era of Advanced Technology | 128 | 14 |
| #3 | Strengthen Industry Partnerships and Workforce Alignment | 113 | 4 |
| #4 | Foster Interdisciplinary and Human-Centered Skills Learning | 111 | 4 |
| #5 | Expand Mission to Address Community Resilience and Basic Needs | 102 | 6 |
Theme #1 led by weighted score, while Theme #2 received the most first-place votes (14), underscoring its perceived urgency. Nearly half of all respondents (48%) identified Theme #2 as the single most urgent theme for MCC to address. Theme #5 was most frequently cited as the theme likely to face the biggest obstacles or require the longest on-ramp to achieve (30%).
Key Qualitative Findings
The survey's open-ended questions generated substantive qualitative feedback, which was coded thematically. The Education Futures Plan establishes strategic direction; it is not an implementation document. Several areas of feedback below, particularly those related to implementation specificity, accountability structures, and operational detail, are intentionally addressed not within the plan itself but through the Communities of Practice that will convene in academic year 2026-2027. These working groups will translate the plan's strategic commitments into concrete initiatives, timelines, and accountability measures. Where feedback informed direct revisions to the plan's language or framing, those changes have been incorporated into the final document. The five most frequently cited areas of feedback and the disposition of each area of feedback are summarized below.
- Implementation Specificity and Accountability
The most common concern across all respondent types. The plan's vision is strong, but respondents want clearer implementation frameworks, accountability structures, and financing details. (Addressed through Communities of Practice, AY 2026-2027) - Affirm In-Person Learning and Structured Flexibility
Experienced faculty cautioned that open entry/exit models can widen equity gaps; structured flexibility (shorter courses, scaffolded pacing) may better serve students. (Operational specifics to be addressed through Communities of Practice) - AI Ethics and Environmental Impact
Multiple faculty raised concerns about the tension between AI adoption and the plan's sustainability commitments, including AI's environmental footprint and intellectual property issues. (Acknowledged in plan; policy development addressed through Communities of Practice) - Workforce Focus vs. Whole-Person Education
Some respondents felt the plan tilts too heavily toward workforce readiness and should more strongly affirm humanistic education, faculty pedagogical expertise, and the college's role in cultivating critical thinkers and engaged citizens. (Incorporated into final plan language) - Name Communities and Systems of Inequity Explicitly
Respondents called for more explicit naming of impacted communities (Black, Latine, Native American, undocumented, and disabled students) and of specific systems of inequity, noting that in the current political climate, naming signals institutional commitment to protecting marginalized students. (Incorporated into final plan language)
Respondents also identified several areas of strength in the plan, including its equity imperative framing, the guiding IDEA principles (particularly the "with, not for" principle), the integration of equity across all five themes rather than as a standalone section, and the overall forward-looking ambition of the futures approach.
Community of Practice Interest
Twenty-two respondents (55%) expressed interest in participating in a Community of Practice. Interest was distributed relatively evenly across all five themes, with Theme #2 - Human Connection (10), Theme #1 - Flexible Models (9), Theme #3 - Interdisciplinary Skills (8), Theme #3 - Industry Partnerships (7), and Theme #5 - Community Resilience (6) all attracting participants. A roster of interested participants, including their contact information and preferred theme area(s), has been provided to the Education Futures Task Force to support outreach and convening.
