[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-80]
BEYOND SERVICE CORE COMPETENCY:
ARE OUR JUNIOR OFFICERS PREPARED
FOR TODAY'S SECURITY ENVIRONMENT?
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JULY 15, 2009
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-209 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM COOPER, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
GLENN NYE, Virginia DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
Anne Miles, Professional Staff Member
Thomas Hawley, Professional Staff Member
Trey Howard, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2009
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, July 15, 2009, Beyond Service Core Competency: Are Our
Junior Officers Prepared for Today's Security Environment?..... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, July 15, 2009......................................... 37
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2009
BEYOND SERVICE CORE COMPETENCY: ARE OUR JUNIOR OFFICERS PREPARED FOR
TODAY'S SECURITY ENVIRONMENT?
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman,
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee...................... 1
Wittman, Hon. Rob, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking
Member, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.............. 12
WITNESSES
Beaudreault, Col. Brian D., USMC, Director, U.S. Marine Corps
Expeditionary Warfare School................................... 10
Born, Brig. Gen. Dana H., USAF, Dean of the Faculty, U.S. Air
Force Academy.................................................. 2
Finnegan, Brig. Gen. Patrick, USA, Dean of the Academic Board,
U.S. Military Academy.......................................... 4
Klunder, Capt. Matthew L., USN, Commandant of Midshipmen, U.S.
Naval Academy.................................................. 6
Tanous, Col. Steve, USAF, Commandant, U.S. Air Force Squadron
Officer College................................................ 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Beaudreault, Col. Brian D.................................... 84
Born, Brig. Gen. Dana H...................................... 46
Finnegan, Brig. Gen. Patrick................................. 56
Klunder, Capt. Matthew L..................................... 63
Snyder, Hon. Vic............................................. 41
Tanous, Col. Steve........................................... 75
Wittman, Hon. Rob............................................ 43
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Dr. Snyder................................................... 105
BEYOND SERVICE CORE COMPETENCY: ARE OUR JUNIOR OFFICERS PREPARED FOR
TODAY'S SECURITY ENVIRONMENT?
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 15, 2009.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
Dr. Snyder. Hearing will come to order.
Mr. Wittman was just finishing a speech on the floor of the
House and should be with us momentarily as we go ahead and
start.
Good afternoon. Welcome to the fourth in a series of
hearings on officer in-residence Professional Military
Education, known as PME. We have already heard at this
subcommittee from the senior-level and intermediate-level
schools. Now it is time for the primary-level schools--the
Army, Navy, and Air Force academies.
The Skelton Panel 20 years ago recognized that the early
part of an officer's career focuses on the tactical realm and
what the services call core competencies, meaning the skill-
sets required by a particular warfare specialty. However, it is
increasingly apparent, that officer is required to operate in
joint interagency, intergovernmental and multinational
environments earlier in their careers.
Are officers ready for this new operational reality? What
knowledge is truly necessary? At what level should we consider
these skills as part of and not separate from core
competencies? Do we need to redefine service core competencies
according to the new national security environment?
And we are also interested in the other themes of our
earlier hearings relative to this developmental level,
foundations for strategy, particularly through the study of
history, language skills and cultural competency, and hybrid
warfare.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the
Appendix on page 41.]
Dr. Snyder. When Mr. Wittman arrives, we will give him a
chance to make any comments he wants to make. Our witnesses
today are Brigadier General Dana Born, Dean of the Faculty of
the U.S. Air Force Academy, Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan,
Dean of the Academic Board, U.S. Military Academy, Rear Admiral
(Select) Matthew--is it Klunder?
Captain Klunder. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Snyder. Klunder, Commandant of Midshipmen, U.S. Naval
Academy, Colonel Steve Tanous, Commandant U.S. Air Force
Squadron Officer College, Colonel Brian Beaudreault, Director
of the U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Warfare School.
We appreciate you all being with us here today. As we get
further and further into this topic, the more interested we get
in it and also the more importance we are putting on this look
at it. It has been some time since the Congress, I think in
either body, has taken a look in some depth at the issue of
professional military education and your presence here is very
helpful.
Your written statements will be part of the formal record
of the committee and we will put the clock on there that will
fire up a red flare at five minutes, but if you still have
things to tell us, you tell us and we will begin--well, we are
joined by Mr. Skelton, chairman of the full committee.
Mr. Chairman, do you have any comments, do you have any
comments you want to make?
The Chairman. No, sir.
Dr. Snyder. Okay. We were just going to go to our faculty.
Are we going to begin with General Born and go down the row?
Mr. Wittman. Yes.
Dr. Snyder. General Born, why don't you go ahead and tell
us what you have to say.
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. DANA H. BORN, USAF, DEAN OF THE
FACULTY, U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY
General Born. Thank you very much.
Chairman Snyder, Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member Wittman,
when he arrives, and our distinguished members of the Oversight
and Investigations subcommittee, on behalf of Lieutenant
General Mike Gould, our superintendant, Brigadier General Sam
Cox and myself, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to address how we prepare our cadets and future officers for
the challenges they will face in today's national security
environment.
We think it is important that our services continually
assess how well we prepare our service members for the
challenging roles they must play in serving our Nation, and we
appreciate the efforts of this committee to help us meet our
current and our future requirements.
Our mission at the Air Force Academy is to educate, train
and inspire men and women to become officers of character
motivated to lead the United States Air Force in service to our
Nation.
We designed our program to meet the developmental needs of
young officers in the current national security environment and
provide the foundation to grow into future strategic thinkers
and leaders through a broad spectrum of academic, athletic,
military, and character education and training opportunities.
Our four-year program focuses on achieving developmental
outcomes that imbue our graduates with societal, professional,
and individual responsibilities and empowers them with an
integrated set of intellectual and warrior skills and
establishes a foundation of knowledge essential to the
profession of arms.
Our curriculum is acknowledged as among the best in the
Nation. The U.S. News and World Report ranked us the best in
the west for two years in a row in the baccalaureate degree
category.
We were recently recommended for a maximum national
accreditation of 10 years by the Higher Learning Commission and
our graduates continue to earn numerous national competitive
scholarships and today 52 percent of the general officers in
our Air Force are Air Force Academy graduates.
Our faculty and staff are exceptionally well-qualified and
well-prepared. We have a teaching staff of 525 of about 30
percent which are civilian faculty. Over 50 percent of our
faculty members hold Ph.D.'s or terminal degrees in their
field.
Our faculty also includes 6 endowed chairs, 7 distinguished
visiting professors, 8 international officers and 12 sister
exchange officers. We also have interagency scholars and
residents from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the
National Security Agency (NSA), Department of Homeland Security
and the State Department.
Maintaining a high caliber of personnel presents many
challenges, particularly in attracting and maintaining the
right mix of military faculty due to the competition with the
operational needs of our Air Force.
In particular, shortages of rated officers, scientists and
engineers across the Air Force make it harder for us to keep
these specialties at desired levels. Another challenge is just
the sheer workload in delivering our diverse curriculum. A
recent manpower study validated the need for us to increase the
faculty and staff by 21 percent to meet our current mission
requirements.
However, because it is unlikely that we will obtain the
required funding, we anticipate this manning shortfall will
continue.
Our academic curriculum comprises 147 semester-hours of
instruction with a balanced coverage of social sciences,
humanities, basic sciences, and engineering. Several courses
from the academic core curriculum focus directly on the areas
of strategy, military history, irregular warfare, interagency,
and multicultural operations as well as language and culture
and they continually are updated to reflect emerging issues and
ideas.
Outside the core curriculum, many classes and courses and
programs further develop strategic skills or the special topics
that I just listed. This year, more than 600 cadets
participated in language and cultural immersion programs and
military exchanges with over 40 countries. Summer training
sends cadets to operational Air Force base and sister service
training opportunities as well.
We also have cadet-centered research programs in the fields
of space operations, unmanned aerial systems and computer
network defense.
We recognize that while the Air Force Academy is only the
start of the process in developing the next generation of
strategic leaders for our Air Force, we provide critical
foundation, however, for these careers.
We also believe that as junior leaders in the military, our
graduates must be able to translate the big ideas of leaders
into operational reality. Thus, we must develop the necessary
competencies as early as possible in an officer's career.
We are proud of our team effort at the Air Force Academy to
provide a nation with the best and brightest new officers and
leaders of character with the knowledge, skills, and
responsibilities to lead our future Air Force.
We thank you very much for this opportunity to share our
programs and our ideas with you today. We share your vision,
focus, passion for orienting our program towards the joint,
interagency, coalition national security environment of the
21st century with the curriculum course of instruction and
rigor to achieve Congressman Skelton and this committee's
vision.
I look forward to answering your questions as we explore
this issue further. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of General Born can be found in the
Appendix on page 46.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, General.
General Finnegan.
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. PATRICK FINNEGAN, USA, DEAN OF THE
ACADEMIC BOARD, U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY
General Finnegan. Chairman Snyder, Chairman Skelton, good
afternoon.
I am Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, Dean of the
Academic Board at the United States Military Academy at West
Point. I graduated from West Point in 1971 and served around
the world for 27 years as an infantry officer and as a military
intelligence officer and finally as a judge advocate, including
in 3 joint assignments before returning to my alma mater in
1998 as the staff judge advocate.
One year later, I became the professor and head of the
department of law, where I served for six years before being
selected as the dean, a position I have been privileged to hold
for the last four years.
On behalf of our superintendant, Lieutenant General Buster
Hagenbeck, and our commandant, Brigadier General Mike
Linnington, and our entire staff and faculty, we appreciate the
opportunity to share with this subcommittee how West Point, the
country's premier leader development institution, continues to
produce smart, highly-adaptive leaders of character who are
capable of succeeding in today's increasingly complex and
difficult operational environments.
We are incredibly proud of our institution and the many
achievements of our staff, faculty, and graduates, but we also
recognize the importance of continual reassessment and honest
feedback. To that end, we appreciate this subcommittee's
efforts in helping our program to evolve in ways that best meet
the changing needs of our Army and our Nation.
The 47-month West Point experience begins and ends with our
mission: to educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so
that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character
committed to the values of duty, honor, country, and prepared
for a career of professional excellence and service to the
Nation as an officer in the United States Army.
A way to capture what we try to do comes from one of my
favorite quotes attributed to the Greek historian Thucydides:
``The nation that makes a great distinction between its
scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by
cowards and its fighting done by fools.''
We are producing----
The Chairman. Let me interrupt. I think that was Sir
Francis Butler that said that.
General Finnegan. Yes, sir.
General Born. William Francis Butler.
General Finnegan. Sir, yes, sir. Although, if you Google
it, sir, it does say Thucydides, which is interesting.
[Laughter.]
We are producing scholar-warriors who are comfortable
facing both the tactical and intellectual challenges our
leaders face in the current environment. The richness and
breadth of the West Point education combines world-class
academics with a rigorous military, physical, moral, and
ethical program.
We introduce cadets to a broad range of subjects while
familiarizing them with the experiences that ultimately prepare
them to successfully engage a diverse set of issues throughout
their military careers.
Our program is repeatedly recognized, both nationally and
internationally, as a top-tier college and preeminent leader
development institution. We are currently ranked as the best
public college in America by Forbes.com and the best public
liberal arts college by U.S. News and World Report.
Over the past year, West Point cadets earned an
extraordinary number of national scholarships from Rhodes and
Truman to 10 Rotary International scholarships, and beyond the
Academy, West Point graduates continually replicate this kind
of success.
Our academic program includes 45 majors. Our graduates
complete 30 core courses in an average of 147 semester-hours
worth of course work. Those courses provide cadets with
extensive coverage across the spectrum of disciplines such as
mathematics and natural science, engineering, history,
literature, foreign languages, behavioral science, geography
and military science.
We have taken a leading role in promoting opportunities to
foster cross-cultural and language competencies in our cadets
by offering instruction in eight languages, including the most
recent Farsi, and sponsoring an active semester abroad exchange
program involving 150 cadets each year.
The core of our success as a top-tier college lies not only
in the diversity of curriculum but in the cadets' access to an
equally diverse blend of faculty. We believe that our mix of
civilian faculty, rotating military, and permanent military
faculty provides an outstanding education as well as role
models and mentors of professionalism and the values we adhere
to as an institution and an Army.
Our faculty members, both civilian and military, work to
foster close relationships with the Army and other
organizations that are tied to current operations, priorities,
and analytical needs. We find these interactions not only
bolster the currency and relevancy of our faculty but also help
to better focus our curriculum in light of the ever-changing
demands our graduates will eventually face.
We currently have faculty members from the Department of
State, CIA, NSA, the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
and the Geographical Information Service.
When it comes to developing strategic thinkers, West Point
is invested in how cadets learn to become independent thinkers.
The strategic particulars they face in the future will come
with time and experience. Learning how to think about the moral
and ethical challenges of the current operational environment
are foundational skills that we most highly value.
In the final analysis, the number of Rhodes Scholars or
national rankings by outside organizations do not matter nearly
as much as what our graduates accomplish in defense of our
Nation. The best measure of our success is the performance of
our graduates and what they are trained and educated to do.
And from Second Lieutenant Brian Jackson, class of 2005,
who earned the Distinguished Service Medal, to Generals
Odierno, McChrystal, and Petraeus, to the more than 60
graduates, men and women, who have given their lives in the
defense of freedom in the current fight, we are confident that
we are accomplishing our mission and producing the scholar-
warriors our country requires of its oldest military academy.
West Point is proud of the diverse education opportunities
and leader development effort it affords each graduating class,
and our efforts to maintain the exceptional quality of the
overall West Point education. We will continue to adjust our
curriculum so that it meets the needs of our Nation and the
increasingly difficult challenges our graduates will face in
their future service.
Our discussion here today is one of the critical steps in
that process.
Thank you for providing me this opportunity to share our
perspective with you, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of General Finnegan can be found in
the Appendix on page 56.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Captain Klunder.
STATEMENT OF CAPT. MATTHEW L. KLUNDER, USN, COMMANDANT OF
MIDSHIPMEN, U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY
Captain Klunder. Yes, good afternoon, Chairman Skelton,
Chairman Snyder, and other distinguished ladies and gentlemen
of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations.
I am Captain Matthew Klunder, the 83rd Commandant of the
United States Naval Academy. And I thank you for the
opportunity to speak today about the mission of the Naval
Academy and, more specifically, how we prepare midshipmen to
become officers ready to meet the demands of a country at war
or at peace, and ready to face the challenges of an
increasingly interdependent and dynamic world both today and in
the future.
The mission of the Naval Academy is to develop midshipmen
morally, mentally, and physically and to imbue them with the
highest ideals of duty, honor, and loyalty in order to graduate
leaders who are dedicated to a career of Naval service and a
potential for future development in mind and character to
assume the highest responsibility of command, citizenship, and
government.
The essential purpose of the Naval Academy is to grow,
shape, and motivate junior-officer leaders for the Navy and
Marine Corps. And the emphasis is in our three primary focus
areas, the moral, mental, and physical development of our
midshipmen.
All three of our programs are complimentary and fully
integrated throughout the institution. The Naval Academy
combines character development, undergraduate education, and
professional training to provide officers that are selfless,
inspirational, proficient, innovative, articulate, adaptable,
and professional.
As we further discuss our Naval Academy graduates, I have
been asked to comment, among other things, on our curriculum
and the balance between academic and military requirements. Let
me first touch on our world-class faculty.
Our 550-member faculty is an integrated group of officers
and civilians in nearly equal numbers. This composition is
unique among service academies. Currently, officers rotate to
the Academy for two- to three-year assignments, bringing not
only fresh ideas and experiences from operational units of Navy
and Marine Corps but their joint and interagency experiences as
well.
The Academy's civilian faculty members give continuity to
the educational program and virtually all have doctoral degrees
with many of them leading scholars in their fields. The Naval
Academy academic curriculum develops the intellectual
foundation for the professional competence essential to
leadership in the Naval service.
In accordance with Secretary of the Navy guidance, we have
coupled a strong core technical foundation in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics with studies in
humanities, social sciences, leadership, professional military
training, and character development to ensure that every
midshipman is well-prepared as a junior officer.
In our division leadership education and development, we
provide midshipmen with an integrated and comprehensive program
in leadership, ethics, character and law and the opportunity to
study specialized electives in these fields.
In our division professional development, midshipmen are
allowed to develop professionally by immersion into Naval
culture, on land and at sea, with emphasis on building personal
confidence through professional mariner skills and warfare
community exposure.
A character development and training division is tasked
with the development of leadership and character attributes for
midshipmen outside the normal academic environment. This
integrated character and leadership development program is the
single most important feature that distinguishes the Naval
Academy from other educational institutions and other
commissioning sources.
Recent geopolitical developments, beginning with the end of
the Cold War, but more evident since 9/11, have also
highlighted the growing need for Naval leaders to acquire
greater knowledge about the history, culture, civilization,
languages, and religions of geographic regions with strategic
importance to the United States.
The Naval Academy has adopted a differentiated approach to
achieving this goal by one, providing small numbers of
midshipmen with extensive in-country study abroad programs,
two, affording larger groups of midshipmen a significant
foreign language and professional immersion programs and,
three, affording all our remaining midshipmen enhanced
opportunities to acquire greater cultural knowledge through
outstanding elective courses and visiting international
experts.
In addition to our longstanding tradition of exchanging
cadets and midshipmen between the service academies, we also
have 53 international 4-year exchange midshipmen from 28
different nations along with 21 semester exchange midshipmen
from several foreign military academies enrolled at the Naval
Academy, all of which contributes significantly to the
Brigade's regional and cultural awareness.
Allow me today to conclude by referring back to the main
focus of our Naval Academy mission, to develop midshipmen
morally, mentally, and physically. The challenge of our mission
is to maintain a very delicate balance between the moral,
mental, and physical aspects of our curriculum and to ensure
that we continue to graduate leaders that are prepared to lead
sailors and marines immediately upon graduation.
I observe our midshipmen on a daily basis, and I am
convinced that we are succeeding and achieving that correct
balance for their limited time.
I hope that I was able to provide some insights into our
institution's professional military education and how it
touches every aspect of midshipmen development, training, and
education at the United States Naval Academy.
On behalf of the students, the faculty, the superintendent,
Admiral Fowler, and the staff at the Naval Academy, we thank
you for your continued support within Congress and your
commitment to the development of our Navy and Marine Corps
future leaders.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Captain Klunder can be found in
the Appendix on page 63.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Captain.
We have been joined by Mr. Wittman, and he has asked us to
proceed with your statements.
So, Colonel Tanous.
STATEMENT OF COL. STEVE TANOUS, USAF, COMMANDANT, U.S. AIR
FORCE SQUADRON OFFICER COLLEGE
Colonel Tanous. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Snyder, Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member Wittman,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
appear and testify about Squadron Officer College (SOC). I am
honored to discuss with you the important role the Squadron
Officer College plays in the professional development of the
Air Force's most important resource, its people.
Squadron Officer College is located at Maxwell Air Force
Base, Alabama, as the Air Force's educational institution
committed to developing company-grade officers. Squadron
Officer College is comprised of two schools, the Air and Space
Basic Course (ASBC) for second lieutenants and Squadron Officer
School (SOS) for our junior captains.
The college's curriculum is based on educational
requirements established by a number of sources. Principal
among them is the Joint Staff's Officer Professional Military
Education Policy, the Air Force Institutional Competency List,
the Air University Continuum of Education, and Strategic
Guidance.
Combined, Squadron Officer College responds to over 140
separate learning requirements with an eye towards achieving
its vision for the future. That vision is for the college to
become the premier leadership development institution in the
Air Force.
We are building towards that vision by executing our
mission, which is to develop company-grade officers as leaders
of integrity ready to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and
cyberspace.
The college achieves mission success through its two
schools and the numerous educational initiatives underway, and
I will describe each of those briefly.
The Air and Space Basic Course is the newer of the two
schools, launched just a decade ago. It is a 6-week resident
program that is conducted 10 times a year. Two weeks of the
course provide hands-on instruction in skills specifically
related to operations in an expeditionary environment.
Specially qualified, enlisted and officers train the
students who then execute what they have learned at two
simulated deployment locations. One, a small tent city on the
base, another at a 200-plus-acre remote site located about 30
miles from Maxwell.
In addition, students spend a week building a working
knowledge of officer-enlisted relationships through interaction
with students from our Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy.
They also receive three weeks of classroom instruction in the
profession of arms and Air Force doctrine.
The Air Force goal is 100 percent attendance of its line of
the Air Force officers to attend the school. Between 3,200 and
3,500 Air Force active-duty, reserve and National Guard
officers attend the school each year. The Air and Space Basic
Course graduated its 30,000th student last month.
The school represents the Air Force's investment in today's
junior officers who will become tomorrow's air, space, and
cyberspace power leaders. The Air and Space Basic Course is a
crucial first step in the professional military education of
Air Force officers.
The next step in that professional development is the
college's second educational program, Squadron Officer School.
Squadron Officer School is unquestionably a leadership school.
The resident program is five weeks long and employs a wide
variety of academic and experiential offerings.
A typical class consists of some 420 Air Force active-duty,
Guard and reserve officers as well as a handful of rank-
equivalent Air Force civilians. In addition, three of the seven
classes each year host some 40 international officers from
partner nations that enroll their captain-equivalents in the
course.
The students also benefit significantly from interaction
with others who have different specialties, experiences, and
perspectives. Relationships that result are a major positive
consequence of the program.
The Air Force goal is for 80 percent of the line of the Air
Force officers to attend Squadron Officer School, and a
distance learning version is available for those unable to
attend in residence. Squadron Officer School is an innovator in
professional military education and is key to the college
realizing its vision as a leadership center of excellence.
This year, we began an effort to enhance its curriculum.
Its efforts sparked interest from its academic counterparts
across the country, including the University of Texas and
Michigan State and Kansas State Universities.
An Air Force officer will remain at the company-grade level
for roughly nine years. In recognition of today's complex
national security environment, the Air Force is committed to
additional development opportunities in order to match the
increasing responsibilities and challenges they will face
during that period.
As a result, the college has designed five targeted
voluntary developmental distance learning offerings
collectively known as the Company Grade Officer Leadership
Program. The first course was offered in March of 2009 and the
rest will launch later this year.
With an annual faculty turnover rate of roughly 1/3, the
college must also make a robust investment in its faculty
education and training in order to achieve the high standards
it has set for instruction. We have designed a robust faculty
development program that spans recruitment, orientation,
initial training, and in-service sessions throughout a faculty
member's tenure. Combined, these efforts produce our top-notch
faculty.
Squadron Officer College has a critical mission. It is
solely responsible for the professional development of the
entire Air Force company-grade officer corps. We are
accomplishing our mission through an array of programs and
initiatives that ensure rewarding developmental experiences for
our students.
I am justifiably proud of my people. Their drive and
innovation underscore their commitment to the college's mission
and to their students. The students' comments say it all.
Squadron Officer College is on the right path to reach its goal
of becoming the Air Force's premier leadership development
institution.
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify and talk
about Squadron Officer College and welcome your comments and
questions.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Tanous can be found in
the Appendix on page 75.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Colonel Beaudreault.
STATEMENT OF COL. BRIAN D. BEAUDREAULT, USMC, DIRECTOR, U.S.
MARINE CORPS EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE SCHOOL
Colonel Beaudreault. Good afternoon Chairman Skelton,
Chairman Snyder, Ranking Member Wittman, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee.
I greatly appreciate this opportunity to address the
subcommittee in order to discuss the accomplishments of your
Marine Corps Expeditionary Warfare School (EWS) located at
Quantico, Virginia.
Since 1921, the Marine Corps resident career-level
education and training program has consistently adapted,
anticipated, and effectively prepared its graduates to meet the
complex challenges of the operating environments to which they
were dispatched.
Today's Expeditionary Warfare School is the product of a
2002 merger between two Quantico-based career-level courses,
the Amphibious Warfare School (AWS) and the Command and Control
Systems Course (C2SC). That brilliant merger extracted the best
of both courses; the command and control emphasis, or the C2
Systems Course, and the detailed instruction on expeditionary
operations taught at Amphibious Warfare School.
EWS's 9\1/2\-month curriculum provides Marine, sister
service and international captains career-level professional
military education in command and control, planning, Naval
expeditionary operations, employment of the Marine Air-Ground
Task Force (MAGTF) ashore, operational culture, professional
communications, leadership and ethics, and 8 weeks of hands-on
occupational field expansion training.
Throughout the curriculum, an emphasis is placed on
decision-making, the employment of combined arms, and maneuver
warfare doctrine. The curriculum contains approximately 80
percent academic education and 20 percent dedicated to
training.
The Marine Corps University (MCU) provides oversight of the
curriculum through its curriculum review board process.
EWS challenges the students to think critically. In fact,
it is the first academic class on day one. The curriculum
provides them with a firm doctrinal foundation augmented with
outside readings, guest speakers, the exchange of experiences,
and reinforced with extensive practical application and
planning exercises.
The program outcomes for EWS include the ability for a
graduate to clearly express ideas in a well-reasoned manner
that stems from a disciplined thought process. They will be
able to integrate the capabilities of each of the four elements
of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force, plan and execute Naval
Expeditionary operations, integrate the six warfighting
functions with consideration to the principles of war, maneuver
warfare doctrine, and cultural factors.
They will be prepared to command a company or operate as a
technically proficient staff officer within their element of
the MAGTF. They will know how to lead subordinates within a
framework of ethical values.
At a fundamental level, they will understand joint
operations; coalition operations; the formation, organization,
and purposes of a joint task force; and coordination with
interagency and nongovernmental organizations.
The EWS faculty consists of 15 faculty advisors in the
grade of major and three division heads in the grade of
lieutenant colonel or commander. One hundred percent of the
faculty advisors and division heads are highly experienced
combat veterans with great appropriate command and staff
experience. Seven hold master's degrees from command and staff
colleges while two more hold master's degrees from civilian
universities.
An EWS instructor position is considered a premier and
upwardly mobile billet for a Marine Corps major with many
generals having once served on the faculty and staff. The
Marine Corps University faculty supports EWS with academic
chairs, scholars, and subject matter experts in the fields of
culture, the Middle East, insurgency, terrorism, intelligence,
leadership and ethics, historical case studies, interagency
coordination, and our own faculty education.
Two hundred and forty-two officers will attend the resident
EWS program in academic year 2010, which includes 190 marines,
22 soldiers, 6 airmen, 2 sailors and 22 international officers
from 21 countries. Two hundred and thirty-seven officers
graduated in May 2009, 191 of them, including our international
officers, were Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF) combat veterans.
I anticipate that the student body for next month's
incoming class will be similarly experienced.
EWS has a very powerful curriculum that for career-level
officers is unique in the Department of Defense. A common
misperception is that EWS is a school for captains. In reality,
EWS is a school with a student body of captains who are
preparing to be majors and beyond.
As the first step in the Marine Corps University's PME
continuum, EWS provides a solid foundation for the intellectual
and professional growth of our officers. Your Expeditionary
Warfare School is a national treasure, one whose modest
budgetary requirements provide the Nation an exponential return
through the increased effectiveness of the career-level leaders
that serve in our armed forces.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a chance to speak with you
today. I welcome the subcommittee's questions. Semper Fidelis.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Beaudreault can be found
in the Appendix on page 84.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you all.
Before we begin our questioning, Mr. Wittman, I wanted to
give you a chance for any opening comments that you want to
make. We saw you on the floor of the House through C-SPAN so
you looked very sharp--but, go ahead. Any opening comments you
want to----
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA,
RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Listen, in the interest of time, I would ask unanimous
consent that my opening remarks be entered into the record for
the committee.
Dr. Snyder. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the
Appendix on page 43.]
Dr. Snyder. Mr. Skelton can only be with us a short time. I
recognize him for as long as he likes for any questions he may
have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate this opportunity. Unfortunately, I have a conflict.
My questions would go on and on and on if I had the
opportunity, but let me just limit myself to just a few, if I
may.
My staff tells me that after six years of being a graduate
of the primary institutions, the three, the Air Force, the
Navy, the Army, undergraduate institutions, about 50 percent
bail out and leave the military. My staff also tells me that
about 70 percent bail out and leave the military after 10
years.
This, of course, disturbs someone who appoints people. And
it is a rather rigorous process and very competitive for each
member of Congress who has the privilege of appointing young
men and young women to your service academies, and those
figures cause me concern.
So I ask you, should I be concerned? And do you have any
reaction to those approximate figures?
General? General Born.
General Born. Chairman Skelton, I appreciate the question,
and in looking at our mission statement, it is really about
developing leaders of character for service or Air Force and to
our Nation, ultimately.
Our mission statement, in the past, had in it to develop
career Air Force officers, and that really has not been our
focus, although during a four-year program, we hope that we
will instill within our future officers an identity of being an
armed forces officer, Air Force officer.
There are several complicating issues, I think, with some
of the figures, be our economy, our force shaping throughout
the years within the Air Force and, for us, our attrition
figures at the 10-year point might be higher, in that over half
of our graduates go on to pilot training, and there is a 10-
year commitment, whereas those who are going into other fields,
it is a 5-year commitment. So you will see some variation
there.
Ultimately, we would hope that service in the Air Force,
it--they would get hooked on the mission and hooked on the
people and obviously we would love everyone to stay for a full
career, but that is not part of our current mission statement,
sir.
The Chairman. General Finnegan.
General Finnegan. Chairman Skelton, I think you should be
concerned about it. We are concerned about it, as well, and it
is an issue for us, for the retention of our graduates. We have
about a 50 percent retention rate at the 6-year mark, as you
said.
Part of that is for the operational tempo of the Army,
currently. When you have a graduate who deploys three or four
times in that six-year period, it is sometimes difficult to
convince them that they should stay when they are leaving their
family behind all that time.
One of the things that we have looked at and implemented a
program in the last several years to work on this issue of
retention beyond the five- or six-year mark is also related to
things that this subcommittee is looking at, and that is the,
what we call our grad school program.
As you probably know, all the graduates of the Military
Academy incur a five-year active-duty service obligation and a
three-year reserve commitment. If they are willing, at the time
of graduation or just before graduation, to instead sign up for
eight years of active duty rather than five and three, we will
guarantee them graduate school at a graduate school of their
choosing.
Then they will go to graduate school and incur an
additional commitment to the Army which will take them past the
12- or 13-year mark. We have done this program for the last
three years, and between that and signing up for a specific
branch of the Army, you can do the same thing, three years
additional active duty if you sign up for infantry, for
example, if you want that branch. We have more than 33 percent
of every graduating class has signed up for those options.
So we anticipate, as we look to the future, that those
retention figures are going to improve dramatically.
The Chairman. Captain.
Captain Klunder. Mr. Chairman Skelton, I have similar
dilemmas in terms of pipeline and training wickets that we
meet, just as General Born described to you in the Navy and
specifically, like in Naval aviation for training, but I will
offer this.
The encouraging spirit that I see in our most recent
classes at the Naval Academy and the young people that are
committed to serving their Nation, I do feel that if we can
capture that and indeed try to instill that continued
inspiration in their hearts to serve their country in the
future years, I think we have some fertile ground here to plow.
Something that we have taken on at the Naval Academy
recently, as General Finnegan mentioned at West Point, our
strategic imperative--I can't speak for the entire Navy--but
what we are trying to do is go back to our alumni in the fleet,
assess what it is that exactly, at that critical time in their
milestone career, what is driving them out or keeping them in.
We have seen in our recent discussions with the bureau that
we have a lot of people that do want to stay in. I can't say
that we are going to see that bow wave change dramatically, but
we do see encouraging statistics. I won't speak for them
because I just keep inside the Naval Academy line, but we are
comforted in talking to our alumni. More than not, now, we are
seeing them wanting to stay in the Navy.
The Chairman. We did some considerable investigation
hearings a number of years ago trying to identify the need for
jointness, but also the need for strategic thinkers within the
military.
And not too long before he retired, I had the opportunity
to talk with General Peter Pace, and I asked him in the average
class that graduates from the National War College, and most
would be lieutenant colonels and colonels, how many could
actually sit down and have an intelligent conversation with the
late George C. Marshall? And he said three or four.
And that is really pretty good. All of them would
understand strategic thinking, but if you have three or four
that are on the cutting edge, I think that is pretty good.
Now, flash backwards to the young lieutenants and ensigns
that you produce in your schools, and I realize that is early
in one's career. But can you put your finger on those that just
might be a strategic thinker and be a potential leader in that
area? And, if so, how would you recommend to your service to
take care of that person and to guide their career so that that
ability would be enhanced?
General Born.
General Born. Chairman Skelton, another great question,
sir.
The program that the service academies have, fundamentally,
are based upon a core curriculum that is balanced between the
humanities and social sciences and engineering and basic
sciences, but just having that foundation of subject matter
isn't enough to produce the strategic thinker that could have a
conversation.
What we have tried to do is develop a program that is
aligned with purposeful, intentional development to meet
students where they are and to help them reach their highest
potential in all areas of the program.
We have established learning outcomes that are in the three
main areas that I mentioned in my opening statement on
knowledge, skills, and responsibilities, and those three main
areas are followed up with 19 learning outcomes that we have
established at the institutional level for our entire program.
Those outcomes are aligned with liberal education outcomes
in America for citizens as well as the institutional competency
list for our Air Force. One of those Air Force competencies,
and also embedded in the higher education, is strategic
thinking.
And what we have tried to do in the past where a course was
enough to learn material is to link courses intentionally,
developmentally to hold students accountable from one year to
the next in a developmental fashion and also to provide avenues
for those that excel.
One of those examples is our Academy Scholars Program where
we identify very early, matter of fact, halfway through a four-
degree freshman's period of--somebody who is an outstanding
performer, and we put them through more of a St. John's
accelerated, more of a seminar-based core sequence, and they
are with some of our most senior scholars. They have other
opportunities that go with that with participating in Aspen
Institute, and Developmental Model League Nation opportunities.
But we have a dedicated faculty of professionals who pick
out people, not just in the academic arena, but those that will
be leaders in their squadron area who become some of our group
commanders and wing commander levels or in our athletic arena
who rise to be the captains of their teams and then also become
NCAA All-American academic scholars or athletes.
And we also identify those to go to special developmental
programs. One of those, for example, is a commander-leader
enrichment seminar which is an advanced leadership development
opportunity for our cadet leaders as well as our team captains.
So, to answer your question, it is more intentional and
developmental to help students connect the dots to have more
deep learning and effective learning for a very complex,
volatile, dangerous technical environment that they are
graduating into in the 21st century.
The Chairman. Thank you.
General Finnegan.
General Finnegan. Chairman Skelton, I am not sure we can
identify strategic thinkers at our level, but we can certainly
identify good thinkers and even great thinkers who can solve
problems. And that is really what we are trying to do is create
young men and women who can solve problems that they haven't
seen before.
We are not trying to teach them what to think but how to
think. And that, of course is the germ for eventual strategic
thinking, to face problems that you haven't seen before and
figure out ways to get to the solution.
We have many of the similar programs that General Born
described. We have identified scholarship candidates early on.
We identify them and channel them into particular programs,
into particular seminars.
We also have an extensive summer program in internships,
600 within the United States at various agencies, including
with offices and members of Congress and 600 overseas. And we
will take some of those high-performing cadets and specifically
select them for those programs to develop their intellectual
capability and to help them in the classroom.
I think you have touched on one of the issues that is sort
of beyond what we can do. And that is once we have identified
these high-achieving young people who have done very well at
the academies and maybe been scholarship recipients or been in
an Academy Scholars program, what happens to them out in the
force?
Because they then go in the Army circumstances, of course,
the normal path and probably the required path and the right
path is to go be a platoon leader and a company commander and
do the kinds of things that they need to do in the Army.
We have to find a way to keep them connected to their
intellectual development, as well, at the same time. That is
something that the Army must grapple with in addition to us.
The Chairman. Captain.
Captain Klunder. Yes, Chairman Skelton.
We have felt very strongly about not only just strategic
thinking but strategic awareness, and what I will offer is that
all of our midshipmen need to be absorbed and have the
opportunities to take on the awareness, not only in a
professional manner, but in a globalization kind of manner,
internationally speaking.
We want to provide that to all of them.
Now, once we have done that, it is our challenge--and I
know General Finnegan just alluded to it a little bit--we are
very proud of our scholarship and graduate education for
midshipmen, as they graduate and become ensigns and second
lieutenants.
The challenge for us--and I have talked about this with the
Bureau of Personnel--we want to ensure that we are mentoring
them closely during that graduate education process to ensure
that, when they are done and they have attained all the
accomplishments and strategic thinking they can absorb and use
in their professional careers, we want to, as quickly as
possible, and in an efficient and effective way, get them into
their other major training pipelines so we don't lose any time
with them to keep them upwardly mobile.
That has been something in the past--I don't know what the
other services, how they experienced--but that is a challenge
for us and we have taken that on. We are going to closely
monitor those upwardly-mobile strategic thinkers that we have
identified in the graduate education program to ensure they are
successful throughout their careers.
The Chairman. Thank you.
My very last is a request of you. Some six years ago, I put
together a recommended reading list for military officers and
for members of the Congress, and it was well-received over here
at the National War College.
Just a few days ago, I compiled a recommended book list
number two and I will ask the staff at a later moment to give
you my list, and if you have a few moments, let me know that
you would critique my list for me--if each of the five of you,
I would really appreciate it and tell me good, bad or
indifferent thereon. [Laughter.]
I appreciate your testimony and I apologize. I must go and,
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all
the work that you have done throughout your career on these
topics.
Mr. Wittman and I will begin our questions, and we will use
the 5-minute clock.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we will just go back and forth for 5 minutes. Go ahead
and start the clock.
General Born, you kind of are in the hot seat right there
just because you are at the end, so we start with you, but let
me go a different way. Let me ask a general question first, and
I will come back later to a specific question for each
institution.
What avenues are there for you all or whoever makes
decisions about your student body, your curriculum, how you are
doing, what opportunities are for your institutions to hear
from the combatant commanders about how your folks are
performing, you know, based on what they learned at your
institution?
I think, Colonel Beaudreault, we will start with you.
Colonel Beaudreault. Mr. Chairman, the student body is
basically initially screened by the monitors, the occupational
field sponsors, on looking through the records of everybody
that is eligible. There is then a selection board meets to pick
those best qualified to come to the school.
Most of the captains, when they arrive, have anywhere
between five and seven years experience, so it is limited
observation. Some of it will be their performance at the basic
school as a lieutenant, and then their performance in the
operating force is as a platoon commander, company executive
officer, young pilot, things of that nature.
So it is a selection board process. Did I answer the
specific question?
Dr. Snyder. No, but my question is so they go through that
process----
Colonel Beaudreault. Sir.
Dr. Snyder [continuing]. They go to their next duty
assignment. What process do you all have for hearing from the
combatant commanders about how your folks performed against
those people who did not go through the kind of training that
you all provide?
I mean, you think, and I agree, that you add value to these
remarkable young men and women. Do the combatant commanders
agree with you? What process do you have for evaluating, I
mean, if they can't see any difference, then why waste their
time and our money on doing it?
So my question is, what formal process do you have, if
any--and you may not have any--for hearing from the combatant
commanders, the users of your product, in a very crude way,
about whether you all are giving them something that is helpful
to them or not as far as personnel?
Colonel Beaudreault. Yes, sir. It is personal visits by the
director of the school, such as myself, and it is a survey
process that goes out to the commanders for their input on
those that recently graduated. And then we also send a survey
to those that graduated from the course to see what
deficiencies we may have in the program and did it best equip
them to go out and assume that position as a staff officer.
Did we adequately prepare them to be company commanders?
So, it is really a survey process is the formal method.
Informal method is the director getting out and about, talking
to the battalion commanders and the regimental commanders,
Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) commanders, et cetera, on the
performance specifically of those that graduated from the
resident school.
The baseline course, as mentioned by Colonel Tanous, is a
nonresident program and certainly the resident course brings a
bunch of enhancements that aren't available to a nonresident
student. And I think that is the major difference.
There are EWS graduates from a nonresident program that are
parts of battalions and squadrons, et cetera. But,
specifically, we are after what can we do in-house at the
resident course that is going to turn out that better product,
and it is done through that survey and personal visits.
Dr. Snyder. So, I don't mean to put you on the spot since,
but since poor General Born has been on the spot all day. So
somewhere--you said surveys--so somewhere, do you have a series
of surveys signed by Admiral Olson from special ops command?
You were in his position the last couple years as the
combatant commander or the previous four years as the deputy
that says we have looked at the people you have sent us and we
find them lacking. We find them superlative.
You have mentioned battalion commanders, I am talking about
the combatant commanders (COCOMs).
Colonel Beaudreault. No, sir, not to the four-star level
combatant commanders. Our survey process really ends at the O-6
level.
Dr. Snyder. At the O-6 level.
Colonel Beaudreault. Yes, sir.
Dr. Snyder. Colonel Tanous.
Colonel Tanous. Chairman, our formal institutional
effectiveness process is directed at both the student and the
student supervisor. So, to directly answer your question, no,
we don't have direct feedback from the COCOMs themselves saying
this is how well our students are doing in the field once they
graduate from Air and Space Basic or SOS.
So, the bottom line is we go back, normally, after a year
and say, okay, the year has gone by. Tell us, students, what do
you think of the education that you got from the school. Did it
add value to your contribution at the unit, and then go do the
same thing with the supervisor.
And we have got a series of questions that we ask them that
essentially say, hey, they have been through Squadron Officer
School. Did they get what they were supposed to get out of it?
And then we take that feedback and we roll it back in to our
curriculum development process.
Dr. Snyder. Captain Klunder.
Captain Klunder. Yes, Chairman Snyder. We specifically use
our OPNAV staff and our Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) as our
conduit to let them evaluate are we sending the right type of
ensigns and second lieutenants out into the fleet and to
support the COCOMs.
So, there is a formal requirements process and we serve to
that need.
That being said, I will offer that, in not necessarily a
survey kind of format, but in actually demand signal kind of
format, we have had the COCOM's come to us in an undergraduate
level and say we would like to offer these kind of internships
to the Naval Academy to give them increased awareness and an
early jumpstart on the kind of political-military situations
they might encounter.
I will give you the perfect example. The Joint Task Force--
Horn of Africa (JTF-HOA) down in Djibouti last summer came to
us and said we have a great idea we would like to offer you for
12 to 20 midshipmen. Would you like them to come down for a
summer internship. We said you bet. Can we make it work? You
bet. And, as it turned out in the end, they had a great
experience. We are doing that again this summer.
I also offer to you that in other, kind of, summer
training, we have had people go to internships in Africa
Command (AFRICOM), Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).
Again, they are not asking are we meeting the--scratching
the itch they require right now of our young, undergraduate
level, but, as a minimum, they have come to us and said we have
a demand signal to give this kind of undergraduate awareness,
cultural awareness, geographic, geopolitical awareness, and we
are providing that, and we think that is a success story.
As for meeting the requirements from the COCOM
specifically, Admiral Stavridis, Admiral Keating, when they
talk to OPNAV staff or CNP, we feel that we are meeting that
need, sir.
Dr. Snyder. General Finnegan.
General Finnegan. Sir, I guess my answer combines probably
Captain Klunder's and Colonel Tanous's. We have a system where
we assess both at the battalion commander level and at the
graduate level after two years and after five years.
We also work very much with the combatant commands,
although we don't specifically ask the combatant commanders are
our folks meeting your needs. It is more in the reverse. We
have cadets who go to Central Command (CENTCOM). We have
several cadets who are in CENTCOM this summer. We have 18 who
are in Africa this summer who are doing internships with that
command.
We have a continual relationship with the Southern Command
and have sent a number of cadets down there during the summers
and their folks come up on our project days, some of their both
allied officers and officers from Southern Command come up and
evaluate the projects that we have done.
In addition, we traveled to some of those commands,
particularly Central Command. Last summer, the superintendent
and I both traveled to Afghanistan and talked to General
McKiernan over there. This summer, General Hagenbeck, the
superintendent, traveled to Iraq, talked to General Petraeus,
General Odierno, and the other commanders over there to get
their assessment of our graduates.
Dr. Snyder. General Born.
It is nice to be number five sometimes. [Laughter.]
General Born. Chairman Snyder, I thank you very much for
being the last. [Laughter.]
And I will pick up on the theme that emerged and that is
one of both informal as well as formal feedback, but probably
more that we can do directly with the combatant commanders.
Informally, we do get a lot of feedback and we currently,
this summer, had 100 of our cadets over in the CENTCOM arena.
We have had 70 of our faculty deploy, mostly to Iraq and
Afghanistan, over the last year. And so there is a lot of
conversation in terms of, you know, how are our graduates
doing?
I also had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan twice
in the last year, once with the superintendent from West Point,
and we met with our graduates while we were over there and got
a sense from their perspective on how well prepared they were
for the mission that they are facing there.
But we also have some formal assessment of our graduates at
the four-year point where we go out through our Air Force
Personnel Center to assess all of our new accessions in the
first four years of service as well as their supervisors slash
commanders.
And the assessment is aligned with some of the
institutional competencies, one of them being strategic
thinking, that we talked about earlier. And we probably could
look at that data, not just in terms of a breakdown of Air
Force Academy graduates, Officer Training School (OTS) and
Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), but also ratings that
came out of the combatant commands as well as our own major
commands.
We are in the process right now of assessing our 2008 data.
We do it about every three to four years.
Dr. Snyder. Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of the members of the panel for joining
us today, taking time out of your busy schedules.
I want to kind of drill down a little bit on the chairman's
questions. He was asking about how you go about the evaluation
process on your graduates and how that opportunity and that
experience is serving them and serving the branches.
We all know the experiences there are unique, whether it is
there at the service academies, whether it is--they are at the
Expeditionary Warfare School, the Squadron Officer School--all
very unique experiences, bring a lot of things to the table, a
lot of value to the table.
I want to try to understand a little bit about how all of
that gets integrated. If you take the DOD requirements that you
have, the service and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)
requirements, how do you integrate that into the pre-
commissioning experience, and then also how do you take the
lessons learned in current conflicts and integrate that in?
So, you are taking those requirements, the real-world
efforts there and current conflicts. How do you integrate all
of that to make sure that those requirements and lessons
learned get incorporated into the educational experience and
the efforts to develop our junior officers?
So, this is kind of, I guess, at a level before the
evaluation. It is sort of building that to the point, and then,
obviously, you talked a little bit about the evaluation point.
I wanted to understand, you know, how you build that, both on
requirements and on taking experiences being learned in current
conflicts and integrating those together for your education and
development of your junior officers.
And we will start, now, in the middle of the table.
So, Captain Klunder, we will start with you, and then we
will go around. [Laughter.]
Captain Klunder. Thank you, Congressman Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Captain Klunder. We have struck a chord here in that we
have seen that, also--a challenge always to assess yourself and
assess what the COCOM's and specifically our Navy and Marine
Corps leaders want for requirements in their undergraduates.
That being said, we have had a very effective Academy
Effectiveness Board. We use that on an--well, annually it
assesses, but it is the actually meeting every month at our
Naval Academy to assess our curriculum and then provide
modifications to the curriculum as needed.
The most dramatic change recently was in--excuse me, two-
and-a-half years ago, it was in 2006, when we actually created
a little additional white space in our curriculum. We reduced
the number of credit hours by three so we could provide more
flexibility in electives to respond to those type of emerging
threats and situations we might like to highlight for our
midshipmen.
There is also an aspect, again, because we report to OPNAV
and specifically to the Chief of Naval Personnel. We are having
just next week--the timeliness of this question is perfect--we
are having our education curriculum review with all our
graduate and undergraduate institutions next week for the Navy.
We will meet. We have priorities we establish with them and
determine what type of curriculum modifications we might like
to make. So, again, we are getting ready to do that here in the
next week and my dean with me have already been talking about
our priorities.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Colonel Tanous.
Colonel Tanous. Sir, that is a very well-timed question, as
it turns out, for Squadron Officer College.
We just completed an entire review of our curriculum here
back at the beginning of April and started instituting changes
as a result of that at the beginning of May. And what we have
done is gone back and looked at all those higher headquarters
requirements that I referred to in my opening remarks.
But we also have the opportunity to roll in the experiences
of our instructors, as well. Because we are short courses, one
of the unique things that we can do, I think, is focus on what
the students and the instructors bring to the flight rooms.
And the construct that we have got allows us to focus on
the learning requirements that we know what it is that we are
trying to accomplish in each element of the class, but then the
instructors bring their experiences to bear as well, and when
we have got 12 to 14 members in each of the flights, especially
for Squadron Officer School.
What we have got there is four- to seven-year captains who,
a lot of times, have been deployed once or twice and they have
got that to bring to the discussion as well.
And one of the things that we have done is moved away from
the set piece PowerPoint presentations where here is the
learning objective. And you just kind of pound through the
charts and maybe a little guided discussion at the end and call
it a day, to really open it up to where we going more into the
case-study mode of operation, the guided discussions where the
discussions really are led by the flight commander but we
leverage the experiences of the students in there.
And, to the same extent, even though we don't have that
experience base in the Air and Space Basic Course, again, we
start with the requirements, but we weave in the experiences of
our instructors.
So, we have got most of our military instructors are coming
in after at least a tour or maybe two. A lot of them have
deployed. We recently hired 15 expeditionary skills instructors
to do that expeditionary training piece.
Now, almost all of them have been deployed and have some
very unique experiences to share. So, half of what goes on in
the field is just that interchange so that we can roll in those
firsthand accounts of what is going on in the field with the
requirements that are levied on us. So we have got kind of a
tapestry going on.
In a short course, it lends itself to some flexibility from
that standpoint. We have built, instead of just a chock-a-block
schedule, more of a weave over the five or six weeks of each
course to make sure that we are meeting our levied
requirements, but also leveraging that real-world experience.
Mr. Wittman. Thanks.
Colonel Beaudreault.
Excuse me. [Laughter.]
Colonel Beaudreault. Congressman Wittman, as a tactical-
level school that touches on the operational, we are very much
responsive to the needs of the operating forces and it goes
into Chairman Snyder's earlier question that the feedback we
receive from the operating forces on whether we are hitting all
the points that we need to at the courses is really driven by
the demands there.
How do we respond to that?
We have a current operating environment module that takes
place every spring. The beauty of Quantico is the co-location
of our school with Marine Corps University, with the Center for
Advanced Operational Culture as well as the Marine Corps Center
for Lessons Learned is headquartered out of there.
The immediate feedback from the Lessons Learned Center as
well as information that may be flowing from Helmand Province
or still in Anbar Province will get worked in to the current
operating environment module to make sure that we are teaching
relevant information that is going to arm and equip them as
soon as they walk out the door in May.
Certainly, the Commandant's guidance gets fed in to our
content review, which goes annually at the end of the academic
year, and at the end of--we have five major modules of
instruction--at the end of each module, there is a curriculum
review that takes place as is there a comprehensive curriculum
at the end of the year that gets, again, approved by Marine
Corps University for any major changes in curriculum.
Combat performance, sir, in sum, is the number one driver
of whether Expeditionary Warfare School is hitting the mark or
not on what we produce.
Mr. Wittman. Okay. Thank you, Colonel Beaudreault.
General Born.
General Born. Thank you, Member Wittman.
Our process that I talked about earlier is moving towards
aligning with how do we best meet the needs of our Air Force.
And, again, I mentioned the institutional competency list and
also to receive a bachelor of science degree with a liberal
education foundation, what kind of skills, knowledge,
responsibility should our graduates have?
From a very macro perspective, what we are trying to
embrace in an effective, efficient way is a learning-focused
culture, learning organization, which starts first with what is
it that we are trying to achieve, and then how do we go about,
what kind of program or lesson do we go about to embed that
learning outcome?
Then, how do we assess? Is the student getting it? Is our
program delivering, and then feedback that to the system in
order to adjust that learning activity or to adjust the program
objectives overall.
So, from a multiple-level perspective, I will answer at our
institution we also have an institutional effectiveness program
that will look at whether or not we are achieving that loop and
closing that loop. We, fortunately, just received our
accreditation, and that is what they look at.
They look at what you say you are about as an organization
to meet your customers needs, and are you effectively
demonstrating that you are achieving that.
So, that is one way, but all the way down to the lesson
level, that same loop is involved. And so instructors spend a
lot of time. And when you have 70 who deploy in a year, they
bring back that so what, how do I embrace a learning activity
that is going to achieve that strategic thinking or critical
thinking outcome?
Our curriculum process is very similar. We have emerging
recommendations on changes to close gaps that come through
departments and their individual courses in the core
curriculum, but they also can come through our junior faculty
forum or through our faculty forum. They can also come through
from external recommendations, which we evaluate and,
ultimately, must be approved as our program at our Academy
Board level.
Mr. Wittman. General Finnegan.
General Finnegan. Congressman Wittman, as at the other
academies, our assessment process is continual. We have an
Assessment Steering Committee, we have a Curriculum Committee
that meets regularly during the year to evaluate these things.
And much of it for us comes from our faculty, both our
permanent faculty and our more senior military faculty who
deploy. We have had more than 300 faculty members deployed
since 9/11. In fact, right now we have several of our senior
faculty members who are on General McChrystal's staff and
others who are on General Odierno's staff for 6- to 12-month
periods.
So they will come back and help with that.
The other aspect of the faculty that is great for us is
that our rotating military faculty, which makes up 60 percent
of our faculty, all of them have been deployed, many, multiple
times. So they come from their graduate school program, recent
experience in the Army, and they talk to us about adjustments
to the curriculum as well.
We have made some significant adjustments overall since 9/
11, added two minors, one in terrorism, another in regional
studies, added majors in nuclear engineering and chemical
engineering because of nuclear and biological threats.
And in response to the first part of your question
concerning requirements from DOD or JCS, we had the DOD
Language Transformation Roadmap a few years ago that asked us
what we were doing about cultural immersion and language
proficiency and directed us to increase our programs.
And what we did was, up to that point, every cadet had to
take one year of a foreign language. We thought that that
probably was inadequate, so those cadets who major in
humanities, now, are required to take two years of a foreign
language. Those who major in math, science and engineering
still take one year of a foreign language.
But the first year of that language, whether you are doing
one year or two years, is now taught five days a week so that
it is sort of a mini-immersion experience.
In 2001, we had two cadets who spent a semester abroad in
France. Last year, we had 142 cadets who spent a semester
abroad in 14 different countries. In 2001, we had 126 cadets
who went to 25 countries over the summertime. This year we have
560 cadets going to 70 different countries.
So we are increasing both language proficiency and cultural
awareness because that is clearly something that our Army needs
right now and that our graduates need.
Dr. Snyder. General Born, in your written statement you
talk about the percentage of military versus the percentage of
civilian faculty. There has been some criticism of the Air
Force Academy, however, that in that your civilian, significant
numbers of them are actually retired military.
The report that came out several years ago, the Larson
Report, discussed that issue, but there doesn't seem to be any
movement by the Air Force Academy in terms of looking at that
issue. What is going on?
General Born. Sir, the question with regard to mix of the
faculty and the Larson Report, our ideal composition in
response to the Larson Report was 25 percent civilian and 75
percent military faculty, and we have risen to about around 30
civilian faculty and about \1/3\ of those faculty are retired
military.
We have tried to hire nationally based on our
advertisements in the Chronicle of Higher Education and select
the best qualified. And we try not to, in our processes,
advantage military or disadvantage military, retired military.
We haven't set a floor or a ceiling, but we monitor to see
the extent that our civilian faculty positions are retired
military. Right now, the blend is a wonderful blend in terms of
having the pure civilians, many whom have been with us since
1992 when they arrived, which shows their tremendous commitment
and dedication to the mission.
We have a nice blend with our military faculty who are
providing a little bit more of the operational perspective, and
with the turnover that we have, and I think, arguably, we
probably--matter of fact, I think we can demonstrate, we had
the highest rotation of faculty--having a core of our civilian
faculty as retired military actually helps us achieve our
mission where they have a balance of both their military
experiences as well as their advanced scholarship.
Dr. Snyder. When you make the comment, you didn't think
that people should be advantaged or disadvantaged by being
former military, but, I mean, I am not sure why not.
I mean, if you make a decision that you want so many
percentage to be pure civilian so they may come from a life of
being a retired State Department, being a retired physician who
worked in third-world countries or whatever, I don't see that
you are somehow drawing some ethical line in the sand to say we
want a blend of people who are pure civilians.
So I mean, you were criticized by the Larson Report, and
the criticism still stands, I think. But those numbers, by the
way, we have votes going on, so Mr. Wittman and I are going to
have to leave here for a little while and then come back.
But, General Finnegan, what is going on with budget cuts
with regard to faculty and staff and where are you at with
that?
General Finnegan. Sir, the Army is facing budget cuts and
personnel cuts in what we call the ``institutional Army'' in an
attempt to help build up the ``operational Army,'' those forces
that are actually fighting.
The Army is undergoing a total Army analysis, and it looks
like we may face a minor personnel cut on our military staff.
Dr. Snyder. So, is what you are saying is, essentially,
that slots that you all have are being shifted for operational
slots?
General Finnegan. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is
correct.
Dr. Snyder. Now, have you actually had some cuts already?
General Finnegan. It is not final yet. We are undergoing
the process right now. The Army is trying to decide. The latest
news we have is that the cuts will not be severe, but there
will be some cuts.
Those we can withstand. It will be more difficult because
we are continuing to bring in larger-size classes as we grow to
a corps of 4,400 from 4,000.
If we combine those with budget cuts, though, that causes
significant issues because one way to make up for some small
military cuts is to hire additional civilian faculty, but that
causes pressures on your budget because the largest part of my
budget, the dean's budget, is the hiring of civilian faculty.
So, if we combine personnel cuts on the military side with
budget cuts overall, that will have a significant impact on our
faculty.
Dr. Snyder. So there is not a one-to-one offset?
General Finnegan. No, sir.
Dr. Snyder. Colonel Beaudreault, you refer to it in your
written statement about the issue of laptops and where you are
at with laptop computers. I am confused, I think, because, I
mean, I would think that that is a pretty basic thing in an
academic environment or some kind of teaching environment.
I remember Dick Gephardt, when he was here, he told me a
story--it was quite a few years ago, now--and he made some
speech about, you know, how there was going to be funding for
these computer labs in every school and, afterwards some guy
came up and said you politicians are so stupid, so stupid. And
Gephardt said what do you mean?
He said well, let me ask you a question. When you were in
school, did you have a pencil lab? Did you go down once a week
for an hour and they give you a pencil and you would use your
pencil for an hour and that would hold you for that week?
I mean, aren't we past the point where we think that having
a laptop computer for a student is a luxury? I mean, shouldn't
that be more important than a whole lot of other things at your
school, and in your statement, you say only three of your 15
conference groups are going to have laptops.
That is like saying a grade school 30 years ago, 40 years
ago, 50 years ago didn't get a pencil, isn't it?
Colonel Beaudreault. Yes, sir.
Some of the----
Dr. Snyder. I mean, how much total money are you talking
about to get additional computers for 12 more conference
groups?
Colonel Beaudreault. Mr. Chairman, the money, I think, is
out there through Marine Corps University or Training and
Education Command.
Part of our challenge right now is the infrastructure of
the building in terms of being able to plug those computers in
to a network that can support 15 conference groups at 16
students each, 15 to 16 students each to be able to tap in.
So what we need to do first is modernize the infrastructure
of the building----
Dr. Snyder. Does that mean that the money is out there for
the computers but it is not out there for the infrastructure?
Colonel Beaudreault. My understanding is the money is
available for both ends of the project, sir.
So it is in the works. In fact, it is an ongoing issue. We
are having a discussion with the Marine Corps University at the
moment. Money may come through through Training and Education
Command or Marine Corps University may want to stagger it out
over a period of two academic years.
We are going to have to see, only because once the
infrastructure starts to get laid into the building, it could
become very disruptive to the ongoing instruction we are trying
to provide during the course of the academic year.
So we need to find how long is the project going to take
and when is the best time to do it. But I think the money is
out there to actually make it happen.
Dr. Snyder. It just seems like that is a pretty basic
thing.
I can't remember what it was, six or eight years ago or,
the committee had a private meeting with some special-ops guys
just to show us their equipment. And of course, you know, it is
the weaponry and the protective stuff.
But, anyway, one was the guy's laptop, and I always
remember the special ops sergeant said--who had done missions
overseas--said you know it is going to be a bad day when your
Microsoft Outlook won't open. [Laughter.]
And I don't think that was ever a line from a John Wayne
movie, you know? [Laughter.]
But, you know, if there is a way that we can help on it. I
mean, this seems like pretty basic stuff. I mean, when you are
putting in a written statement to Congress that you are proud
of the fact that you have got three of the 15 with computers
when that is as basic as a pair of boots for guys going in the
field, I mean, as basic as that.
I think, Mr. Wittman, we probably better----
Mr. Wittman. Yes.
Dr. Snyder [continuing]. Better go.
And if you all don't mind waiting here, they assure us it
is five votes. The first one is about done, and then the next
four are two-minute votes, which, in Congress time, is probably
about four minutes, but I don't think it is going to be
terribly excessive.
If it looks like it is, we will let Dr. Fenner know, if
that is all right.
We will be in recess.
[Recess.]
Dr. Snyder. Those were the last votes for the day, so we
will be uninterrupted.
Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will just ask a simple question and we will go down the
line.
General Born, can you tell me, how are ethics taught at the
academy?
General Born. Thank you, Member Wittman.
Ethics is a part of developing leaders of character, and we
have 1 of our 19 outcomes we talked about earlier is ethical
reasoning and action. All of our program is really oriented to
develop cadets over four years in ethics and integrity.
We have a robust character development program that really
is a synergistic activity, both for our cadets, but also for
our permanent party. We have a statement that says we really
graduate two classes every year.
One of them is our, obviously, our second lieutenants
entering into the Air Force, and the other is our rotational
faculty, up to \1/4\ or \1/3\ that go back out into the
operational Air Force. And so the character development is for
all.
And we also have an ethics across the curriculum thread
that leads to that one outcome to have specific experiences.
For example, we have four character-development programs
over the four years that are graduation requirements, and they
are aligned with our officer-development system which starts
with focusing on personal leadership development, values,
attitudes, and then it goes to an interpersonal level in terms
of respect and dignity as you have an interpersonal
relationship and coaching and mentoring others, and that is for
a sophomore level.
Then one at the team level, which is for our juniors where
they start to take on team leadership roles within their
squadrons and then, again, as seniors and more of an
organizational level, how do you align, now, an ethics program
within the organization and Air Force?
And we have mentors and facilitators that come in too and
provide ethical dilemma examples, case studies, if you will, on
how they can reflect upon some of the challenges that they may
have.
That is also integrated across the four years with our
thread towards the ethical development in our courses. And, you
know, we start as a fourth-classman and again throughout their
curriculum, along with some of our other programs, and we have
embedded assessments throughout there to see are we meeting the
target for you as a student, but also so we can assess a class
or at the institutional level overall.
But, I guess the final answer is that developing leaders of
character is really what every single member at the United
States Air Force Academy is really there for and focused on in
our student population, but to have our students develop, we
are also developing along with them.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
General Finnegan.
General Finnegan. Congressman Wittman, it is very much a
similar answer. Ethics is embedded throughout our curriculum.
We have a Simon Center for Professional Military Ethics,
which runs our overall ethics program. There are classes that
begin as early as this summer with the new cadets who are there
now and continue throughout the four years.
They are taught some by the tactical officers and tactical
NCO's who are assigned to each company, but about 300 of our
academic faculty, as an additional volunteer assignment, teach
those ethics classes during the year as well.
It culminates in their senior years, their first four
years, with a new course we have, MX-400, which is a
combination of a military science course and a combination of
integration of many of the topics we have had that particularly
focuses on ethics and ethics on the battlefield.
One of the centerpieces of that is the Battle Command
Conference that we have each year, and this past April we
brought about 300 junior officers and NCO's back from the Army,
mostly from very recently deployed or about-to-deploy who spent
2 days, 2\1/2\ days with all of our seniors talking to them
about small unit operations, but particularly the moral-ethical
aspects of those that are so central to what we are doing now.
We also have, as an adjunct to that, a Robust Law of Armed
Conflict program that starts in their summer training before
their sophomore year. We have just undergone that. We integrate
problems into scenarios there. We teach the classroom
instruction in it and then continue to integrate that into
summer training aspects as well.
Mr. Wittman. Great.
Captain Klunder.
Captain Klunder. Yes, Congressman Wittman.
It is clear with my other panel members that this is
absolutely a cornerstone of what we believe in at the service
academies and other schools. And I mean, truly, it is what sets
us apart from other institutions in this great country of ours.
I will offer as a small anecdotal little piece, it is clear
that the rest of the country is catching on to how important
this is and what we do and how we lead young people in this
great world, and that, this last year, we had a leadership
conference with the Naval Academy and we had 33 representatives
from other institutions and civilian colleges and organizations
around the country that attended that. That was the largest
number we have had, ever.
So, again, we are very happy with that. Now, particular to
our institution, we find that it is not only in an academic
environment study. We are clear in our four-year development,
just like General Born described. It is a four-year progress in
the academic world, but it is also something that we feel very
strongly in the practical, more on-the-job training (OJT) kind
of environment.
What we teach in the academic classroom I must absolutely
adhere to and practice in the Bancroft-Hall, everyday
environment when we lead young people.
So I own that, and that is very near and dear to my heart
and I am very passionate about honor, integrity, ethics. It is
something we stand for. Not only academic and OJT practical,
but we will bring guest speakers from all over the country. We
have seminars. We have senior mentoring. I have a great, very
short story.
There was a young man that was having a little difficulty,
wasn't quite getting the picture on what it really meant inside
here and up here. We had a senior mentor--it just happened to
be General Peter Pace, who is a great graduate from my
institution--and we said, General, would you like to take this
one on? He said, you bet.
So, we had a young midshipman talking to a senior four-star
marine general about mentoring. It was a total success. He got
it. But I offer that small example as we will go to any lengths
we can to try and inspire our young people in this kind of
field.
Again, I know General Finnegan has alluded to his center.
We have the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership. This is
hugely important to us and I think I will leave it at that,
sir, if that is okay.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Captain Klunder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Colonel Tanous.
Colonel Tanous. Congressman Wittman, as has been stated
before, ethics is weaved into everything that we do and we have
got short courses, but that doesn't relieve us of the
responsibility to address this in its entirety.
And I will just tell you from the time they come into the
Air and Space Basic Course as a lieutenant until the time they
leave Squadron Officer School as a captain, in both courses and
in the distance learning courses as well, we focus on the core
values, in particular, and ethics, specifically.
And, in fact, one of the things that we rely on to kind of
guide how we emphasize that is the institutional competency
list that the Air Force provides and there are four in
particular for instance for SOS, decision-making, developing
and inspiring others, building a team, and ethical leadership.
So we focus on those four in particular for Squadron
Officer School and rely on that and the underpinnings of the
Air Force Doctrine Document 1-1, because that basically tells
Air Force officers how to act. And so we try to instill that
throughout the entire course.
And the same is true for the Air and Space Basic Course. We
try to talk to the young lieutenants about their distinctive
roles as airmen in society, the standard that we hold them to.
We talk to them and we give them, essentially, situations, case
studies where they can talk about what it means to act in
certain ways and in certain situations so they have to actually
think about it.
It is not just a one-way dialogue from the instructor
saying, okay, we all need to be ethical.
What I try to encourage them to do is think larger than
themselves, put themselves in the position of their supervisor
or their commander having to deal with a specific situation.
That is the model we are trying to go to where they have to
think about the second- and third-order effects of their
decisions.
And, so, using that model, we are trying to put that in
place where in each and every instance, they can think about
the ethical ramifications of any action that they take.
So, regardless of the block of instruction, we have managed
to weave that into almost everything that we do with the guest
speakers, with the guided discussions, with the case studies,
and we have been very successful.
Mr. Wittman. Great, thank you, Colonel.
Colonel Beaudreault.
Colonel Beaudreault. Congressman Wittman, very much the
same answer as the previous that you have heard.
The leadership and ethics is one of the three subsets of
what we call our Professional Studies Program and that is
threaded throughout the blocks of instruction throughout the
year. Primarily, we will use guest speakers. We do have small
group discussions mentored by the majors who have been company
commanders in combat.
We do bring in Colonel Art Athens, retired, who is with the
Stockdale Center from the Naval Academy. We use speakers and
Ph.D.s from over at Marine Corps University to augment our
instruction. It is vignette-based training. It is woven into
tactical decision-making exercises.
So, primarily, and also case studies. This particular
academic year, Rwanda will be the major case study that
students will get into on that. But that is the primary means
we use, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Thanks, Colonel Beaudreault.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Snyder. Let us see. Colonel Tanous, I wanted to ask
you, as you know, most of the work done in the Congress is done
by the staff and so we have had some preliminary discussions,
both I think with you all and with the students and so on in
all the institutions.
We got some feedback that, not because of the atmosphere of
your institution, but because of where the Air Force or how the
Air Force values these positions that there are some faculty
members who think that being assigned to the faculty at your
place is not a help for their career. In fact, some of them see
it as a hindrance.
What are your thoughts about that?
Colonel Tanous. I think, sir, if you ask some of the
instructors what they think when they come in, you get a
different answer than what----
Dr. Snyder. When they leave?
Colonel Tanous [continuing]. They say when they leave.
Dr. Snyder. Well, that is a good point.
Colonel Tanous. So, I think because they are coming from a
position of ignorance, for lack of a better term, because they
are not sure what they are getting into, all they know is they
are leaving their operational career track and walking into a
different environment, one that they are not familiar with.
They are not sure what the expectations are. There is probably
a little hesitance on their part to dive in fully.
And if you ask them, you know, is this going to be a help
or a hurt, you are going to get an answer that is going to be
different than when they leave.
And I think a lot of that is just due to the fact that one
is when they realize the impact that they make on an entire
generation of officers during their time as instructors, that
gives them a sense of satisfaction that they probably didn't
anticipate when they got there.
The other thing is they have the same opportunities to
excel in their position that they have everywhere else, and I
think once they have been there for a while and they understand
that, essentially, we operate as a small wing, for lack of a
better term.
I walked in there as a graduated wing commander from
Vandenberg and that is kind of how we treat it. We have got two
schools that we treat as groups, and we have got the small
number of folks that provide infrastructure for it.
And, so we give them that same environment that they would
see in the operational Air Force in terms of----
Dr. Snyder. There may be some value, and you may have
already done this in doing a little survey, like, you know,
what you like if all of you track your students to see where
your faculty members from the last three or four years have
ended up and how they view it in their career now. That may be
helpful.
Because the issue for me is if there is that sense, I mean,
you know how the military is. It is one big rumor mill, and you
want people to be applying for these jobs and excited about
being there, and so if there is an unjustified sense among a
few of your faculty then it may be helpful to deal with that.
I wanted to ask for our three Academy folks, would you
spend a minute, each of you, just talk about, in terms of
financial resources, what role nonprofit foundations, nonprofit
support, you know, the non-governmental money helps.
General Finnegan, let us start with you just to give
General Born a rest.
General Finnegan. Mr. Chairman, we have the Association of
Graduates, which is our main nonprofit organization----
Dr. Snyder. Association of----
General Finnegan. Association of Graduates----
Dr. Snyder. Graduates. Yes.
General Finnegan [continuing]. Which is our alumni
association, and one of the main purposes is to do fundraising
to supplement appropriated funds.
What we consider them to do is what we call ``margin of
excellence'' activities. So the private fundraising that they
do allows us to have, for example, some cadet clubs that we
might not have using appropriated funds, the Model U.N., the
debate team are funded largely with those private donations.
Many of our overseas summer experiences are funded through
private dollars. We get some appropriated funds for that, but
many of them are funded through the MacArthur Foundation and
other fundraising that is done by our fundraising arm, the
Association of Graduates.
So, we just built a brand new library, Jefferson Hall
Library and Learning Center, that had about $60 million of
appropriated funds, but to enhance some of the architectural
parts and some of the interior parts of the library, we used
about $5 million of private funds raised through the
Association of Graduates.
Dr. Snyder. Captain Klunder.
Captain Klunder. Yes, Chairman Snyder.
We are very pleased with working through OPNAV and CNP.
Right now it is Chief of Naval Personnel is our resource
sponsor. We do requests through him in that position, and we
are very pleased that all of our appropriated dollar requests
have been met, and we expect them to be met for the next year.
So, again, that is a good thing.
The aspect of the 501(c)(3) funds, or in this case, just as
General Finnegan stated, the Alumni Association and Foundation
is what we call it, and believe it or not, we use the exact
same term, the ``margin of excellence.''
And what we have done there is to take those over-and-above
requirements that we have established with our OPNAV and our
Chief of Naval Personnel resource sponsors, those things that
will really give us that extra value-earned kind of capacity in
that global world, the international world. And in many cases
it goes to exactly what General Finnegan stated, international
travel, international immersion programs, things that have
great value, and we do get some appropriated dollars for.
I don't want to make it sound like this is all through
501(c)(3). But they assist us in those means. So we found that
to be very, very helpful.
And in that regard, obviously economic standings does
impact that, but we are very pleased, again, that our Alumni
Association and Foundation works very closely with us on
aligning those potential ``margin of excellence'' areas where
they can help us, and they have done that.
Dr. Snyder. General Born.
General Born. Yes, we have an extra ``margin of
excellence'' in addition to really good support for the program
from our Air Force. We have several foundations that do
contribute to allowing us to do some things that we aren't
allowed or don't do with our appropriated funds.
The extra ``margin of excellence,'' an example is we
actually have an Academy Assembly Program that is about ready
to launch in October that is looking at building a bridge from
war to peace and interagency role in terms of rebuilding
nations.
And in order to put that program on, we use a combination
of some appropriated funds, but a majority from a gift in order
to bring in top-name speakers, et cetera.
We have a lot of our programs that are in our athletic
departments through our Air Force Academy Athletic Association,
which I think contributes almost 50 percent of what we are able
to do through our athletic programs.
So, it is an extra ``margin of excellence.'' I think what
all of us would say is similar to higher education. We are
seeing some reductions in endowments. And so that extra
``margin of excellence'' is going down. And as you have heard
from others, some are experiencing appropriated downturns as
well, so that will impact our programs.
But right now, it adds a lot of opportunity for our cadets.
Dr. Snyder. Before we go to Mr. Wittman, I will have,
probably, some questions for the record probably for all of
you, particularly for you, General Finnegan.
I need to understand better. We need to understand better.
We need to understand better the specifics with regard to what
you refer to as budget cuts. I need to understand exactly what
monies you are talking about and what accounts and what is
that.
Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Mr. Chairman, I am out of questions.
Dr. Snyder. Okay. All right.
General Born, I had a couple of more questions for you. You
mentioned, I think in both your written and oral statement,
about the manpower study that said that you are 21 percent
behind, and is that in terms of faculty?
And if that is right, what does that mean, number one, how
are you responding to it? Number two, what does 21 percent mean
in terms of actual . . . if you wanted to fulfill that, what
would that mean in terms of enhanced budget. And my guess is
that that is kind of an ideal world of academics that you
really don't think that you, for the last 50 years or so, have
been operating 20 percent behind.
But how did you get behind? Do you agree with the
conclusions of the study? What are you all doing about that?
What does that mean in terms of money, budget process,
everything like that?
General Born. Chairman Snyder, the good news is, and this
is really validated recently in our 10-year accreditation,
because they do look at resources, and are you resourced to be
accredited and to continue in the direction you are, and from
that they said you are meeting your mission.
The Manpower Study is actually working its way through
corporate Air Force right now, but, primarily, what I think
they identified is that we have had a reduction in our military
manning that is similar to a reduction in overall Air Force
authorizations and manning----
Dr. Snyder. This is part of the Air Force's--over the last
several years, they had this plan of reducing----
General Born. Yes, sir.
Dr. Snyder [continuing]. 3,000, I think, personnel to find
money for platforms and so on and they backed off that. Was
that part of this?
General Born. That is correct, sir.
And we have also added mission, and I think we have taken
on additional roles with regard to deployments. And when you
have 70 faculty members who deploy, right now we have 28
deployed, and 13 of those are a ``365,'' which is a full-year
deployment.
And so that has an impact in terms of what you need in your
authorizations in order to support something that is also an
important mission, but it is an additional mission.
A lot of what we are doing also in terms of our character
development programs we are doing by using our permanent party
who are basically doing additional mission for the right thing.
So, we have a heavily worked faculty, and I think there is a
lot that moves into private time--research is one of those--
that keeps an educational program rigorous and innovative and
is a benefit to our students.
And I think a lot of the faculty are finding time to do
that on their own time. But we do a lot of grading and a lot of
other things at home.
But the good news is we are meeting mission because we have
the dedication of people who believe in the mission and who are
dedicated to what we are working to accomplish.
There is an additional workload I think all of us take on
with regard to other requirements with the way that we have
streamlined technology, and that is a choice we have made in
terms of doing our own travel and doing everything online and
then that is additional.
We volunteer to participate in, you know, dorm patrol and
duties like that. So, I think that it is additional mission,
and we probably need to look internally at where we have high-
impact practices that are making a big difference and where do
we need to prune a little from things that maybe aren't as
central to achieving our mission and vision.
Dr. Snyder. When you said that study is working its way
through corporate Air Force, will there be some kind of public
result come out or will it just be reflected, hopefully, in the
budget process? Is that what you anticipate would happen and--
--
General Born. Yes, sir. That is our approach right now is
we are actually starting to already work the budget process
through our Air Force in addition to looking at ways that we
can streamline our own efficiencies at the academy.
Dr. Snyder. If you get something back, General Born, that
is some kind of a formal result after that gets worked through
the Air Force, I would appreciate if you would share it with
Dr. Fenner and the staff. And it might be helpful to us as we
look at defense bills and budgets.
I wanted to ask you one other question, General Born. On
page eight of your written statement, you talked about creating
a ``learning-focused environment,'' and this probably doesn't
have much to do with the topic today, but would you describe
for me what does that mean compared to what you were doing
before?
I would think most would say, I mean, is that a term of
art, a ``learning-focused environment''?
General Born. Chairman Snyder, I think we have always been
in the business, also, of developing leaders of character, but
what we have learned over the years is how people develop and
how we can become more effective at how we do that.
I would say that a learning-focused culture is somewhat
very similar.
Teaching and learning come from the same root word and if
you hold the word ``teach'' in a mirror, it is a reflection of
``learn.'' But the difference is that it is really focused
primarily on what is the student learning, and teaching is a
very important role in that.
But it is outcomes-based and it is laying specifically out
in a lesson or at the institutional level what it is we are
trying to accomplish, how are we going about accomplishing it,
what is our evidence that shows that we are accomplishing that
mission, and then how are we closing the loop and feeding that
back into changing something because we have identified a gap
or we have identified a best practice that we can capitalize
on.
Learning focus is adaptable. It is agile, and it is all of
what I believe this committee is focused on.
Dr. Snyder. Yes. That is helpful.
Colonel Beaudreault, you may know that I have a special
affection for the Marine Corps since I spent 21\1/2\ months--
not years, months--with a 2-year enlistment many years ago, and
so I hope you didn't feel like I was beating you up about the
computers.
Many, many years ago, back when I was a young man in
Vietnam, and I was not a grunt in Vietnam, but one of my
friends who was, he said, we just got so tired as marines
watching all the Army Hueys flying over, and they would make us
walk.
You know, it is the thing about equipment for the Marine
Corps. [Laughter.]
It has always been an issue. So, I think I am probably
reflecting one incident that happened to one of my friends 40
years ago.
But maybe it would be helpful, Dr. Fenner. This is July. We
will be back here after the first of the year in January.
Sometime that third or fourth week of January, why don't we
plan on driving to Quantico and do a computer count.
[Laughter.]
And we will see how the infrastructure looks. We will take
along our laptops and see if we can get into your system, if
that might be helpful.
Mr. Wittman, do you have anything further?
Mr. Wittman. Nothing further.
Dr. Snyder. We appreciate your time. There will be some
questions for the record, but you should also look on those as
opportunities to share with us any clarifications or additions
or anything else you want to share with us either formally. Or
if you want to pick up the phone and just call the staff, we
would appreciate it. But this has been helpful today.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
July 15, 2009
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 15, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
July 15, 2009
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER
Dr. Snyder. Please elaborate on how efforts to gain efficiencies
within the USAFA budget and to streamline it to high impact areas of
the mission within the budget will affect institutional decisions? What
will be targeted for cuts or reductions?
General Born. Operating efficiently and effectively is one of our
seven Strategic Goals at USAFA: Obtain and manage resources for our
mission activities by maintaining effective institutional investment
strategies and management processes. Efforts to gain efficiencies at
USAFA is a multi-phased endeavor to include:
1) Quarterly Financial Working Group (FWG) and Financial
Management Board (FMB) meetings which approve budgets, execution plans,
and revisions. The FMB, chaired by the Superintendent, also distributes
annual funding, prioritizes Mission Element requirements, and ensures
consistency with programs to meet USAFA mission priorities.
2) Performance of statistical historical analysis of program
spending during Execution Plan and Initial Distribution drills. USAFA
has tracked historical spending and funds distribution since 2001 using
this data to derive/update mission requirement execution and one-time
expenses.
3) Programming and analysis of new mission requirements or re-
aligning resources during the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and
Amended Program Objective Memorandum (APOM) drills. The impacts of
these drills are deliberated by the Management Integration Team (MIT)
and approved by the Senior Steering Group (SSG), USAFA's Corporate
Structure representing all Mission Element leadership.
4) In FY09, USAFA's contracting office put forth an aggressive
plan to streamline all ``like'' contracts across the academy into a
single contract award. This has essentially eliminated multiple vendors
performing the same functionality for multiple organizations and saved
manpower in the process. Due to this approach, contract awards across
USAFA decreased from nearly 3,000 in FY08 to 1,500 in FY09.
In addition to these efforts, within our curriculum we impress upon
cadets their future role in the budgetary process and their need for
careful decision-making. For example, the programs offered by the
Center for Character and Leadership encourages cadets to internalize
the Core Values and the Honor Code so they will graduate as officers of
character with the moral foundation to be good stewards of resources.
Dr. Snyder. What will be targeted for cuts or reductions?
General Born. The Air Force Academy has experienced an increase to
our baseline for desperately needed renovation and modernization and to
improve cadet programs across the Mission Elements. USAFA is positioned
to execute these resources in the most efficient and effective manner.
If forced to take cuts or reductions, the following effects will be
felt across the institution.
1) A reduction in funding for construction project designs and
facility restorations already in the progress via the ``Fix USAFA''
initiative. Potential funding cuts would delay projects, degrade cadet
standard of living and could affect recruiting efforts in future years.
2) Faculty continuation training for accreditation would be scaled
back from the higher education standard of one developmental education
experience per faculty member per year to one experience per faculty
member every other year.
3) Cadet travel to present papers they have written would be
decreased as would be their ability to attend summer research programs
not funded by sponsoring agencies.
4) Academic materials would be scaled back forcing cadets to
share, or perhaps purchase their own supplemental materials.
5) A reduction in funding could lead to cadets not meeting the 68-
days of summer ops training goal due to a reduced number of
opportunities available for program participation.
Dr. Snyder. Please explain how the ongoing manpower study at the
USAFA is affecting staffing decisions?
General Born. The ongoing manpower study at USAFA is a
comprehensive study by the Air Force Manpower Agency (AFMA) looking at
manning requirements in all mission elements. The USAFA manpower study
has produced four completed efforts thus far: the Center for Character
Development which resulted in an increase of six positions funded
effective 1 Oct 09; the Preparatory School which resulted in an
increase of 14 positions, three of which are funded effective 1 Oct 09;
the wing Anti-Terrorism Office which resulted in an increase of one
position which was funded effective 11 May 09; and the History Office
which had no change. There are 11 other individual studies covering a
total of approximately 1,200 positions in various stages of staffing
and development.
One of those individual studies still in the staffing and
development stage includes the Dean of Faculty manning authorizations.
The initial outbrief from the AFMA team conducting the on-site study
validated our need to increase the faculty and staff by 21 percent (149
positions) to meet our current mission requirements. However, the final
report still needs to be approved by AFMA and AF/A1 before we can begin
the budgeting process to increase our manning authorizations. Due to
this lengthy process, we anticipate this manning shortfall will
continue in the near-term.
To help alleviate some of the near-term needs, we are exploring
several initiatives, including adding enlisted authorizations across
the Dean of Faculty.
Dr. Snyder. Is the USAFA planning to assign a non-commissioned
officer to each academic department to assist in managing
administrative demands?
General Born. We're currently examining the feasibility of
assigning enlisted personnel to academic departments in both
administrative support and laboratory technician roles. There is a
precedent--there were 83 enlisted authorizations in the Dean of Faculty
organization in the late 80's and they're down to 14 today. Though the
AF endstrength in the 80's was significantly higher than today's, we
believe increasing the number of administrative support and laboratory
technician personnel merits consideration. After analyzing and
establishing a baseline requirement, we'll work with our Director of
Manpower and Personnel to validate those requirements and develop a
funding strategy.
Dr. Snyder. The JCS Chairman's Officer PME Policy includes a
requirement for each of the service chiefs to provide the CJCS with
reports on the joint education programs at the pre-commissioning and
primary levels. We want to know the significant findings and
recommendations of your 2006 Report and whether you would anticipate
significantly different findings and recommendations three years later?
General Born. USAFA has never been tasked with a Joint Education
Program Report. We have been alerted to the report by HQ AF/A1DO who is
deciding a future course of action regarding whether USAFA should
provide this information in the future.
Dr. Snyder. Chairman Skelton is persuaded that the historical case
study is a particularly good way to teach both history and strategy. Do
you use the case study method, and if so, to what ends?
General Born. We value case studies as student-centered scenarios
that encourage active learning in many academic disciplines, including
history and strategy. We also invest in the appropriate faculty
development to fully leverage this learning-focused pedagogy. For the
past twenty years, we have hosted experts from DoD (most recently in
August 2009, Mr Reese Madsen, Chief Learning Officer for the
Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) and academia (John Boehrer,
Harvard), and sent faculty to a variety of case teaching and strategy
workshops (Evans School at the University of Washington, Center for
Irregular Warfare and Armed Groups at the U.S. Naval War College, the
Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies
Strategy Workshop).
In the Department of History, case studies are accompanied by
substantial thought and consideration to bring the essential element of
``context.'' We use historical case studies regularly to dig deeply
into a given historical event, to demonstrate the importance of
strategy formulation, as well as to assess critically the range of
factors that must be considered when ``thinking strategically.'' Some
of our courses can be considered whole case studies in and of
themselves (e.g., our course on the Korean and Vietnam wars). While
they can be effective instrument to learn history, they can also be
potentially dangerous when they are studied without sufficient context
and breadth or when approached with a predetermined agenda. Poorly
selected or insufficiently understood case studies may not give clear
lessons for current and future policy makers. History can be misused.
Case studies require a nimble and nuanced approach to recognize the
problems associated with any predictive quality. Nevertheless, when
studied appropriately, a case study can wonderfully demonstrate the
range of questions which shed light on historical and contemporary
events. A range of case studies can help policy-makers develop the
judgment to make suitable strategic decisions and to get a sense of the
elements of strategy formulation. Historical case studies allow us to
speak to the difficult concept of strategy outside the abstract.
In the Department of Military & Strategic Studies, the focus is on
teaching processes of strategy in different contexts. In both core and
advanced courses, historical cases are compared to cases of potential
futures, capabilities-based strategies to threat-based strategies,
enemy-centric doctrines to population-centric doctrines, political
goal-setting to culturally rational goal-setting, and so forth.
In the Department of Political Science, historical case studies
play a central role in political science pedagogy. Political science
teachers use case studies to illustrate complex ideas, demonstrate the
plausibility of systematically arrived at findings, and also to debunk
erroneous conventional wisdom, all the while purporting that a single
case alone does not establish the veracity of a perceived causal
connection.
As with other schools of management and business, the Department of
Management frequently uses the case method because many professors
believe it is the most practical and relevant way to develop student
managerial and leadership skill sets. The case study method also forces
students to decide what questions are most important and what the real
problem in the case is. These are very valuable competencies for Air
Force officers. In addition, students typically find the case study
method to be a relevant, interesting, rewarding, and fun way to learn
about ``real world'' applications of the things they are learning in
class. We select cases that sharpen student analytical and
communication skills by asking them to produce quantitative and
qualitative evidence to support assertions made in case analysis.
Dr. Snyder. It is concerning that there are only two required
history courses within the USAFA core curriculum. Credit in American
history is not required of all cadets, and credit in military history
need not be achieved within a cadet's first two years of study. How
will the USAFA remedy these concerns?
General Born. The value of American History goes without question.
In fact, during the past year, several different mechanisms have been
considered for enhancing USAFA's coverage of American History. These
include the possibility of adding an additional requirement to the core
curriculum (i.e. American History); replacing an existing core
requirement with American History; and enlarging the coverage of
American History topics in existing core courses (e.g., appropriate
courses in political science, military studies, literature, etc.). The
Academy's preferred approach to remedying these concerns is to address
them systematically through the comprehensive curriculum review process
which is currently underway.
With regard to ``only two required history courses within the USAFA
core curriculum,'' it should be noted that there are only two
disciplines--English and mathematics--for which there are as many as
three required core courses. There are many other non-technical
disciplines for which there is only one required core course (e.g.
management, political science, economics, law). In the technical
disciplines, there is only one required core course each in
aeronautics, astronautics, and computer science to equip cadets with
the knowledge and skills needed for service in the air, space, and
cyberspace domains. To further put things in perspective, the
distribution between technical and non-technical core course
hemispheres is shown below with a slight edge given to non-technical
(51 semester hours) compared to technical (45 semester hours).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Snyder. Why do the Service Academies only award Bachelor of
Science degrees? What would be the professional effect of offering
Bachelor of Arts degrees in certain academic disciplines? What would be
the professional effect of offering alternate tracks within Bachelor of
Science programs that would be heavier on humanities and social science
requirements?
General Born. The Uniformed Services Code Title 10, Section 9353,
only grants Academy Superintendents the authority to grant a Bachelor
of Science degree. Therefore, a change to law would be necessary for an
Academy to grant a Bachelor of Arts degree. However, there may be other
problems with offering both Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science
degrees even if the law were changed. To offer a Bachelor of Arts
degree involving significantly greater academic specialization in
social science or humanities disciplines would represent a significant
departure from USAFA's historic approach from an educational mission
premised upon developing generalists with a strong technical
background.
Since its inception, USAFA's curricular philosophy has been to
offer a broad and balanced core curriculum. That is, to offer a sizable
core curriculum (i.e., approximately two-thirds of a cadet's total
academic coursework) that is roughly equally balanced across the
humanities, social sciences, basic sciences and engineering
disciplines. At the same time, USAFA offers 32 academic majors
including 13 in the humanities and social sciences as well as two
minors in the humanities. This allows for more depth in an area of
interest to cadets. For cadets pursuing an academic major in the
humanities or social sciences, a total of 102 out of the 147 total
semester hours required for graduation would be taken in those
disciplines.
This emphasis upon broad, balanced and diverse coursework spanning
multiple disciplines has been based on the historically distinctive
roles that the military academies have played as accession sources into
the junior officer ranks.
Dr. Snyder. How many engineering majors does your institution try
to graduate each year? On what professional demands are these goals
predicated? Generally speaking, does the amount of time needed to
provide each cadet with a knowledge base in engineering allow the
latitude to balance academic pursuits with respect to the hard
sciences, social sciences, communications skills, military studies, and
the humanities, especially history, as they relate to a foundation in
strategy?
General Born. While graduating cadets with Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math (STEM) majors is important to the USAF because of
its highly technical mission, USAFA does not have a fixed target or
quota. Over the past 20 years, the percentage of USAFA STEM majors has
fluctuated between 45% and 55%. This is above both the national average
of 17% and the international average of 26.4% but behind China's
average of 52%. Presently there are approximately 250 cadets in the
senior class majoring in Engineering while approximately 200 are
majoring in the Basic Sciences.
As shown in the figure below, the amount of time devoted to the
engineering core curriculum is between 15 and 18 semester hours,
depending upon the choice of the interdisciplinary option, out of a
total of 97 semester hours of academic core.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We believe it helps to consider the phrase ``foundation in
strategy'' as it applies to the preparation of preparing graduates to
effectively face dynamic and complex global challenges in their roles
as junior officers. The Academy is not trying to develop experts in
strategy in the same way that it is the war colleges' responsibility to
do so. Rather, we need to prepare our graduates to behave in
strategically effective ways in often ill-defined and rapidly changing
conditions and environments. Behaving in such ways requires a
particular constellation of skills and perspectives, an understanding
of the service's and the nation's strategic interests and strategy, and
in the particular ways one supports those as a junior officer.
In that sense, ``behaving strategically'' requires that
individuals, teams, and organizations be able to learn adaptively.
Increasingly, strategy itself can even be thought of as an ongoing
learning process throughout the organization. In fact, this is
precisely the overarching purpose of the Academy's attempt to be an
examplar of learning-focused education in the development of its still
relatively new institutional Outcomes.
Furthermore, in the face of ill-defined and rapidly changing
conditions, adaptive learning in ill-defined and rapidly changing
conditions benefits from an appreciation of the interconnectedness of
multiple factors and variables--just the kind of appreciation that we
believe is fostered by our broad, intentional and developmental core
curriculum including its long-standing emphasis on STEM elements of the
core curriculum. In fact, two of the Academy's institutional Outcomes
include developing understanding of the ``Principles of Science and the
Scientific Method'' and ``Principles of Engineering and the Application
of Technology.''
Dr. Snyder. To what extent is the USAFA's engineering-based
curriculum preparing cadets to become effective officers on the ground
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere?
General Born. USAFA's academic curriculum is based not on
engineering but rather a diverse core curriculum of 97 semester hours
in basic sciences, humanities, social sciences, as well as engineering
as shown in the figure below.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This emphasis upon broad and balanced coursework spanning multiple
disciplines best prepares junior officers for the complex, dynamic, and
uncertain situation in Iraq and Afghanistan where problems are ill-
defined and often dangerous. The engineering core coursework is
specifically designed to help develop skills associated with problem
solving, critical thinking, decision making, and teamwork, as well as
providing the technical background necessary to effectively apply
technology in the ground, air, space, and cyberspace domains. Methods
developed and experience gained in the engineering curriculum in
framing and solving ill-defined problems are invaluable to their
success as leaders.
Dr. Snyder. At the USAFA, we know that the ``cadet experience'' is
a combination of academic and professional development curricula,
leadership opportunities, summer training and travel, competitive
athletics, etc. How do you factor Service, JCS, and DOD requirements
into the overall pre-commissioning experience?
General Born. Identifying AF, JCS, and DOD requirements is a
continual process, due to the ever changing environment within which we
live, learn, and operate. The Academy's mission is to develop leaders
of character. So with that in mind, teams have worked, and are
continuing to work, multiple issues for integration into the USAFA
curriculum. We emphasize the actionable--what knowledge, skills, and
responsibilities should the next generation of officers possess? The
conversation may begin at one of three organizational levels. First, at
the pre-commissioning level (USAF Commissioning Training and Education
Committee--AFA, ANG, AFOTS, AFROTC), we regularly meet with the other
USAF commissioning sources to adapt our curricula to the contemporary
learning and operating environment. Adjustments to the course of
instruction resulting from this collaboration are incorporated into
strategic guidance such as Air Force Instruction 36-2014, Commissioning
Education. This guidance also incorporates current Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Officer Professional Military Education Policy.
Second, our AF leadership may issue a vector for the Academy. Third,
through current research and education and training engagement with our
Service, JCS, and DoD, we, the Academy team, adapt to and anticipate
emerging requirements. A prime example is our Operation Air Force
deployed summer program where cadets engage with other services in
Southwest Asia locations. This provides first-hand exposure and
experience in the joint environment.
To integrate requirements, USAFA has developed, implemented, and
assessed a single set of Outcomes that all mission elements support to
develop cadets into leaders of character who embody the Air Force core
values (Integrity First, Service Before Self, Excellence in All We Do).
The Outcomes (Tier One: Responsibilities, Skills, and Knowledge) are
the foundation upon which our recent ten-year accreditation was based,
and to which all programs and courses across mission elements are
connected. Specific programs and courses have been identified to assess
each of the Outcomes' nineteen Tier Two categories (see Outcomes chart
below). When determining how to integrate a requirement, we evaluate
how it relates to Tier One Outcome(s), and then, in greater detail, to
one of the nineteen Tier Two Outcomes. Connecting the requirement to
mission elements is the responsibility of commanders, senior leaders,
Ph.D. faculty, certified trainers, and athletic professionals. The
Outcomes are assessed based upon Higher Learning Commission
accreditation standards. Linking Service, JCS and/or DoD requirements
to the Academy Outcomes is key to maintaining a credible, accountable,
value-added four-year academic, professional, and character/leadership
curriculum (which only the nation's service academies provide) at the
pre-commissioning level.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Snyder. How frequently are major reviews of the USAFA's core
curriculum conducted? What is the process for review and for the
implementation of any recommended adjustments?
General Born. Major reviews/revisions of the core curriculum were
accomplished in 1964, 1975, 1979, 1986, 1994, 1997, 2002, and 2006.
Regarding the process for curriculum review and change, a few of the
highlights of the governing USAFA Instruction 36-3507, Curriculum
Handbook and Curriculum Change Control, are listed below:
- The USAFA Curriculum Committee (a subcommittee of the Academy
Board) meets once a semester
- Committee is chaired by the Dean of the Faculty; voting
members include the Dean of the Faculty; the Vice Dean of the
Faculty; the Associate Dean for Student Academic Affairs and
Academy Registrar (DFR); the Deputy Registrar and Chief,
Academic Affairs and Curriculum Division (non-voting); the
Associate Dean for Curriculum and Strategy; all DF academic
department heads; the Vice Commandant of Cadets; the Vice
Commandant for Strategic Programs; the Director of Training and
Support; the Director, Center for Character Development; the
Wing Director of Curriculum; the Vice Athletic Director; the
Deputy Director of Athletics and Head, Physical Education; the
Director, Plans and Programs (non-voting); and the Director of
Admissions (non-voting)
- DFR requests Curriculum Change Proposals (CCPs) from all
Mission Elements (MEs) through committee members--effective NET
1 year from semester submitted
- DFR publishes CCP package two weeks before USAFA Curriculum
Committee meets
- The Integrated Curriculum Review Committee (ICRC), a
subcommittee of the USAFA Curriculum Committee with a balanced
composition across all mission elements, meets prior to the
Curriculum Committee
- The ICRC has authority to approve/disapprove some
proposals; forwards review on others
- The ICRC meets outside of curriculum cycle to discuss
integration initiatives across USAFA
- The USAFA Curriculum Committee meets to discuss and vote on
CCP's
- Significant changes forwarded to Academy Board for final
approval
- Approved changes are incorporated into USAFA's curriculum via
the Curriculum Handbook, USAFA Catalog, Cadet Administrative Management
Information System (CAMIS), and other products required for
implementation
Dr. Snyder. We understand that the USAFA was going to conduct a
comprehensive 50-year curriculum review, but that it may not proceed.
Would you please explain your current efforts?
General Born. This question reflects a misunderstanding of our
plans to mark the occasion of USAFA's 50th Anniversary through an
initiative we've entitled FALCON Flight. FALCON stands for Fortifying
and Aligning our Learning Capacity for Our Nation. The details of
FALCON Flight are currently being coordinated at the mission element
level but several of the important issues are discussed below.
Our previous comprehensive curriculum review occurred in 2006.
Since then, USAFA has begun implementing several major transformations
in our institutional approach to developing cadets. These include the
adoption of nineteen institutional Outcomes, and a more integrated
approach across our Mission Elements linking our efforts in developing
these Outcomes. There have been several recent external validations of
these efforts by the academic community, including a strong endorsement
by the Higher Learning Commission for a ten-year institutional re-
accreditation. Perhaps the most important challenge facing us today,
then, is to assure that we've embedded the myriad of changes to our
systems, practices and culture so that this transformation will be
sustained.
It has become increasingly clear to us that a curriculum review
needs to address the total institutional context including not ``just''
the curriculum itself (broadly defined to include academic, military,
athletic and airmanship coursework) but also the broader policies and
practices that impact our ability to assure that our varied learning
outcomes are achieved. There are presently strategic conversations
underway among the USAFA senior leadership about what should be our
mid- and longer-term strategy.
An important element in this mid- to longer-term strategy as
articulated in FALCON Flight will be the design and implementation of
an explicit mechanism by which the USAFA Outcomes will be periodically
reviewed to ensure that they address the shifting requirements of
officers in the 21st century. The nineteen USAFA Outcomes were recently
developed based upon a careful analysis of the requirements of officers
in the 21st century as we understood them to be at the time. But
because our profession and the AF's role in it are going through
dramatic changes, the Outcomes and the supporting Course of Instruction
(COI) will need to be periodically reviewed. Our graduates must be
prepared to lead in an increasingly complex, joint, interagency, and
multinational environment. To remain relevant and support the Air Force
and the American people, we must understand how the profession of arms
is changing and what the Air Force needs of its Lieutenants. We must
make sure our COIs align with and produce officers who meet those
Outcomes. To help ensure that this forward-looking activity is ongoing,
a mechanism should be developed by which the USAFA Outcomes are
periodically reviewed. The time period for updating or changing the
Outcomes should reflect a balance between ensuring sufficient
responsiveness to the changing world on the one hand and on the other,
providing enough time to conduct an effective assessment cycle. Another
way of thinking about it, USAFA will need to adjust the Outcomes
``target'' from time to time but not before we know whether or not we
hit that target in the previous round of COI delivery.
Dr. Snyder. How do you evaluate the performance of the faculty and
staff at your institution?
General Born. Civilian Faculty:
The civilian faculty and staff are comprised of four groups of
federal civil service employees (Administratively Determined (AD),
General Schedule (GS), National Security Personnel System (NSPS), and
Wage Grade (WG)), employees from other governmental agencies (Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and the
Department of State (DOS)), and visiting faculty members from colleges,
universities, and the private sector.
The federal civil service employees are evaluated on an annual
basis utilizing the respective federal performance appraisal system
(AD, GS, NSPS, and WG), each of which is designed to evaluate
performance aligned with each employee's Core Document (position
description). In addition, the quarterly and annual awards programs
serve as a means of recognizing outstanding performers.
Since the employees from other governmental agencies are brought to
the Academy as teachers, they are evaluated on the quality of their
performance as related to the fundamental faculty responsibilities of
teaching, research/scholarship, and service.
Visiting faculty members are also evaluated on the quality of their
performance as related to the fundamental faculty responsibilities of
teaching, research/scholarship, and service. In addition, these
civilian educators are called upon to be critical external evaluators
of our academic programs. They bring a vital expertise to the Air Force
Academy and this two-way exchange of knowledge has proven to be
mutually beneficial to both the Academy and the visiting faculty
members.
Military Faculty:
Military faculty and staff are evaluated according to the same Air
Force Instruction (AFI 36-2406, Evaluations) as all other military
members throughout the Air Force. The fact that many of them are
operating outside their core area of assigned duties (AFSC) makes this
a valuable career broadening opportunity.
Dr. Snyder. Do your military faculty members get promotions and are
they selected for command? Please provide statistics for the last five
years.
General Born. Our military faculty members are competitive for
promotions as the figures (in the table below) for the last five years
indicate. For promotions to Major and Lt Col, the Dean of Faculty has
been above the AF average in all years except for calendar year (CY)
2006. Promotions to the grade of Colonel are below the AF average for
this 5 year time period.
Many of our officers are competitive and selected for command after
completing their faculty tour or later on in their Air Force career.
Although we do have several field grade officers each year screened and
selected for command positions, we do not maintain a database on these
command selections.
The table below shows the Dean of Faculty's statistics with
comparison to Air Force selection rates for `in the promotion zone'
(IPZ) Line of the Air Force (LAF) promotion boards to Maj, Lt Col, and
Col for CY 2005 through CY 2009.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Snyder. The USAFA has recently developed a ``rotating
contract'' system. Please describe and discuss that system. What
feedback have you received from civilian faculty with respect to the
system?
General Born. Our civilian faculty system is called the Civilian
Faculty Reappointment System. We do not refer to it as a ``rotating
contract'' system.
For civilian civil service faculty members on an initial three-year
appointment, the Dean of the Faculty, after conferring with the
respective Department or Staff Agency Head, determines whether a
faculty member is to be reappointed when one year remains on the
initial three-year appointment. Factors considered in deciding to
reappoint will include superior faculty member performance as detailed
in current and past performance appraisals and careful consideration of
the following factors:
- Essential qualities expected of every faculty member include the
personal attributes of integrity, industry, cooperation, initiative,
and breadth of intellectual interests.
- Demonstrated excellence in teaching is an absolute and
fundamental requirement. Teaching performance may be demonstrated by
classroom presentations; course and laboratory development; course
direction; leadership of independent student projects; and mentorship
of junior faculty.
- Faculty members normally conduct research, engage in
consultation (consistent with public law and DoD and Air Force
directives), write and publish educational and professional articles
and textbooks, and participate in conferences and other activities of
learned societies. These activities strengthen and improve the
faculty's capacity to carry out the Academy's mission and
simultaneously enrich classroom teaching.
- Each faculty member provides service to the Air Force, the Air
Force Academy, and the professional community. Such service may take
the form of involvement in cadet activities and programs,
administration, faculty governance, curriculum and program management,
or temporary assignment to other Air Force organizations.
Based on feedback from the Faculty Forum (an advisory group to Dean
of Faculty senior leadership) the current reappointment system was
established. If a reappointment is warranted, the new appointment
length will normally be for a period of four years, although lesser
periods may be approved depending on the specific circumstances. The
respective Department Head or Staff Agency Head will inform the Dean in
writing on the Performance Appraisal of the faculty member's desire to
be reappointed, after consultation with the faculty member. For faculty
members who have already been reappointed at least once, at the end of
each annual appraisal cycle, the Dean of the Faculty, after conferring
with the respective Department or Staff Agency Head, will determine
whether a faculty member will be reappointed. This decision will be
made when three years remain on a faculty member's current four-year
appointment. Reappointments will normally be for a one-year period,
meaning that after reappointment, the faculty member will have no more
than four years remaining on their appointment.
The Dean of Faculty organization recently completed the second
academic year under the new reappointment system. The new system was
supported by a large majority of civilian faculty members because
reappointments would now be determined with three years remaining on a
faculty member's current appointment. Under the old system that
decision was made with only one year remaining. So there is improved
job security if warranted by performance.
Now that the ``timing'' for reappointments has been established, we
are continuing the process of modifying existing instructions to
incorporate consistent language with regard to performance measurement
criteria and the coupling of quality performance to reappointment. The
feedback we have received from the faculty regarding our progress in
this area has been very positive.
Dr. Snyder. To what extent may civilians from other government
agencies, such as the State Department or the CIA, be detailed to the
USAFA faculty? How do these visiting faculty members help students
better understand the perspectives of other agencies?
General Born. Civilians from other governmental agencies such as
the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the
State Department can be detailed to the USAFA faculty if both
organizations agree to such an arrangement and if the sponsoring agency
provides funding and logistical support. The specifics of each detail
vary from agency to agency. The Academy's primary responsibility is to
supply adequate administrative support (office space, computer, etc.).
The only restriction on accepting qualified civilian employees is from
governmental agency policies.
Since the inception of the Visiting Faculty Program in the mid-
1970s, employees from other governmental agencies have brought their
personal academic expertise as well as their professional perspective
to the classroom, adding an important dimension to the learning cadets
receive. In addition, the dialogue between these instructors and their
cadets concerning the strategic and tactical operations of their
respective agencies allows cadets to gain a unique and extremely
valuable insight into policy making at the national level. For example,
the Department of State visiting professor is often asked to explain
the role of the State Department and contrast its culture and mission
with the Department of Defense. He uses anecdotes such as one developed
by U.S. diplomat Anton K. Smith that describes the warrior approach to
problems as ``How can we get this done?'' in contrast to the diplomat's
approach which might be ``How can we shape the situation to arrive
together at a mutually desirable goal, while maintaining a relationship
capable of addressing other important goals in a continuing process?''
Visiting government faculty members help cadets understand the
perspective of other agencies by presenting the unique organizational
culture of that agency. Most government policy is formulated through an
interagency process and in general, no national security or
international affairs issue can be resolved by one agency alone.
Visiting faculty members present the views and cultures of other
agencies in the classroom and through participation in extracurricular
activities, thus giving cadets significantly different perspectives
than if just limited to those of the Air Force or Department of
Defense. Interaction between visiting faculty and cadets increases the
comfort level of cadets in dealing with government civilians, which is
critical as military and civilian roles become increasingly
intertwined. By providing cadets with early exposure to different
perspectives and approaches to problem solving, visiting faculty
members serve to prepare cadets for their future careers in which being
able to perform effectively in the government interagency process and
interact with civilians depends on a broad knowledge of issues and
organizational cultures.
Dr. Snyder. In 2004, the ``Larson Report'' looked at the role of
permanent professors (PPs) at all of the Service Academies with a
special focus on the USAFA. Please discuss the changes you have made in
the PP system as a result of the Larson Report? The Larson Report
specifically called for the USAFA to hire ``pure'' civilian academics,
as intended by Congress. The USAFA has apparently disregarded that
recommendation. Please explain. Also, please discuss the effect that
PPs have on the participation of civilians within the school's
leadership structure.
General Born. The 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, Section
528, directed the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) to complete a
``study and report related to permanent professors at the United States
Air Force Academy.'' The SecAF selected Admiral (ret) Charles R. Larson
to lead the study, the goal of which was to provide a detailed look at
the Air Force Academy while at the same time comparing Air Force
Academy faculty systems, organizations, and structure with those at
West Point and Annapolis.
The Larson Report concluded, ``There is a perception across the Air
Force that the Air Force Academy's permanent professors have been at
the Academy too long, have lost touch with the Air Force, and are a
part of the systemic problems that led to the current crisis. The
average longevity of permanent professors at both West Point and the
Air Force Academy is approximately nine years. The term ``permanent''
is misleading and has become pejorative. This study found no serious
problems with the existing Air Force Academy permanent professor system
and little evidence of an ``ivory tower'' mentality or stagnation. To
the contrary, permanent professors have served as an anchor of
stability during a period of faculty transition.'' In addition, ``This
study strongly recommends the permanent professor program be
sustained.''
Given the strong support by Admiral Larson for the PP program as it
existed, few changes were needed. The primary change was adopting the
study's recommendation for consideration to be given to the value of
short-term TDY assignments or deployments in critical operational areas
as being equally or more important than sabbaticals to narrow areas
unrelated to cadets' first assignments. This language has been codified
in Air Force Instruction 36-3501, Air Force Academy Operations (28
April 2008), which says, ``Permanent Professors will periodically
(normally every 5 years) serve on sabbaticals in fields related to
their Permanent Professor responsibilities to ensure they remain
current in their discipline or serve in the operational Air Force for
the purposes of refreshing their operational experience in their
primary career field. The service can be extended TDYs, deployments, or
PCS assignments (para. 2.13.16.3.)''
The Larson Report recognizes the intent of Congress in its 1994
legislation to bring in civilian faculty members that can add a fresh
outlook, doctoral-level currency, and depth in their academic
discipline to the U.S. Air Force Academy and recommends that ``to
comply with the true intent of Congress, and to ensure the maximum
strength of the civilian element of the faculty, future civilian hires
should be ``pure academicians'' from civilian higher education.
However, specific application of this recommendation is constrained by
other legislation such as the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA, 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4301-4335).
USERRA is a federal law intended to ensure that persons who serve or
have served in the Armed Forces, Reserves, National Guard or other
``uniformed services:'' (1) are not disadvantaged in their civilian
careers because of their service; (2) are promptly reemployed in their
civilian jobs upon their return from duty; and (3) are not
discriminated against in employment based on past, present, or future
military service (emphasis added). Specifically Sec. 4311 of the USERRA
legislation makes it illegal to discriminate against a person who is a
member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies
to perform, or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed
service. Such a person shall not be denied initial employment,
reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of
employment by an employer on the basis of that membership, application
for membership, performance of service, application for service, or
obligation.
Previous USAFA attempts to hire ``pure academicians'' instead of
equally or more qualified military retirees resulted in a complaint to
and an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). As a
result of the investigation, OSC informed USAFA that they would bring
an action before the Merit Systems Protection Board unless USAFA
strictly complied with the anti-discrimination provisions of USERRA.
After a discussion with OSC and a review of the law, USAFA thereafter
hired the soon-to-be retired military applicant for a civilian faculty
position at USAFA.
The report, A Blend of Excellence: Military-Civilian Faculty Mix at
the Service Academies, submitted by the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel) in response to
the 1993 NDAA makes no mention of ``pure academicians.'' It defines the
role of civilian faculty to be competent in their disciplines, adept at
educational innovation, and abreast of educational advances--all
characteristics demanded of any new civilian faculty member, regardless
of their previous work history. In fact, a number of our retired
military faculty members have also served at civilian universities
before being hired here.
The PPs embrace the participation of civilians within the school's
leadership structure. Since 2007, three PPs have selected civilians
from their departments to serve as department heads while the PPs
completed sabbaticals ranging from six months to 2.5 years. All PPs
have embedded civilians throughout their department leadership
hierarchy, and in 2005, the Dean of the Faculty established the
position of Associate Dean for Curriculum and Strategy that rotates
among civilian full professors every 2-4 years. This position is
equivalent to the Vice Dean of the Faculty.
Dr. Snyder. How hard is it to attract top civilian faculty to the
USAFA? What incentives do you offer civilian faculty candidates?
General Born. Since the inception of the Civilian Faculty Program
in 1993, we have been extremely successful in attracting and retaining
top-quality faculty members who are dedicated to the Academy mission of
educating, training, and inspiring men and women to become officers of
character. One measure of faculty quality is institutional recognition.
In addition to recently receiving institutional re-accreditation for
the maximum allowable period of ten years, the Academy was just named
the best baccalaureate college in the west for the third year in a row.
In addition, for the past few years the Academy was cited as the #1
institution in the nation for possessing the ``most accessible
faculty.'' These institutional accolades are a direct reflection of the
quality and dedication of the civilian faculty members. In addition,
the number of civilian faculty members receiving individual recognition
is truly noteworthy as evidenced by the following list of recent
awards:
Colorado Professor of the Year: 2008, 2005, 2003, and 2002
2009 Award for Innovative Excellence in Teaching, Learning &
Technology
2009 von Karman Lectureship in Astronautics
International Association of University English Professors
Patents for holographic/laser technologies (2007-8)
Patent for Hydrogen Flow Controller (2008)
2007 NASA Engineering/Safety Group Achievement Award
2007 Robert M. Yerkes Award (Military Psychology)
McLucas Basic Research Award 2008 (Hon Men)
Fulbright Scholarships: 2009 (Russia, Singapore, Jordan), 2007 (South
Africa, India, Warsaw)
2007 Air Force Nominee for Arthur S. Flemming Award
2007 Ernest L. Boyer International Award for Excellence in Teaching,
Learning, and Technology
2008 Air Force Nominee for the DoD Distinguished Civilian Service
Award
2008 Dolores Zohrab Liebmann Fellowship
2008 Association for Computing Machinery Distinguished Scientist/
Engineer/Member Award
2008 Pi Mu Epsilon Faculty Award
Quality civilian faculty members are drawn to the Air Force Academy
for a number of reasons to include the opportunity to interact with an
outstanding student body, participate in top-tier undergraduate
research initiatives, and contribute to a unique and extremely
important mission. In addition, the ability to live in one of the most
beautiful areas of the country is an incentive for many. Salary and
benefit packages offered to civilian faculty members at the Air Force
Academy are comparable to other four-year institutions of higher
education, with the one exception being contract length. Nine-month and
ten-month contracts for faculty members in higher educational
institutions are the norm. At the Air Force Academy, all civilian
faculty members are on twelve-month appointments because their services
are required during the summer months as well as during the academic
year. For the vast majority of faculty members, receiving a paycheck
every month of the year is an employment incentive.
Dr. Snyder. Are there any significant impediments to sending USAFA
faculty members, whether civilian or military, for professional or
academic purposes to foreign universities? Are there any significant
impediments to sending faculty members for the same reasons to top tier
universities within the United States?
General Born. USAFA strives to send faculty members to a diverse
pool of universities to ensure the quality of our academic curriculum.
USAFA considers faculty members' attendance at top-tier schools both in
the United States and overseas as critical in sustaining and evolving
the diversity and quality of our programs.
For military faculty, the primary challenge to enrollment is the
cost of tuition at both state-side and overseas universities. The Air
Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) provides both administrative
oversight and financial responsibility to sustain our faculty education
programs both in-residence at Wright Patterson AFB and at civilian
universities. When appropriate, we send faculty members in-residence to
AFIT. When the required program is not offered at AFIT, the individual
has already received an AFIT degree at the Masters level, or when
diversity is needed among a particular program's faculty, faculty are
sent to a large number of universities throughout the U.S. and
overseas. Faculty are currently attending four overseas universities:
Oxford, Cambridge, and Surrey in England, as well as Delft University
of Technology in the Netherlands. Tuition costs currently range from
$17,000 to $28,000 per year for these overseas universities. In the
United States, the tuition can approach $40,000 per year for top tier
schools. At the same time, AFIT is only budgeted at $19,000 per year
per student. While many excellent schools have tuitions that fit this
requirement, many schools do not, including most private universities.
The result has been to limit our faculty to those state-side schools
with lower tuitions unless the faculty member can obtain merit based
supplemental scholarship money from the university they wish to attend.
In today's environment, those opportunities are limited. With few
exceptions, most of our faculty attend AFIT in-residence or attend
state universities. For the three universities in England, our faculty
members are normally able to attend with tuition scholarships through
long-standing relationships with the schools and various research
programs. In the case of Delft, we have a relationship that allows us
to send a faculty member to a PhD program free of tuition.
With regard to civilian faculty members, there are no significant
impediments to sending faculty members to either top tier U.S.
institutions or to foreign universities in a TDY status for a
relatively short period of time. With regard to sending faculty members
to either top tier U.S. institutions or to foreign universities for an
extended period of time (a semester or an academic year), one
impediment is insufficient funding. Currently, we cannot reimburse
faculty members for moving costs to and from their temporary locations.
While some external funding assistance in the form of grants or
scholarships helps, the only plausible long-term solution is dedicated
funding for Leaves for Professional Development.
Dr. Snyder. It has been asserted that institutional efforts to
generate more diversity in the student body and to recruit top athletes
have had a negative impact on classroom dynamics and the quality of
students and graduates. How do you respond to those assertions?
General Born. Research shows that diversity (structural diversity
complemented by interaction and classroom diversity) produces
significant benefits for both minority and majority students alike.
Increased diversity in the classroom not only enriches the learning
environment for all students, but it promotes greater understanding,
interaction, and acceptance across other institutional settings and
beyond. As noted by Scott and Cooney (2004), ``significant diversity
among students on a campus can challenge racial, ethnic, gender,
religious and regional stereotypes, promote intergroup respect and
willingness to embrace differences, increase feelings of belongingness
among minority students, and in the words of Supreme Court Justice
Lewis Powell, `create robust marketplaces of ideas' that enhance the
intellectual experiences of all students. Further, researchers have
found that many benefits of diversity accrued in one's college years
have significant carry-over in later years.''
The Air Force definition of diversity is a composite of individual
characteristics that includes personal life experiences (including
having overcome adversity by personal efforts), geographic background
(e.g., region, rural, suburban, urban), socioeconomic background,
cultural knowledge, educational background (including academic
excellence, and whether an individual would be a first generation
college student), work background (including prior enlisted service),
language abilities (with particular emphasis on languages of strategic
importance to the Air Force), physical abilities (including athletic
prowess), philosophical/spiritual perspectives, age (cadet applicants
must be within statutory parameters for academy attendance), race,
ethnicity and gender.
Our focus on increasing cadet diversity has resulted in higher-
quality students. The USAFA Class of 2013 has the highest average SAT
composite and tied for the highest average ACT composite in USAFA
history. Their average weighted high school grade point average was
3.86, and 76 percent of them were in the top fifth of their graduating
high school class. In addition to record academic scores, their
character and leadership indices were both the highest on record since
Admissions began using the current holistic review process. Finally,
the pool of applicants was larger than it has been in the past five
years realizing an 11 percent increase over the previous year, while
the number of qualified candidates also experienced the highest one
year increase on record.
Not only has the quality jumped, but the USAFA Class of 2013 is
also by far one of our most structurally diverse ever. We received the
highest number of African American, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific
Islander applications and the third highest number of female
applications. This class yielded the highest number of qualified
Hispanic candidates and the third highest number of qualified female
candidates. Hispanic candidates accepted the highest number of
appointments in USAFA history, while minorities overall, as well as
females, accepted the second highest number of appointments ever. The
Class of 2013 also produced the highest number of qualified African
American candidates and African American appointments offered, while
tying the highest number of African American appointments accepted, all
in the last 17 years.
The efficacy of the outstanding programs, curricula, and
environment at the Air Force Academy is borne out by the graduation
statistics for diverse and majority cadets. As an example, the chart
below indicates that African American and Hispanic cadets graduate at
nearly identical rates as majority cadets and that all three categories
graduate well above the national average for undergraduate students.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*After implementation of Air Force Academy Diversity Plan
**From the article from the Diverse Issues in Higher Education
magazine dated 9 Jun 09, by Michelle J. Nealy
***Data from 2007 US. Average from NCHEMS Information Center for
Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis website
Increased diversity not only enriches the USAFA educational and
training experience but also enhances Air Force capabilities and
warfighting skills. Our graduates will serve as leaders of an Air Force
already composed of people from widely diverse backgrounds and
experiences and projected to become even more diverse. This diversity
is one of our greatest strengths and optimizing the effectiveness of
that strength is our leadership challenge. The Air Force must also be
prepared to respond to a variety of threats throughout the world, so
Airmen must be able to fight effectively in this dynamic global
environment and successfully work with, or fight against, military
forces and people of differing cultures and views. Our approach
therefore must go beyond recruiting and accessions to encompass
retention, leadership development and accountability.
To this end, the Air Force Academy is a leadership laboratory where
cadets develop leadership abilities through demonstrated performance.
They are organized in a structure similar to the Air Force itself, and
progress through cadet ranks and positions that allow them to exercise
leadership skills at progressively more challenging levels. This
provides exceptional opportunities to learn and these opportunities are
best realized when the cadet cadre itself is widely diverse. Only in
such an amalgamated environment can cadets learn to bring out the best
in each individual regardless of his or her background, and achieve
organizational effectiveness by combining the individual strengths and
perspectives each person brings to the organization. Correspondingly,
we conclude that recruiting, retaining, developing and graduating a
diverse cadet corps is as important for Air Force leadership training
as it is for the quality of academic education.
Dr. Snyder. Does the USAFA receive funding for the purpose of
promoting diversity? If so, how is this funding utilized?
General Born. Prior to FY10, there has been no specific budget line
item programmed into USAFA's baseline for Diversity Recruiting/
Outreach.
In FY08, USAFA/RR committed $166K of its O&M toward
Diversity Recruiting and received an additional $180K from the USAFA/CC
and $15K from USAFA/FM for a total FY08 program of $316K.
In FY09, USAFA/RR committed $214K of its O&M toward
Diversity Recruiting and received $250K from the USAFA/CC, $440K via
congressional insert from CM Becerra, and an additional $180K from the
USAFA/CC for Leaders Encouraging Airmen Development (LEAD), Diversity
Affairs Coordinators (DAC), and Diversity Visitation Program (DVP) for
a total FY09 program of $1.084M.
For FY10, Air Force Corporate Structure added $250K to
the USAFA baseline specifically for Diversity Recruiting. USAFA/RR is
committing an additional $388K for a total program of $638K.
- USAFA Diversity Recruiting/Outreach FY10 O&M Requirement =
$1.597M
-USAFA Diversity Recruiting/Outreach FY10 O&M Shortfall = $959K
Currently, Congress is deliberating through the FY10 authorization
and appropriations acts a USAFA request for $1.7M to support the USAFA
diversity program in FY10.
This response does not address the USAFA Diversity Retention
requirement ($1.655M) or Diversity Program Civilian Pay requirement
($2.9M) identified in the 2009 USAFA Diversity Plan. The additional
USAFA Diversity Plan requirements will be addressed in the FY12-17
Program Objective Memorandum (POM) process.
Dr. Snyder. What are the current retention figures for USAFA
graduates among active duty Air Force personnel at the five and fifteen
year milestones?
General Born. AFPC provided the attached document (below) to answer
similar Congressional inquiries.
AFPC data shows the following USAFA graduate retention for line
officers:
5-year point: 79.6%
15-year point: 37.9%
Additional questions regarding active duty retention data
(including USAFA graduate) can be directed to HQ AFPC/CCX Workflow
AFPC.Workflow@RANDOLPH.AF.
MIL DSN 665-4606 Comm (210) 565-4606.
Dr. Snyder. Please provide a comprehensive list with the numbers of
all outside scholarships awarded to USAFA graduates over the past five
years, together with a brief description of each.
General Born. The answer is in two parts:
I. description of the outside scholarships awarded
II. summary of the scholarships by year.
I. Description of outside Scholarships awarded to cadets, 2005 through
2009.
a. California Institute of Technology. Two-year program of study
leading to an MS degree in Physics.
b. Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Scholarship. A 12-
month or 24-month master's degree program in either Political Science
or Engineering.
c. East-West Center Scholarship at the University of Hawaii. Two-year
program of study leading to a master's degree. It can be either an MA
or MS, depending on the program of study--see list of programs
available below. Language proficiency in one of the Pacific Rim
languages is required (primarily Chinese and Japanese).
1. Program for Cultural Studies: This program deals with
historical and social aspects of Asia and the Pacific. It
applies to those specializing in the Humanities and Behavioral
Science.
2. Program for Environment: Concentrates on environmental and
developmental aspects of Asia and the Pacific. Environmental
Engineers and Management majors should consider this area.
3. Program for International Economics and Politics:
Appropriate for Political Science, Economics and Management
majors.
4. Resource Programs: Focuses on development, extraction, and
efficient use of resources in the Asia and Pacific region. This
is an appropriate field for Engineering majors.
d. Fulbright Scholarship. International program for a 10-month stay in
a foreign country to learn about the culture and improve language
proficiency. Open to all disciplines but requires language proficiency
in the language of the country for which one applies. This is not a
degree-scholarship program, although some Fulbright Scholars have
obtained degrees in Canada, India and the UK. The purpose of the
Fulbright scholarship is to increase mutual understanding between the
people of the United States and other countries through the exchange of
persons, knowledge, and skills.
e. Gates-Cambridge Scholarship. Open to all disciplines. Two-year
scholarship at Cambridge University leading to either an MSc (Research
Master degree usually in the sciences) or an MPhil (Master of
Philosophy) degree. A three-year version is offered which will lead to
a doctorate (DPhil).
f. Hertz Scholarship. The Hertz Scholarship is considered by many to be
the top U.S. scholarship for the U.S. citizens who intend to make their
skills and abilities available for the defense of the United States in
times of national emergency. Primary fields of study are in the Applied
Physical Sciences construed in a broad sense--Physics, Chemistry,
Mathematics, and Engineering Sciences. Scholarship is tenable at any
one of the 43 top engineering and basic sciences institutions in the
United States
g. Alberta Bart Holaday Scholarship. Two-year program of study at
Exeter College, Oxford University, UK. This scholarship is open to all
majors and leads to a master's degree.
h. JFK Presidential Scholarship @ Harvard University. Two-year program
of study at Harvard University, the John F. Kennedy School of
Government, leading to a Master's of Public Policy with choice of a
Policy Area of Concentration. This program is open to all majors.
i. Marshall Scholarship. Open to U.S. citizens under 26 years of age on
October 1 of the year in which the award will be taken up. Must be a
graduate or a graduating senior of an accredited U.S. college or
university, with a minimum grade point average of 3.7 for the final
three undergraduate years. Open to all disciplines for a two-year
scholarship at any college or university in the UK leading to either an
MSc (Research Master degree usually in the sciences) or an MPhil
(Master of Philosophy) degree. A three-year version is offered leading
to a doctorate (DPhil).
j. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Scholarship (MIT). Two-year
scholarship open to students admitted to research degree programs at
MIT. This includes many technical areas, including but not limited to
the following: aeronautical engineering and astronautical engineering
(mostly instrumentation, control, and estimation), mechanical
engineering, materials science, electrical engineering, and computer
science. Scholarships are awarded by the department, Charles Stark
Draper Laboratory, or MIT Lincoln Laboratory.
k. National Science Foundation (NSF) Scholarship. Two-year scholarship
only available to persons who (a) are citizens or nationals of the
United States (or will be by the time of the application), (b) have
demonstrated ability and special aptitude for advanced training in the
sciences, (c) have been admitted to graduate status by the institution
they select or will have been so admitted prior to beginning their
fellowship tenures, and (d) have not completed more than one year of
full-time or part-time graduate study. Scholarships awarded primarily
to Mathematical, Physical, Biological, Behavioral Sciences, Social
Sciences, Engineering, History of Philosophy, and History of Science.
l. Superintendent's RAND PhD Scholarship. Open to all majors, but
candidates must have a strong analytical background. This three-year
program of study leads to a doctorate in Policy Analysis. This is an
interdisciplinary program combining analytical rigor with practical
experience in some of the world's most challenging problem areas:
security, health, justice, education, and poverty.
m. Rhodes Scholarship. One- or two-year program of study at Oxford
University, UK. It is open to all disciplines. Must be a United States
citizen with at least five years domicile, between the ages of 18 and
24 at the time of scholarship application, have at least junior
standing at a recognized college or university, and receive official
endorsement of the college or university. Quality of both character and
intellect is the most important requirement for a Rhodes Scholarship,
which the Rhodes Scholarship Committee seeks to ascertain. The commonly
held opinion is that the Rhodes Scholarship is the most prestigious
scholarship in the world. They select only 32 scholars per year.
n. Rice University Scholarship. This two-year program of study is open
to all qualified Aeronautical Engineering, Astronautical Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science, Mathematical Sciences,
Operations Research, and Physics students. Many technical areas,
including: Guidance, Navigation, Control Automation, Electrical
Engineering, and Computing Technology. Degree program leads to an MS in
engineering.
o. Harry S. Truman Scholarship. This junior year scholarship awards
$30,000 for graduate study. It is open to all disciplines with a focus
on service and leadership.
p. University of Colorado Scholarship. 18-month program leading to an
MS in Engineering.
q. University of Maryland Scholarship. Two-year interdisciplinary
program open to all majors. An important selection criterion is a
continuing interest in public problems and service in the public
sector. This program awards a Master's in Public Policy.
r. University of Washington Aero-Astro Fellowship. The fellowships are
open to all qualified Aero-Astro Engineering students for an 18-month
program of study leading an MS in Engineering.
s. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Scholarship. 12-
month or 18-month program of study is open to all qualified
Aeronautical Engineering, Astronautical Engineering, Mechanical
Engineering, Computer Science, Mathematical Sciences, Operations
Research, and Physics students. Program leads to an MS degree in the
discipline studied.
II. OUTSIDE SCHOLARSHIPS AWARDED--2005 TO 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholarship/ 2005 through
Program School 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a California ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 1
Institute of
Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b Center for Space ---- ---- 2 ---- 2 4
and Defense
Studies
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c East-West Center 1 ---- 1 ---- 1 (declined) 3
Scholarship at
the University
of Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d Fulbright 1 ---- 2 ---- 2 (declined) 5
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e Gates-Cambridge ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 1
University
Scholarship+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f Hertz Scholarship ---- ---- ---- 1 ---- 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
g Alberta Bart 1 1 1 1 1 5
Holaday
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
h JFK Presidential 5 4 5 4 5 23
Scholarship @
Harvard
University
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i Marshall ---- ---- 1 ---- 1 2
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
j Massachusetts 7 9 7 12 5 40
Institute of
Technology
Scholarship
(Departmental,/
Draper/or
Lincoln
Laboratory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
k National Science ---- ---- 1 (deferred) ---- 1 (deferred) 2
Foundation (NSF)
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
l Superintendent's 1 2 4 3 4 14
RAND PhD
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
m Rhodes ---- ---- 1 1 ----- 27
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n Rice University 2 4 6 7 8 2
Scholarship
(Departmental or
Draper
Laboratory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o Truman 1 1 1 ---- 1 4
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p University of ---- ---- ---- ---- 5 5
Colorado
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
q University of 4 3 4 4 4 19
Maryland
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
r University of 2 1 1 3 1 8
Washington
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s Virginia ---- ---- ---- 1 ---- 1
Polytechnic
Institute and
State University
Scholarship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS 25 25 37 37 43 167
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Snyder. Please explain in detail the difference between the
USAFA's ``Learning Focused Environment'' and the environment which
preceded it at the USAFA.
General Born. While relatively recent, USAFA's learning-focused
environment has both paralleled and been reinforced by new directions
in education and training in the broader Air Force as well as in higher
education. The broader Air Force recently has adopted a ``Continuum of
Learning'' that looks at the progressive development of a specified set
of key competencies over the entire course of a career. In this view,
any given competency is developed in deeper and broader ways so that
its expression later in one's career is appropriate to the nature of
responsibilities and challenges often faced by more senior personnel.
The key idea underlying the Continuum of Learning is precisely that:
learning must continue throughout one's career, and that it is each
individual service member's responsibility to be committed to and able
to continue that process of lifelong learning. The real essence of
education and training, then, is not just mastery of any given body of
knowledge and skills but even more fundamentally commitment to a
skilled process of continuous learning.
Over the past decade or so, both USAFA and the broader higher
education community have embarked on a cultural shift, from an
``instruction-centered paradigm'' to a newer ``learning-centered
paradigm'' (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Huba & Freed, 2000; Tagg, 2003).
According to the instruction-centered paradigm, the professor's primary
task was to deliver instruction--to transmit his or her knowledge of a
particular subject to students. This paradigm has at least two
limitations. First, even if a professor is great at ``delivering
instruction,'' there is no guarantee that his or her students are
learning. When it comes to facilitating learning, educational research
is very clear that faculty need to take into account that students are
active constructors, discoverers, and transformers of knowledge and not
just vessels to be filled with content. (e.g., Campbell and Smith,
1997; Hake, 1998; for a more comprehensive discussion, see Bok, 2006).
The second problem with the instruction-centered paradigm emerges
from patterns that are becoming apparent in our current information
age. For example, the volume of readily available knowledge is growing
exponentially. What is ``known'' today is likely to be very different
from what is ``known'' even a few years from now. Furthermore, modern
technology (e.g. internet, PDAs, cell phones) is making the information
that is known increasingly easy to access. Therefore, while our classes
must still build on foundational knowledge, it is clear that they
needn't be solely dedicated to the acquisition of the current state of
available knowledge.
Because of the problems inherent in the instruction-centered
paradigm, the higher education community is shifting its focus more
specifically on learning. Colleges and universities are placing much
greater emphasis on the learning outcomes that are essential for 21st
century students to achieve, and then creating environments where that
essential learning can take place. What the faculty member does in
class is still important, of course. However, the faculty's principal
task is creating environments where student learning is most likely to
occur. Furthermore, the faculty member's goals haven't been
accomplished unless students have learned what we wanted them to learn.
(As Biggs (1999, p. 63) points out, it should no longer be possible to
say, ``I taught them, but they didn't learn.'').
This is not to suggest that the USAFA faculty members are solely
responsible for cadets' learning--obviously, the cadets play a pivotal
role as well. To be successful, the faculty and cadets will work
together as an effective team. The faculty will use their experience
and expertise to create effective learning environments, and the cadets
will apply themselves and their past experiences to the task of
learning. This collaborative relationship exemplifies how we accomplish
``Excellence in All We Do'' within DF.
The shift to an approach that is explicitly focused on learning is
perfectly consistent with the demands of the Academy's external
stakeholders. For example, one of our Air Force's new core competencies
is ``Developing Airmen.'' This overt Air Force level focus compels us
to create environments where our personnel (to include cadets) can
develop the knowledge, skills, and responsibilities needed by members
of our 21st century Air Force. As another example, the Higher Learning
Commission of the North Central Association (USAFA's accrediting
agency) recently adopted new accreditation criteria demanding that we
clearly articulate our learning goals, create systems that allow that
learning to take place, and then assess the extent to which those
learning goals are met. This is an inherently learning-focused approach
to educational quality.
Here at USAFA, we have embraced a learning-focused approach to our
education and training programs to help achieve the USAFA Outcomes.
When considering a lesson, a course or even the curriculum as a whole,
the practitioner needs to ask, ''what is it that I hope a cadet will
get from this experience (lesson, course, 4-year education) when it is
over.'' Notice, then, that our lessons, courses, and curricula need to
be designed with the desired end-point in mind. Fink (2003) calls this
``backwards design,'' and it is the basis for the Learning Focused
Cycle, shown below.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The steps of this model can be outlined as follows:
1. Choosing appropriate learning goals/outcomes that we want
cadets to achieve.
This step is absolutely critical, as it lays the
foundation for the remainder of the model. Faculty ask
themselves ``What combination of knowledge, skills, and
responsibilities do we want cadets to learn from this lesson/
course?''
2. Creating learning experiences for cadets that will help them
best accomplish those learning outcomes.
Notice that the focus is not on the teacher's
classroom experience, but on the cadets' learning experience.
What the cadets learn is what is most important!
The learning experience may be accomplished outside
of class time or during class time.
Notice also the inclusion of the word ``best''--
educational research has much to say about how to best
facilitate student learning. The learning experiences we plan
for cadets should incorporate what we know about student
learning as much as possible.
For example, research shows that students remember
more presented material, and are better able to use it, when
they actively engage with the content, rather than when they
are more passive. Thus, it is important to design learning
experiences that take advantage of this.
3. Assessing the degree to which cadets are accomplishing the
learning outcomes.
Cadets' learning increases when they know what they
are setting out to learn, know the standards they must meet,
and have a way of seeing what they have learned.
In order to gather information about cadet learning,
cadets will need to demonstrate their learning in some way--
consequently, we need to think about how cadets will display
their knowledge, skills, and responsibilities.
Assessment occurs within the context of graded events
(e.g., papers, projects, exams, etc.) but also can occur on a
more frequent, informal basis during time in class.
4. Providing feedback--both to cadets and to faculty.
Cadets need to know whether or not they are
successful in meeting learning goals--if they are falling
short, in what areas can they improve?
Graded events provide one avenue for providing cadets
with feedback. However, notice that grades, by themselves,
don't really provide rich information about how cadets should
improve.
Feedback is also useful to faculty members. We need
to know whether cadets are successful in meeting the learning
goals--if they are not successful, in what ways can we better
facilitate their learning?
5. Using feedback to improve.
Improvement is the action step that results from
clearly communicated and received feedback.
When asked how to improve their performance, many
cadets say things like ``I will try harder.'' Unfortunately,
vague action plans of this sort are rarely effective.
Therefore, we encourage cadets to think of positive, specific
actions they can take to improve their performance. Perhaps
they can take future drafts of their papers to the Writing
Center for review. Perhaps they can commit to coming in for
Extra Instruction on a weekly basis to go over practice
problems. The best answer will obviously depend on the
discipline, the course, and the cadet involved--but ``closing
the loop'' in some way is critical to enhanced cadet
performance.
This is also an opportunity for faculty members to
improve their own processes as well. Faculty will reflect on
what positive, specific steps they can take to improve their
own actions.
Dr. Snyder. Does the USAFA have information technology challenges?
If so, please describe them. Are there educational advantages or
disadvantages associated with maintaining a ``.edu'' versus a ``.mil''
internet domain registration? Are there advantages or disadvantages
with maintaining both domain registrations?
General Born. Yes, USAFA does have many information technology
challenges. These include the challenges of most academic institutions:
keeping current with technology, providing network security, protecting
privacy information, leveraging social networking, and supporting a
large, highly-mobile, educational environment with dozens of research
initiatives that push the envelope of network use. In addition, USAFA
must deal with the challenges of providing an IT environment that
satisfies both educational and military requirements. The lack of
supporting AF and DoD guidance requires USAFA to create policy that
governs the educational environment within a military framework. Also
USAFA must support separate networks for educational and military
environments that requires expertise beyond that of the standard base
communications squadron.
It's a significant advantage for USAFA to maintain an EDU domain
registration. Besides identifying USAFA as an educational institution,
the EDU domain allows flexibility in governance. The MIL domain is
governed by DoD and AF and requires strict compliance to protect
operational information. The USAFA EDU domain has a local governance
process that uses the MIL rules as a starting point and allows
exceptions based on operational risk management. USAFA currently has
several exceptions to AF policy: approved operation of personally owned
cadet computers, established internet blocking process and categories,
streamlined software approval process, approved YouTube access, allowed
guest access and approved opening specific ports, accepted risk for
library system, and allowed HTML e-mail.
There are both advantages and disadvantages of maintaining two
networks. The advantage of maintaining two domains is that we can apply
the appropriate security model for each environment. We provide a
tightly-controlled MIL environment for operational military use and a
more flexible EDU environment for education. The disadvantage is that
our communications squadron must maintain both environments. The system
architecture is very similar but the rules governing each environment
are different. Operators must understand which network they are working
on.
Dr. Snyder. Please elaborate on how budget and manpower/billet
reductions at the USMA are specifically affecting faculty staffing
decisions?
General Finnegan. Budget reductions: Budget reductions impact West
Point in two major ways--civilian personnel or program (academic or
military) cuts. Since cutting manpower is not a viable alternative, we
are left with reductions in the programs we offer cadets, and a
shortfall in our ability to maintain military and academic equipment.
We will continue to accomplish our mission, but our graduates will not
have the experience that America expects West Point to produce.
Billet reductions: Reductions to the military TDA authorized
strength (pending TAA reductions) will put USMA in a temporary over
strength status that will preclude or prohibit recruiting to fill
vacancies in specific disciplines. This factor coupled with the long
lead time schooling pipeline will seriously impact the military faculty
staffing operation. The military reductions (faculty) could under
normal circumstances be offset by hiring civilians. However, due to the
current budget constraints this course of action is not available to
us.
Increased Size of the Corps Faculty: When the decision was made to
increase the size of the Corps of Cadets from 4,000 to 4,400, a concept
plan was submitted recommending the addition of 30 military faculty.
Due to the ongoing war effort, military officers were not available and
USMA was offered 26 civilian faculty in their place. Funding for these
26 faculty members has been provided on a year to year basis in the
form of Global War on Terror (GWOT) dollars. To date, this increase in
faculty authorization has not been officially recognized on the TDA,
which leads to tremendous uncertainty in re-hiring and extending of
their appointments.
The interaction of these three issues has put faculty staffing
decisions in turmoil. Forced military faculty reductions which could
normally be offset by hiring civilian faculty is an option that has
been taken off the table. USMA needs Department of the Army to
officially recognize the resource implication of the decision to
increase the size of the Corps of Cadets.
Dr. Snyder. The JCS Chairman's Officer PME Policy includes a
requirement for each of the service chiefs to provide the CJCS with
reports on the joint education programs at the pre-commissioning and
primary levels. We want to know the significant findings and
recommendations of your 2006 Report and whether you would anticipate
significantly different findings and recommendations three years later?
General Finnegan. On 17 MAY 06, the United States Military Academy
submitted its Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Triennial
Report to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Pre-
commissioning Education. The report's summary, submitted by Brigadier
General Scaparroti, Commandant of Cadets reported:
``During the reported period [2004-2006], cadets received a minimum
of 27 hours of instruction of Joint Warfare Concepts as part of their
4-year education. This reflects an increase of 5 hours of JPME
instruction since the 2003 Triennial Report. JPME requirements are
embedded when appropriated in both the Academic and Military Programs.
I believe USMA currently meets or exceeds the requirements established
in CJCSI 1800.01C both in letter and intent.''
That remains true today. While the Academic and Military Programs
are constantly updating their curriculums, the task to provide quality
joint instruction will not change. Of note, within the Military
Program, most of the Military Science joint instruction has
transitioned to other core courses as the fourth year course, MS403,
was replaced with a multi-disciplined capstone course on Officership,
MX400. Currently, there is a significantly greater emphasis on Joint,
Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational instruction as it
relates to contemporary operations. We are specifically focusing on
practical junior-officer-level joint operations (we ran two
demonstration JAAT missions this past summer for first class cadets)
and on working with governmental agencies, local leaders, and
international agencies (in classrooms and during field training).
Dr. Snyder. Chairman Skelton is persuaded that the historical case
study is a particularly good way to teach both history and strategy. Do
you use the case study method, and if so, to what ends?
General Finnegan. West Point uses historical case studies in many
of its courses, some of which apply directly or indirectly to the
process of developing strategy.
In general, history is an excellent tool for teaching strategy.
Among its many virtues, history enables students to understand and
appreciate the complexity of the human experience. It helps put human
activities and ideas in context, avoid false analogies, lend a sense of
scope and scale, assess moral implications, anticipate unintended
consequences, and judge the feasibility and suitability of possible
courses of action. These capabilities are essential for anyone whose
professional responsibilities might include the formulation of
strategy.
Despite these virtues, the discipline of history has limitations.
Most important, history cannot predict the future, as every situation
is historically unique. Consequently, the value of history lies not in
divining answers (or ``lessons learned'') about current or future
issues, but in asking the right questions based on an understanding of
the differences between one situation and another.
While historical case studies are potentially useful in all of the
ways described above, students of history can easily misuse them. The
distinguished military historian, Michael Howard, addressed this topic
in a now famous article, ``The Use and Abuse of Military History.'' \1\
Howard's analysis focused specifically on the use of history for
military officers, but it was equally applicable to the use of history
to train strategists. Concerning the use of case studies, Howard
argued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Michael Howard, ``The Use and Abuse of Military History,''
Journal of the Royal United Service Institute, No. 107 (February 1962):
4-8; reprinted in Parameters 11 (March 1981): 9-14.
Analogies with events or personalities from other epochs may be
illuminating, but equally they mislead; for only certain
features in situations at different epochs resemble one
another, and what is valid in one situation may, because of
entirely altered circumstances, be quite untenable the next
time it seems to occur. The historian must be always on the
alert not to read anachronistic thoughts or motives into the
past.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid., 191.
His warnings notwithstanding, Howard believes that history can be
useful to the military officer under three conditions. First, it must
be studied in breadth--that is, the officer ``must observe the way in
which warfare has developed over a long historical period. Only by
seeing what does change can one deduce what does not.'' \3\ Second, the
officer must study in depth, drawing ``not simply from official
histories but from memoirs, letters, diaries, even imaginative
literature.'' The officer must ``get behind the order subsequently
imposed by the historian and recreate by detailed study the
omnipresence of chaos.'' \4\ Finally, the strategist must study in
context because wars ``are not like games of chess or football matches,
conducted in total detachment of their environment according to
strictly defined rules. . . . The roots of victory and defeat often
have to be sought far from the battlefield, in political, social, and
economic factors.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid., 195-6.
\4\ Ibid., 196.
\5\ Ibid., 196-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical case studies are closely associated with the second of
Howard's three conditions for using history. They allow the student to
examine a discrete event, such as a campaign or battle, in great depth
and to compare the competing interpretations of eyewitnesses,
historians, journalists, and others. This process helps the student
form a personal interpretation that is, ideally, as close as possible
to the absolute truth of what happened. Armed with such insights, the
student is then able to ask informed questions about analogous
situations in the present or future and to develop sound solutions.
Students who honor the first and third of Howard's three
conditions--breadth and context--can use historical case studies to
meet the second condition, depth. Admittedly, meeting Howard's three
conditions can be difficult, especially in a culture like ours that is
largely dismissive of history. It is by no means impossible, however,
and students in some institutions are better equipped for it than those
in others.
The United States Military Academy, perhaps more than any other
undergraduate institution, strives to meet Howard's three conditions
for the use of history. Every first-year cadet must take a two-semester
sequence of either United States history or world regional history.\6\
Similarly, all senior cadets must take a two-semester sequence of
military history, which examines many historical cases of the
formulation and execution of strategy. Very few other colleges in the
nation require their students to take four history courses; fewer still
require those courses to be broad and sequential; and virtually none
requires a year of military history. With two full years of history
under their belts, cadets have reasonably broad exposure to history
(condition #1) and are more able than most college students to study
events in historical context (condition #3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Department of History assigns cadets to either U.S. or
world regional history depending on their educational experience in
high school or college. For example, a cadet who had a strong
background in U.S. history in high school would be enrolled in world
regional history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadets who major in history--about 8 percent of each graduating
class--take between twelve and fourteen history courses (including the
four required courses mentioned above) and thus receive an immersion in
the discipline of history. In most history elective courses, the
syllabus requires cadets to study a particular topic (country, region,
idea, war, culture) in depth; hence, one might characterize such
courses as semester-long historical case studies. An example of such a
course is War and Its Theorists (HI385), which exposes cadets to the
ideas of Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Mahan, Douhet, and many other theorists
whose ideas have greatly influenced the formulation of strategy. Other
history courses hone more closely to the typical case study. For
example, the History of Unconventional Warfare (HI381) requires cadets
to study military operations in the Philippines, Northern Ireland,
Algeria, and Vietnam. Another elective course, Strategy, Policy, and
Generalship (HI358), uses case studies to examine how political and
military leaders develop and execute policy and strategy. With a wide
variety of courses available, cadet history majors have the opportunity
to study in breadth, depth, and context.
Many non-history courses at West Point also use historical case
studies to good effect. Most of those courses reside in the Department
of Social Studies, where instructors routinely use case studies to
analyze issues dealing with economics, national security, international
relations, and American politics. Among the many social science courses
using historical case studies are Economics (SS201), American Politics,
(SS202), International Relations (SS307), Politics and Government of
Europe (SS377), Legislative Politics (SS379), American Civil-Military
Relations (SS472), American Foreign Policy (SS473), Economics of
National Security (SS477), and International Security Seminar (SS486).
Case studies also are common in the Department of Law, which teaches
required and elective courses in constitutional law, military law, and
the law of land warfare. Examples of law courses using historical case
studies are Constitutional and Military Law (LW403) and Law of War
(LW474).
Regardless of their academic majors, cadets take a robust history
curriculum and apply it in many other courses, both required and
elective. Some of the courses relate directly to the formulation of
national or military strategy. Even those that do not, however, still
develop in cadets the intellectual habits that promote strategic
thinking.
Dr. Snyder. Why do the Service Academies only award Bachelor of
Science degrees? What would be the professional effect of offering
Bachelor of Arts degrees in certain academic disciplines? What would be
the professional effect of offering alternate tracks within Bachelor of
Science programs that would be heavier on humanities and social science
requirements?
General Finnegan. The Service Academies, particularly USMA, only
award the Bachelor of Science (BS) degree because of an existing DoD
and/or Congressional mandate that requires USMA to award a BS degree to
all graduates.
The Military Academy could offer Bachelor of Arts (BA) degrees in
many of its 45 majors. The NY State Education Department, which
regulates the SUNY colleges and universities, places more stringent and
directed requirements on the awarding of BA degrees based on the number
of courses completed with liberal arts content (source: Regent's Rule
3.47(c)). Accordingly, colleges and universities within the SUNY system
may confer BA degrees to students who complete a minimum of 120
semester credit hours with at least 90 credit hours being drawn from
courses aligned with liberal arts content, including mathematics,
science, humanities, social and behavioral sciences. By contrast, the
Bachelor of Science (BS) degree requires the completion of 60 credit
hours of liberal arts content while other undergraduate baccalaureate
degrees (BFA, B.Tech, BBA, etc.) require 30 credit hours of liberal
arts content. Engineering, management, marketing, finance, and other
specialized professional courses are not considered to be within the
definition of liberal arts.
West Point requires cadets to complete a core academic curriculum
of 96 credit hours in 30 courses. All but 10 of these 90 credit hours
meet the definition of courses with liberal arts content. Thus, all
cadets who complete a non-engineering major would earn 86 credit hours
from the core curriculum and at least 30 additional credit hours from
courses with liberal arts content through the completion of a major;
these 116 credit hours are sufficient to award cadets a BA degree. In
total, approximately 65 percent of the degrees conferred to a
particular class of cadets could be BA degrees based on the SUNY
classification.
The professional effect of offering a BA degree to cadets
completing a major in fields associated with the humanities and the
social and behavioral sciences would likely be minute. Such a practice
would be consistent with higher educational practices but is unlikely
to negatively impact cadets' opportunities to pursue higher educational
degrees in these fields.
Dr. Snyder. How many engineering majors does your institution try
to graduate each year? On what professional demands are these goals
predicated? Generally speaking, does the amount of time needed to
provide each cadet with a knowledge base in engineering allow the
latitude to balance academic pursuits with respect to the hard
sciences, social sciences, communications skills, military studies, and
the humanities, especially history, as they relate to a foundation in
strategy?
General Finnegan. An MOA signed between the Superintendent, USMA
and the CSA in 2008 encourages USMA to confer approximately 50 percent
of the degrees conferred for a graduating class, plus or minus five
percent, in the fields of mathematics, science, and technology.
Approximately 70 percent of all MSE majors, and 35 percent overall,
receive degrees in one of ten engineering majors. This MOA was placed
in effect to reflect the anticipated needs of the Army. The programs in
Civil Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering,
Engineering Management, Environmental Engineering, Information
Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Nuclear Engineering, and Systems
Engineering are accredited by ABET Inc.
While these engineering programs meet the standards established by
the profession for which they prepare cadets, all graduates, regardless
of major, must meet the standards of the USMA core curriculum, which is
tantamount to a professional major. The academic goals of mathematics
and science, engineering and technology, information technology,
cultural perspective, historical perspective, understanding human
behavior, communication, creativity, moral awareness, and continued
intellectual development are met through 30 core courses, 26 of which
are taken in common by all graduates. The rationale, learning model and
outcomes for each of these goals are described in the publication
``Educating Future Army Officers for a Changing World.''
Dr. Snyder. To what extent is the USMA's engineering-based
curriculum preparing cadets to become effective officers on the ground
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere?
General Finnegan. Regardless of whether a cadet pursues a major in
an engineering or humanities and social sciences field, the core
curriculum and attendant academic goals are designed to produce
officers prepared for the uncertainties they will likely face
throughout their professional career as Army officers. These challenges
include the changing overall strategic goals of the Army and the
operations they are required to execute. The most notable change in
preparation of officers has occurred as the range of non-traditional
military mission such as peacekeeping, stability and support operations
has increased. The rise of regional, ethnic and religious conflicts,
often the result of millennial long struggles or environmental
pressures have become factors necessitation these strategic
accommodations. Additionally, many officers are engaged in project
management work with developmental or humanitarian projects (water,
sewer, roads, etc).
Our core curriculum is focused on preparing our graduates for the
uncertainties of a changing political, technological social and
economic world. In particular, over the past decade we have modified
our core curriculum to integrate the development of cultural
understanding throughout the curriculum, highlighted by the cultural
awareness academic goal to ``draw from a appreciation of culture of
understand in a global context human behavior, achievement and ideas.''
Graduates of USMA are well-rounded and able to operate in a region
burdened by cultural and historical animosities. Feedback from former
battalion commanders at the AWC and field commanders during LTG
Hagenbeck's June 2009 visit to Iraq suggest that graduates are
excelling in the varied and diverse tasks assigned to them. Many praise
the quality of education the graduates' received and West Point's
preparation of junior officers.
We have established a curriculum that prepares cadets to recognize
and understand the components of a culture necessary for operating
successfully in Iran, Afghanistan, or any unexpected environment, with
military or humanitarian mission objectives. Cadets develop an
understanding of how beliefs, religion, norms, values, family and
social relationships bind and influence behavior and interactions of a
cultural group. This cultural understanding is developed through
elements of several core courses as well as through extracurricular
activities such as visiting professors and students, and international
experiences in a semester long or summer training. Within the
curriculum cadets study cultural components in different cultural
settings, examine historical and political events from various cultural
perspectives, and develop an understanding of at least one foreign
language. Cadets in a humanities or social science major receive two
additional semesters of a foreign language, and have the opportunity to
have coordinated history and foreign language courses organized around
a relate area study. All cadets, regardless of major, have a capstone
experience that requires them to combine the core curriculum and their
major area in a project that demonstrates their ability to ``anticipate
and respond effectively to the uncertainties of a changing
technological, social, political and economic world.''
Dr. Snyder. At the USMA, we know that the ``cadet experience'' is a
combination of academic and professional development curriculum,
leadership opportunities, summer training and travel, competitive
athletics, etc. How do you factor Service, JCS and DOD requirements
into the overall pre-commissioning experience?
General Finnegan. While the Academic and Military Programs are
constantly updating their curriculums, the task to provide quality
joint instruction will not change. Of note, within the Military
Program, most of the Military Science joint instruction has
transitioned to other core courses as the fourth year course, MS403,
was replaced with a multi-disciplined capstone course on Officership,
MX400. Currently, there is a significantly greater emphasis on Joint,
Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational instruction as it
relates to contemporary operations. We are specifically focusing on
practical junior-officer-level joint operations (we ran two
demonstration JAAT missions this past summer for first class cadets)
and on working with governmental agencies, local leaders, and
international agencies (in classrooms and during field training).
Dr. Snyder. How frequently are major reviews of the core curriculum
conducted? What is the process for review and for the implementation of
any recommended adjustments?
General Finnegan. The curriculum is reviewed on a yearly cycle by
the West Point Curriculum Committee. Proposals for curricular change
may be submitted by departments although the Dean also generates topics
that he wishes to be reviewed and evaluated. In September, the Dean
meets with the committee chair to provide command guidance. By late
November, the departments submit their proposals to the committee. The
Curriculum Committee evaluates the proposals and makes a recommendation
to the General Committee in April or early May. The General Committee
likewise makes a recommendation to the Dean of the Academic Board who
makes a decision to include or not include it in a revision of the
academic program. The revision is then staffed and submitted to the
Academic Board who makes a recommendation to the Superintendent. The
Superintendent ultimately decides. This decision occurs in June or July
and the cycle begins anew. Major reviews of the core curriculum occur
approximately every five years and follow the same process for review
and implementation. The last internal review of the core curriculum
occurred in 2005-2006.
Our core curriculum is reviewed externally as well. Our regional
accreditation agency, Middle States, reviews our curriculum every ten
years. The next review is scheduled for Sep 2009. ABET reviews our
engineering and science program curricula every six years with the last
review taking place in 2008. The American Council of Trustees and
Alumni evaluated the core curriculum of leading educational
institutions in August 2009. West Point received a grade of ``A'' for
our core curriculum--a distinction achieved by only five institutions
in the nation. Additional information can be obtained at
WhatWillTheyLearn.com.
Dr. Snyder. Do your military faculty members get promotions and are
they selected for command? Please provide statistics for the last five
years.
General Finnegan. Each year USMA produces a second graduating class
of approx 150 faculty and staff who return to the Army with a renewed
intellectual vigor. Many of which continue to excel in the Army.
4 of 12 Generals were faculty here.
10 of 54 Lt. Gens were on the faculty/staff.
3 of 10 Division Commanders were on the faculty/staff.
USMA rotating military faculty members are extremely competitive
for promotion and selection for command particularly given the fact
that they leave the operational Army anywhere from 4 to 5 years. USMA
rotating military faculty members are promoted below the zone to Major
at higher rates than their non-ACS peers. Selection rates for BZ to COL
and Battalion Command are slightly lower their non-ACS peers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No ACS Non-USMA ACS USMA ACS Overall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BZ to Major 0.0589 0.0660 0.1105 0.0633
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BZ to LTC 0.0643 0.0801 0.0670 0.0670
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BZ to COL 0.1330 0.1714 0.1250 0.1378
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DA Bn CMD 0.4395 0.5690 0.4348 0.4463
Select
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Selection rates for BZ Promotion and Battalion Command (All
Competitive Category Year Groups 1987 through 1992 Officers, condition
on 15 years of service).
Dr. Snyder. Some USMA faculty reported a lack of transparent
appraisal and renewal recommendation procedures. Please describe and
discuss the system at your institution? What feedback have you received
from civilian faculty with respect to these procedures?
General Finnegan. The Code of Federal Regulations, the USMA Faculty
Manual and the Title 10 appraisal system are the cornerstones of these
processes. Each Title 10 faculty member receives an annual appraisal.
During the appraisal process the faculty are counseled on their
performance and provided a clear indication as to whether or not they
should anticipate re-appointment at the end of their current
appointment. If substandard performance becomes an issue, the
individual is counseled and a plan for corrective action is put into
place. Continued counseling for substandard performance becomes the
audit trail for a decision to non-reappoint.
All Title 10 faculty in the first year of their first appointment
are in a probationary status. Failure to meet performance standards
during the first year is grounds for non-reappointment. After the
probationary year, instructors and assistant professors must be
notified in a timely manner that they will not be reappointed. For
associate and full professors, notification of non-reappointment must
be made by June 15th of the final year of appointment. Associate and
full professors who are identified for non-reappointment for adequate
cause have the opportunity to request a hearing by the Review
Committee.
Dr. Snyder. Please discuss the pros and cons of the PUSMA system?
Also, please discuss the effect that the PUSMA system has on the
participation of civilians within the USMA's leadership structure.
General Finnegan. The Professors, USMA, provide long-term stability
to the education programs at USMA to insure accreditation standards and
continuity are maintained. As members of the Academic Board they advise
the Superintendent on major policy changes, recommend separation of
cadets, and authorize the awarding of diplomas. Advantages of having
PUSMA officers at West Point are numerous. These accomplished leaders
in their academic disciplines and military careers, provide military
and academic leadership to USMA's academic departments composed of
stabilized military faculty, Army, and other Service officers on a two
or three year USMA assignment, and civilian faculty hired in accordance
with 10 USC, and professional staff. They are highly successful and
experienced military officers and are outstanding educators with
doctorates in one of the academic areas offered at USMA. Stabilized
military faculty members contribute to formulation of USMA's
curriculum, methods of instruction, and academic standards required for
graduation; establish standards within academic departments for
classroom instruction; guide and mentor faculty development,
professionalism, and academic accomplishment; educate, train and
inspire cadets within areas of academic expertise; provide continuity
to the academic program; serve as a source of experience and academic
depth to the rotating and civilian faculty; participate in USMA
governance by serving on bodies such as the Academic Board, Curriculum
Committee, Admissions Committee, and accreditation committees; in
conjunction with PUSMA department heads they select officers to be
sponsored for graduate schooling prior to a teaching assignment at
USMA; maintain academic currency by research, writing, and involvement
with professional education or academic specialty organizations;
maintain military professional currency in a variety of ways, including
operational deployments with Army troop units and conducting outreach
activities in support of the Army; contribute to cadet development by
supporting athletic and extracurricular activities at USMA; and
contribute to officer development by counseling and mentoring. The goal
is to maintain a faculty, sensitive to both Army needs and academic
standards, which support the USMA mission to provide the Army with
commissioned leaders of character.
The advertisement below illustrates that interested civilian
faculty are eligible to apply and compete for selection as Professor,
USMA. In practice, the selection of a civilian member as a PUSMA is a
rare event, but this population is not excluded from the candidate
pool.
The United States Military Academy seeks Professors and Deputy Heads,
USMA; and an Academy Professor
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR PROFESSOR AND DEPUTY HEAD POSITION:
Principal responsibilities will include executing the
department's vision and leading faculty and staff to enhance
the quality and national stature of academic programs,
leadership and governance, and the development of military and
civilian faculty. Candidates should possess significant
leadership experience and practical experience related to the
subjects taught in the departments. Combat zone deployment
experience and advanced military schooling (ILE minimum) are
desirable. Candidates must have a strong commitment to the
development of cadets as leaders of character. Applicants
should have a record of research and publication and
demonstrated excellence in education at the college level, with
teaching at the USMA or a comparable college or university
being highly desirable. The selection committee will evaluate
breadth and depth of professional experience, leadership
ability, demonstrated teaching excellence, scholarship
potential, and personal attributes. Those selected for these
positions may serve at the discretion of the Secretary of the
Army until age 64. Upon retirement, any Professor, USMA whose
service as a Professor, USMA has been long and distinguished,
may, at the discretion of the President, be retired in the
grade of Brigadier General.
Dr. Snyder. To what extent may civilians from other government
agencies, such as the State Department or the CIA, be detailed to the
USMA faculty? How do these visiting faculty members help students
better understand the perspectives of other agencies?
General Finnegan. Currently, one Foreign Service Officer from the
State Department is assigned to the USMA faculty in the Department of
Social Sciences. This is a long-standing relationship of over 40 years
and has been instrumental in ensuring that both cadets and faculty
understand the perspectives of other agencies.
Another longstanding relationship is with the National Security
Agency. An NSA staff member has served as Fellow in the Department of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, with some interruptions,
since the 1980's. Others have served in the Department of Mathematical
Sciences. The current Deputy Director of the NSA, Mr. John ``Chris''
Inglis, served at West Point in 1991-2. The NSA partnership has been
instrumental in developing information security as a thread through the
USMA curriculum. The Cyberdefense Exercise (see http://www.nytimes.com/
2009/05/11/technology/11cybergames.html) is one of many examples of
close NSA-USMA collaboration resulting from the Fellow program. These
have enhanced mutual understanding between our organizations.
We have also had individuals from the CIA assigned to USMA in the
past and are currently working with the Assistant Director of the CIA
for Military Affairs to have a CIA official assigned to the USMA
faculty again in 2010.
We think that these kind of interagency relationships are valuable
both for the West Point faculty and cadets as well as the officials who
are assigned. They grow personally and professionally in an academic
environment, establish new bonds with military colleagues, and gain and
increased understanding of military officers when they return to their
parent agency.
Dr. Snyder. How hard is it to attract top civilian faculty to the
USMA? What incentives do you offer civilian faculty candidates?
General Finnegan. From inception of the Blend of Excellence program
in 1993 to approximately 4 years ago, there was a comprehensive package
of benefits designed to attract top level civilian faculty to USMA.
This ``package'' included: (1) the opportunity to teach some of the
country's most motivated students, (2) reside in an historic setting in
the picturesque Hudson Valley, (3) although not provided tenure, solid
performers could expect continued re-appointment, (4) a PCS relocation
package, (5) a reasonable expectation of a salary step increase every
other year, (6) a year long sabbatical (at the Associate Professor or
Full Professor level) every six years, and (7) the opportunity for
professional development leading to promotion through the faculty
grades to Full Professor.
However, approximately 4 years ago, as budgetary constraints
dictated many elements of this package began to erode. The every other
year step increases ceased to occur in a consistent fashion. PCS
relocation for newly hired faculty was limited to a select few.
Opportunity for a full year sabbatical was curtailed to effectively a
half year one. With the current FY10 budget forecast, salary step
increases will virtually cease, PCS relocation offering for newly hired
faculty will not be available and the ability to support sabbaticals is
in jeopardy due to the reductions in military faculty staffing, which
has increased the overall teaching load on the remaining personnel.
The recent downturn in the economy has offset some of these
limitations when hiring, since the civilian faculty model normally
hires at the entry end of the academic spectrum. However, the erosion
of the benefit package that was in effect for the hiring of the
majority of the civilian faculty that is currently here presents a
serious retention problem. So far, there has not been an identifiable
trend of civilian faculty departures, but everyone is keeping a keen
eye on what transpires over the next year.
Dr. Snyder. Are there any significant impediments to sending USMA
faculty members, whether civilian or military, for professional or
academic purposes to foreign universities? Are there any significant
impediments to sending faculty members for the same reasons to top tier
universities within the United States?
General Finnegan. There are no operational impediments to sending
USMA faculty members to foreign universities. However, budgetary
constraints coupled with recent military slot reductions would prohibit
them at this time. Just as with foreign universities, there are no
operational impediments to sending USMA faculty members to top tier
U.S. universities. However, budgetary constraints coupled with recent
military slot reductions would prohibit them at this time.
Dr. Snyder. It has been asserted that institutional efforts to
generate more diversity in the student body and to recruit top athletes
have had a negative impact on classroom dynamics and the overall
quality of students and graduates. How do you respond to those
assertions?
General Finnegan. USMA is committed to student body diversity
toward the creation of an officer corps reflective of America.
Annually, the Academy establishes Class Composition Goals which inform
our recruiting efforts. Our class composition goals include goals for
leaders, scholars, as well as demographic groups and are generated
based upon the projected composition of the Army officer corps. A
constraint in pursuing these goals is the societal trend of academic
preparation of minorities. For example, of the 160,000 African-
Americans taking the SAT in 2007, 73% scored less than 1,000 combined.
Therefore, USMA carefully balances academic preparation risk with
assisting the Army in creating a diverse officer corps.
Each candidate is evaluated on the merits of his or her complete
file. Only qualified candidates are admitted to USMA as cadets in
accordance with the Academic Board decisions. The Academy's admissions
goal is to ``enroll annually a diverse, high-caliber class that meets
the needs of the Military Academy and the Army, and whose members have
the potential for success at the Academy and long-term service in the
Army.''
Considering diversity, one must note that Henry O. Flipper was the
first African American admitted to USMA in 1873 and the first to
graduate, in 1877. Since that time, USMA has continued to recruit
minority candidates for the Corps of Cadets. The purpose of the
Academic Board Class Composition goals has been to create a Corps of
Cadets which reflects the diversity of the Officer Corps. These
minority Class Composition categories include African Americans (8-
12%), Hispanics (7-9%), Native Americans (>1%), and Asians (4-6%). It
is important to understand that these are goals and not quotas for the
admissions process. We normally exceed the goals for Hispanics and
Asians while not meeting the goals for African Americans and Native
Americans.
Considering the recruiting of athletes, athletics has been a major
part of the cadet curriculum and is one of the three major
considerations for cadet standing: Academic, Military, and Physical.
Army athletics has been a focus for the cadets' preparation, aptly
shown in the statement by General George C Marshall during WWII, who
said ``I need an officer for a dangerous mission, I want a West Point
Football Player.'' This exemplifies the spirit of athletics at USMA,
where we have been playing Army football since 1890 and have been
recruiting football players and other varsity athletes since the early
1900's. Additionally, the Class Composition Goal for athletes has
decreased from the historical level of >25% to 18-21% for the past few
years. In tier 1 college programs, athletics is the window through
which potential candidates will view the institution and become
inspired as candidates. This is an extremely important recruiting and
marketing tool for the United States Military Academy and the Army.
Additionally, it should be noted that athletics is very important
in achieving the minority Class Composition Goals; it is a great
recruiting tool to ensure racial diversity in the Corps of Cadets and
the future officer corps.
Considering the years that each of these goals has been part of the
admissions program, it is hard to say that the institutional efforts
have had a negative impact on the classroom environment. Graduation
rate for the class in general has risen over the past 20 years from 61%
in 1980 to the current graduation rate of 79% for the class of 2009.
While the graduation rate for the class as a whole has trended upward,
there is no consistent trend for the minorities or recruited athletes.
Their graduation rate has fluctuated from 10% less than the class to 5%
greater than the class.
The assertion that recruited athletes and minorities have had a
negative impact on classroom dynamics and the overall quality of
students and graduates is false. It would be better to state that those
candidates deemed qualified who are admitted with risk can change the
dynamics within a classroom. It should be noted that all risk
candidates are not minorities or athletes and do include several other
groups, including Congressional Principal appointees and Soldiers. The
Academy understands and manages this risk in many ways. We send 246
candidates to the United States Military Academy Preparatory School for
a year of study in mathematics, English, and reading and study skills
prior to their admission to USMA. Additionally, we send other at risk
candidates to civilian preparatory schools under the auspices of the
Association of Graduates Scholarship Program. The year of remediation
under either of these two programs prepares the student for
qualification and admission to USMA.
There is a consideration of the intensity of the recruiting
necessary due to other schools recruiting the same candidates. While
the Class Composition goals have not changed much, the overall
recruitment of the candidates has increased dramatically in the past
few decades. This means that the Academic Board has taken additional
risk on some of the candidates when they are selected for admission to
USMA. The changes in the classroom have been due to individual
capabilities. Even though academic risk is taken with some candidates
who are strong in other areas, every admitted candidate--of whatever
race or gender, varsity athlete or not--is fully qualified for entry to
USMA.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table 1. USMA Graduation rates by Demographic
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table 2. Fall Term Course Failures by Demographic. Note: Reserve
Component (RSCOM) includes `invitational reserves,' made up primarily
of recruited athletes attending USMAPS.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table 3. 5 and 10 year Army Retention Rates by Demographic
Dr. Snyder. Does the USMA receive funding for the purpose of
promoting diversity? If so, how is this funding utilized?
General Finnegan. USMA does not receive direct funding for the
purpose of promoting diversity, but does receive it indirectly. West
Point receives funds for the Leading Diversity Office, which, on April
2nd 2007, assumed the mission of developing and implementing strategic
plans for maintaining an inclusive environment throughout West Point.
This office is headed by a COL, and the staff is funded with USMA
appropriated funds. We also receive funds through our Directorate of
Admissions, which has marketing and outreach programs that promote
diversity throughout the process of recruiting and selecting candidates
who will become USMA cadets and eventually officers in the U.S. Army.
Dr. Snyder. Please provide a comprehensive list with numbers of all
outside scholarships awarded to USMA graduates over the past five
years, together with a brief description of each.
General Finnegan. West Point graduates compete in Rhodes, Marshall,
Mitchell, Gates, Truman, Hertz, Rotary, East-West, Olmsted, Fulbright,
National Science Foundation, and Churchill scholarship programs.
Historically, USMA has competed well with top Tier I academic
institutions. Over the last five years USMA graduates have received 99
academic scholarships. They have received 370 academic scholarships
since the beginning of competition for these scholarships (See Table
1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USMA Scholarship Winners
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Since
Scholarship 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 (last 5 competition
years) began
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Scholarship 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East-West Fellowship 4 4 4 3 2 N/A 17 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fulbright Student Grant 2 2 2 2 0 N/A 8 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gates-Cambridge Scholarship 0 2 1 3 1 N/A 7 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Scholarship 3 2 3 1 0 N/A 9 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Scholarship 2 0 1 0 0 N/A 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Science Foundation 1 0 0 0 2 N/A 3 41
Graduate Fellowship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olmsted Scholarship 2 2 3 5 4 1 17 93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhodes Scholarship 2 1 1 1 1 N/A 6 88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship 1 0 1 2 8 9 21 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman Scholarship 1 2 2 1 0 1 7 28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 18 15 19 18 18 11 99 370
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A = Not Announced Yet
The Rhodes Scholarships, the oldest international fellowships, were
initiated after the death of Cecil Rhodes in 1902, and bring
outstanding students from many countries around the world to the
University of Oxford, normally for two years.
Marshall Scholarships finance young Americans of high ability to
study for a degree in the United Kingdom. Up to forty Scholars are
selected each year to study at graduate level at an UK institution in
any field of study. As future leaders, with a lasting understanding of
British society, Marshall Scholars strengthen the enduring relationship
between the British and American peoples, their governments and their
institutions. Marshall Scholars are talented, independent and wide-
ranging, and their time as Scholars enhances their intellectual and
personal growth. Their direct engagement with Britain through its best
academic program contributes to their ultimate personal success.
The Mitchell Scholars Program is a national competitive fellowship
sponsored by the U.S.-Ireland Alliance. The Mitchell Scholars Program,
named to honor former U.S. Senator George Mitchell's pivotal
contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process, is designed to
introduce and connect generations of future American leaders to the
island of Ireland, while recognizing and fostering intellectual
achievement, leadership, and a commitment to public service and
community. Twelve Mitchell Scholars between the ages of 18 and 30 are
chosen annually for one year of postgraduate study in any discipline
offered by institutions of higher learning in Ireland and Northern
Ireland. Applicants are judged on three criteria: academic excellence,
leadership, and a sustained commitment to service and community.
The Gates Scholarship Program is an international scholarship
program to enable outstanding graduate students from outside the United
Kingdom to study at the University of Cambridge. The scholarship is
funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and awards up to two
years of fully funded graduate study, with an emphasis on the fields of
Arts and Humanities, Humanities and Social Sciences, Biological
Sciences, and Physical Sciences and Technology.
The Truman Scholarship recognizes college juniors with exceptional
leadership potential who are committed to careers in government, the
nonprofit or advocacy sectors, education or elsewhere in the public
service; and to provide them with financial support for graduate study,
leadership training, and fellowship with other students who are
committed to making a difference through public service.
The Hertz Foundation Graduate Fellowship empowers outstanding young
people pursuing a PhD degree in the applied physical, biological, and
engineering sciences with the freedom to innovate and explore their
genius in collaboration with leading professors in the field. The Hertz
Foundation's goal is to support the early stage research endeavors of
students who possess the potential to change our world for the better
by solving difficult, real-world problems.
The Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship sponsors one academic year to
further international understanding and friendly relations among people
of different countries and geographical areas. While abroad, scholars
serve as goodwill ambassadors to the host country and give
presentations about their homelands to Rotary clubs and other groups.
The East-West Center Scholarship Program provides a 2 year
scholarship for students to study at the East-West Center at University
of Hawaii. The East-West Center is an education and research
organization established by the U.S. Congress in 1960 to strengthen
relations and understanding among the peoples and nations of Asia, the
Pacific, and the United States. The Center contributes to a peaceful,
prosperous, and just Asia Pacific community by serving as a vigorous
hub for cooperative research, education, and dialogue on critical
issues of common concern to the Asia Pacific region and the United
States.
The Olmsted Scholarship Program provides outstanding young military
leaders an unsurpassed opportunity to achieve fluency in a foreign
language, pursue graduate study at an overseas university, and acquire
an in depth understanding of foreign cultures, thereby further
equipping them to serve in positions of great responsibility as senior
leaders in the United States Armed Forces. (Note: The Olmsted
Scholarship program is not open to cadets upon graduation, but is
available after 3 years of commissioned service)
The Fulbright program was started in 1946 by Congress and is
administered by the State Department. Fulbright grants are designed to
``increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States
and the people of other countries.'' A Fulbright grant is for 10-12
months and requires that a student affiliate with a local university
for classes and research.
The National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
provides for three years of study leading to a master's or doctoral
degree in the mathematical, physical, biological, engineering, or
social science, or in the history and philosophy of sciences. The
fellowship helps ensure the vitality of the human resource base of
science and engineering in the United States and reinforces its
diversity.
The Churchill Scholarship was established in 1959 and is awarded by
the Winston Churchill Foundation. The Foundation's Scholarship Program
offers American students of exceptional ability and outstanding
achievement the opportunity to pursue graduate studies in engineering,
mathematics, or the sciences at Churchill College, the University of
Cambridge.
Here is a current listing of scholarship recipients for the past
five years, with brief descriptions of their backgrounds and programs
of study:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.Olmsted Scholars are selected after at least 3 years of
commissioned service. The following is a listing of all Olmsted
scholars selected in the past 5 years:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.Dr. Snyder. Among active duty personnel in the Army, how many
general officers are USMA graduates? Of the total active duty Army
general officer population, what percentage does this number represent?
General Finnegan. USMA graduates historically represent 20% of the
commissioning cohort each year. The proportion of USMA general officers
is well above this rate. USMA general officers represent 40% (133) of
the current total active duty general officer population (332 GOs). The
proportion of the LTG and GEN ranks are even higher (See Table 1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All USMA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade Number Number Proportion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2LT 10146 1956 19%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1LT 7197 984 14%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPT25772 3574 14%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJ 16545 2153 13%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LTC 11202 1653 15%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COL 4823 785 16%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B G 168 64 38%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M G 104 39 38%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LTG 49 25 51%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEN 11 5 45%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. USMA Distribution across Active Duty population
Dr. Snyder. Please comment on the utility of the most recent
professional military reading list compiled by Chairman Skelton.
General Finnegan. The Defense and Strategic Studies major includes
some of these books in its required courses. Elective courses introduce
about 20 of these texts in classes and the MX400 Professional Military
Officer course for first class cadets lists some of these books as
choices for the professional biography reading assignment.
The list contains many popular books that faculty consider good
professional and good personal reading. Few of the texts, if any, form
the basis for any specific major, but as a collection, the list is
useful for cadets and faculty in prioritizing their professional and
educational reading. Rep. Ike Skelton's new reading list is a national
security reading list of 50 essential books. There are quite a few
professional military reading lists available and they are all helpful
to the student of history, governance and the military profession. As
Chairman Skelton stated, ``officers and senior enlisted members need to
read books about military strategy and American history to benefit from
lessons of the past and better understand American values.'' His
selected books highlight topics relating to national defense, thereby
having great utility for those interested in national defense issues.
Dr. Snyder. Does the USMA have information technology challenges?
If so, please describe them. Are there educational advantages or
disadvantages associated with maintaining a ``.edu'' versus a ``.mil''
internet domain registration? Are there advantages or disadvantages
with maintaining both domain registrations?
General Finnegan. There is a constant three-fold challenge.
First, we must maintain a technology infrastructure representative
of top-tier educational institutions and the ways they employ
technology to support learning, program administration, and
communication.
Second, we must consistently provide a vibrant and relevant
education regarding current and emerging technologies, including both
those specific to Army and the DoD and also the broader commercial
technology sphere.
Third, our network security environment is challenged by the
confluence of our academic requirement for exploration and
collaboration, ``student life'' requirements, and the increasing
frequency of DoD security requirements and actions resulting in
operational constraints or changes to our work processes as a result.
The first two challenges require significant, steady financial
investments to update existing facilities and adopt emerging
technologies as they appear. Many of the requirements exceed those of
average Army installations. The Army has generally made the needed
investments for decades, but recent trends have been negative. Some
equipment has not been updated, and some desirable emerging
technologies and support to enhance cadet education are unresourced
within the Academy budget. To some extent, these shortfalls are being
made up through external government resourcing of faculty and cadet
research and outreach projects.
In pursuit of managing the third challenge, West Point is vigilante
it's efforts to secure IT operations and has taken significant steps to
ensure compliance with DoD security requirements. This is a challenging
goal given its requirement for continuous communications in a global
academic sense beyond traditional DoD borders. Operational processes
differ depending on a garrison's mission; the model of network security
that works well at non-academic sites such as Fort Bragg or Fort Hood
may have a very different effect when applied to West Point's college
mission imperatives. Providing a more open network security policy to
facilitate academic pursuits and student life is possible, however it
requires the application of more granular controls. These controls
translate to tools that vary from standard Army installations, a more
demanding set of systems administration and security skills, and
additional manpower requirements.
Are there educational advantages or disadvantages associated with
maintaining an ``.edu'' versus a ``.mil'' internet domain registration?
There are distinct educational advantages for Military Academy
faculty, staff, and cadet communication to maintain a .edu domain
registration. It is a fact of modern life that Internet address domains
communicate the professional affiliation of people who use them. People
at West Point find it useful and important to communicate an
educational affiliation in some cases and a military affiliation in
others. The ``.edu'' suffix, for example, is available only to
accredited educational institutions. Consequently, it immediately
confers a modest form of legitimacy by its use alone. A faculty member
attending a conference or collaborating on a scholarly paper with
colleagues at other schools is likely to use ``usma.edu'' web and email
addresses for this reason. The same faculty member consulting with a
government agency is likely to use ``army.mil'' addresses in order to
convey his or her service connection.
Perhaps the greatest importance of the ``usma.edu'' domain is in
communications with prospective cadets and their families, where the
educational aspect of West Point is often paramount.
It is noteworthy that the Air Force Academy for many years
maintained only af.mil addresses, but changed within the last few years
to dual domains for the reasons cited above.
Are there advantages or disadvantages with maintaining both domain
registrations?
The advantage lies in the flexibility cited above, allowing West
Point personnel to operate in both domains. There are some modest
technical issues, but since both ``usma.edu'' and ``usma.army.mil''
have been in active use since approximately 1989, these have long been
solved, and the solution is part of the IT fabric of West Point.
The disadvantages lie in the increased IT management, operations
and security complexity inherent in two domains within a single
geographic footprint. Additionally, until a common enterprise directory
capability is established and shared between the domains, the users in
the .edu domain cannot easily look up their .mil Army counterparts in
the Army's master Global Address List (GAL).
Dr. Snyder. The JCS Chairman's Officer PME Policy includes a
requirement for each of the service chiefs to provide the CJCS with
reports on the joint education programs at the pre-commissioning and
primary levels. We want to know the significant findings and
recommendations of your 2006 Report and whether you would anticipate
significantly different findings and recommendations three years later?
Captain Klunder. The Navy has a variety of schools that teach pre-
commissioning joint education. In 2006, the Navy reported that pre-
commissioning joint learning objectives were being fully met through
the courses of instruction at the U.S. Naval Academy and Naval Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (NROTC) units. Joint learning objectives were
not being fully met at Officer Indoctrination School (OIS), Officer
Candidate School (OCS), the LDO/CWO Indoctrination Course or the Direct
Commission Officer Indoctrination Course (DCO), and Naval Science
Institute (NSI). In these cases, recommendations were made to
incorporate joint learning objectives into the Professional Core
Competencies (PCCs). PCCs are used for developing course objectives and
are the approved professional training requirements for officer
accession programs. These competencies are the minimum which should be
instructed, and are based on fleet requirements.
Since 2006, significant changes have occurred within the non-NROTC
training pipeline. All Officer training programs have been consolidated
at Officer Training Command (OTCN), Newport, R.I. PME topics are
covered in all OTCN curriculum (OCS, ODS, LDO/CWO, DCO, NSI) and are
currently under revision. Included in the curriculum redesign is a more
thorough PME exposure for all pre-commissioning candidates. With the
implementation of the new curriculum, OTCN graduates will be fully
prepared to transition into the Navy's Primary PME courses.
Navy community-specific schools continue to provide educational
elements related to the CJCS Primary learning area, Joint Warfare
Fundamentals. The Warfare Specialty Schools were generally found to be
meeting joint learning objectives for joint warfare; however, they were
not routinely covering the ``Joint Campaigning'' PCC. Of the PME
courses reviewed by the individual institutions, the majority are
designed for first tour junior officers and ``Joint Campaigning'' is
deemed beyond the skill set expected of a first fleet tour junior
officer. The ``Joint Campaigning'' is an area that is a staff training
objective and outside the scope of Individual Warfare Specialty
Schools.
The Navy's Primary PME course was first fielded by Naval War
College in May of 2006 via Navy Knowledge Online. Currently, there are
over 16K students enrolled in the Primary PME course which
satisfactorily addresses joint learning areas and objectives. The
program is available to all active duty and reserve members and is
updated on a regular basis to remain current and relevant.
Dr. Snyder. Chairman Skelton is persuaded that the historical case
study is a particularly good way to teach both history and strategy. Do
you use the case study method, and if so, to what ends?
Captain Klunder. Historical case studies are used in various
classes and applications at USNA. The USNA curricula include one core
history course (HH104) that provides all midshipmen with a foundation
in naval/military history. The emphasis on the study of strategy
varies, however, by individual professor. The level of analytical rigor
in the core course is that appropriate to a freshman or ``Plebe''. When
case studies are used, they typically entail only one lecture period,
unlike the Naval War College where students rigorously analyze the
historical cases over the course of several lectures. The shorter case
studies match the maturity and sophistication of students in a one
semester, freshman-level course.
The USNA core curricula also include a course on Naval Warfare,
taught at Luce Hall. Case studies are used in the Naval Warfare Course
(NS300) to reinforce lecture points and to demonstrate examples of
historical naval situations. The Battle of Midway, the Amphibious
landing at Inchon, the Battle of Yorktown, Air-to-Air combat in
Vietnam, and Naval and Joint Logistics in the 1991 Gulf War are the
specific case studies utilized. In addition to historical examples, our
instructors are encouraged to use their real life experience to drive
home the importance of Command and Control, Commander's intent, and
standard planning procedures.
There remains a last option for midshipmen, if they are so
inclined, to gain a better understanding of naval/military history and
strategy. The history department offers a broad range of higher-level
courses (e.g., HH381, Warfare in the Middle Ages; HH383, The Age of
Total War 1815-1945; HH386A, History of Airpower; HH386C, History of
Modern Counter Insurgency). These electives include a substantive
discussion of the evolution of strategy, in some cases using the case
study method. These electives, taken together on a yearly basis, can
provide up to 1,000 midshipmen the opportunity to study both strategy
and naval/military history (in practice, many of same students take
more than one course, thus the brigade coverage is less than the
theoretical maximum of one thousand possible midshipmen). Furthermore,
the academy recognizes the importance of a higher level analysis of
naval history and strategy and will offer in Spring 2010 a specialized
course, ``Readings in Grand Strategy''. In addition, the academy
recognizes the importance of an interdisciplinary study of military/
naval history, military technology, and strategy, and is considering
other initiatives that might improve midshipmen education in this area.
Dr. Snyder. Why do the Service Academies only award Bachelor of
Science degrees? What would be the professional effect of offering
Bachelor of Arts degrees in certain academic disciplines? What would be
the professional effect of offering alternate tracks within Bachelor of
Science programs that would be heavier on humanities and social science
requirements?
Captain Klunder. A B.S. degree is specified in Title 10. Also,
meeting the needs of warfare communities requires some flexibility.
This necessitates a core program that prepares midshipmen sufficiently
for any warfare community. The heavy emphasis on Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math (STEM) in the core justifies the B.S. degree.
Currently, there are opportunities for midshipmen in STEM majors to
increase their education in humanities and social science and there are
opportunities for non-STEM majors to enhance their education in
mathematics, science and engineering.
There are also opportunities for midshipmen in STEM majors to take
more coursework than that required for graduation in areas of
humanities and social science. Those opportunities may arise from
course validation, overloading or attending summer school.
Dr. Snyder. Does the amount of time needed to provide each
midshipman with a knowledge base in engineering allow the latitude to
balance academic pursuits with respect to the hard sciences, social
sciences, communications skills, military studies, and the humanities,
especially history, as they relate to a foundation in strategy?
Captain Klunder. All midshipmen are required to take four courses
in mathematics, two with lab in chemistry, two with lab in physics.
Many are free to take more ``hard science'' as electives. All
midshipmen are required to take two courses in English, three in
history, one in government, one in ethics and moral reasoning, and two
more electives in humanities and social sciences. All midshipmen are
required to take at least five courses in engineering. All midshipmen
take a course in naval strategy and tactics. This core foundation
provides a balance for whichever area the midshipmen choose for their
major--whether it is engineering, mathematics, science, humanities, or
social sciences.
Dr. Snyder. To what extent is the USNA's engineering-based
curriculum preparing midshipmen to become effective officers on the
ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere?
Captain Klunder. Our core engineering and math/sciences based
curriculum has proven to be very successful in the preparation of our
midshipmen to handle and understand the intricacies of today's modern
weapons systems and machinery. What we are also extremely proud of,
however, is our ability to properly prepare our young men and women to
lead sailors and marines into combat and non-combat environments. This
important aspect of our graduation requirement is accomplished by all
midshipmen receiving a commission into the Naval Service. To ensure we
are developing effective leaders that can succeed in Iraq or
Afghanistan we have incorporated a leadership training curriculum that
includes the utilization of two new educational and training divisions
``The Division of Character Development and Training'' and ``The
Division of Leadership Education and Development''. In both of these
divisions, the curriculum spans all four years and is designed to
provide the Brigade of midshipmen a solid theoretical foundation in
leadership values that is reinforced through summer training
deployments, exercises, and career information programs.
An additional focus area that has enhanced our leadership and
character development curriculum is the Naval Academy's Language
Proficiency, Regional Expertise, Cultural Awareness (LREC) program.
Adopting a multi-disciplinary approach, the Naval Academy has been able
to expose the majority of midshipmen to a full spectrum of joint,
regional, and interagency operations. Either through small extensive
in-country immersion programs, to larger foreign language immersion
experiences, to effective foreign military exchange and embassy
internship programs all midshipmen were able to acquire greater
knowledge regarding the languages, history, politics, economies,
culture and civilizations of strategically important regions of the
world.
Dr. Snyder. At the USNA, we know that the ``midshipman experience''
is a combination of academic and professional development curriculum,
leadership opportunities, summer training and travel, competitive
athletics, etc. How do you factor service, JCS, and DOD requirements
into the overall pre-commissioning experience?
Captain Klunder. Incorporating all the important requirements for
the breadth of training morally, mentally and physically is
challenging. We have an Academy Effectiveness Board of senior leaders
that meets monthly to make recommendations to the Superintendent on
integration of all requirements into our curriculum. Based on this
review, we have made changes in recent years and added inputs from
guidance established by JCS, DOD, and Navy.
Specifically, USNA used the 2006 Triennial Report on Pre-
Commissioning JPME assessment as a foundation to refine its
professional classroom instruction and practical fleet training to
better align with the JCS Chairman's Officer Professional Military
Education (PME) Policy. For example, classroom instruction in the NS300
Naval Warfare course was enhanced based upon 2006 Triennial Report
recommendations. In this course, learning objectives are derived from
CJCSI 1800.01C to include:
Know the organization for national security and how
defense organizations fit into the overall structure. Know the
organization, role and functions of the JCS. Know the chain of command
from the President and the SecDef to the individual Service
headquarters and to the unified commands. Know the primary missions and
responsibilities of the combatant commands. Know the Military Services'
primary roles, missions and organizations.
Describe the nature of American Military Power. Identify
the values in Joint Warfare. Understand fundamentals of information
operations. Know how to access joint learning resources.
Other focus areas where value was added to the JPME training
curriculum include the establishment of two new educational and
training divisions ``The Division of Character Development and
Training'' and ``The Division of Leadership Education and
Development''. In both of these divisions, the curriculum spans all
four years and is designed to provide the Brigade of midshipmen with a
solid theoretical foundation reinforced through summer training
deployments, exercises, and career information programs. Of particular
note, the Plebe Summer Character sessions, the Professional Reference
manual (Pro-Manual), the Midshipman Leadership Development Guide
(MLDG), and the Reef Points informational booklet all provide easy-to-
use instructional tools that assist the midshipmen's PME development.
One final area of PME that was enhanced following then 2006
Triennial Report was the Naval Academy's Language Proficiency, Regional
Expertise, Cultural Awareness (LREC) program. Adopting a multi-
disciplinary approach, the Naval Academy was able to expose the
majority of midshipmen to a full spectrum of joint, regional, and
interagency operations. Through small extensive in-country immersion
programs, to larger foreign language immersion experiences, to
effective foreign military exchange and embassy internship programs,
all midshipmen were able to acquire greater knowledge regarding the
languages, history, politics, economies, culture and civilizations of
strategically important regions of the world.
Dr. Snyder. How frequently are major reviews of the core curriculum
conducted? What is the process for review and for the implementation of
any recommended adjustments?
Captain Klunder. Major reviews of the curriculum occur about every
five to ten years. A review that surveys the needs of the Navy and
Marine Corps has typically occurred once per decade. Five and ten year
reviews are dictated by Middle States Accreditation. Reviews of parts
of the curriculum occur continually. Each department undergoes external
review on a regular basis. Changes to the curriculum come from
departments and are reviewed at higher levels by their divisions
(colleges), the Faculty Senate, the Dean, and the Superintendent.
Superintendents have directed general changes and departments have
implemented them after the aforementioned review process.
Dr. Snyder. Do your military faculty members get promotions and are
they selected for command? Please provide statistics for the last five
years.
Captain Klunder. Rotational Military Faculty are eligible for
promotion; these officers can be and are selected for command based on
the quality of their records. The long term military faculty--Permanent
Military Professors--are eligible for promotion as well. Many have
served in Command, but once selected for PMP, they are no longer
eligible for Command.
With the exemption of the Permanent Military Professors from U.S.
Navy DOPMA quotas in NDAA 2005, the Academy has been able to establish
up to 16 Captain (O-6) PMP billets. PMP promotion opportunity to
Captain for the foreseeable future is up to three selectees per year
through FY14. Statistics to date for PMP promotion are
FY08: 1
FY09: 3
Dr. Snyder. Some USNA faculty reported a lack of transparent
appraisal and renewal recommendation procedures. Please discuss the
tenure system at your institution? What feedback have you received from
civilian faculty with respect to these procedures?
Captain Klunder. The tenure system and its requirements are
described in detail in the Faculty Handbook, recently updated (2008)
and available to all new and continuing faculty. The system in place is
based on the policies and best practices developed by the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP). Requirements are discussed
in depth with all tenure-track faculty candidates prior to hiring.
Ongoing mentorship and counsel is received from department chairs and
senior faculty members.
Initial tenure-track appointments are renewed after three years,
with a departmental review for reappointment occurring at the two-year
point, accompanied by a letter from the Academic Dean and Provost
offering reappointment along with a short appraisal of performance to
date. This ``mid-tenure'' review is designed to provide both summative
and formative feedback to the individual regarding progress toward
tenure.
The Academy-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews packages
for tenure (and academic rank promotion) during the second three-year
appointment, usually during the fifth or sixth year of service. Clear
instructions are provided for preparing packages. Members of the
Promotion and Tenure Committee are faculty colleagues appointed through
due processes within the Faculty Senate. The percentage of faculty
renewed after the first three-year appointment is nearly 100%. The
percentage of tenure-track faculty who actually achieve tenure by their
6th year of Academy service (not counting those who may resign for
reasons unrelated to performance) is about 95% over the past five
years. These success rates are indicative of both the quality of the
faculty being hired at the Naval Academy as well as the effectiveness
and clarity/transparency of the promotion and tenure process. The
Promotion and Tenure Committee provides verbal and written feedback
following each review cycle to Division Directors, Department Chairs,
and especially to those candidates for tenure who were not selected
during the review. The Academy is somewhat unique among academic
institutions in that faculty candidates may apply for tenure
consideration more than once, i.e., during their 5th year of service
and/or during their sixth year of service. If not selected by the sixth
year of service, there is another full review during the seventh year
of service. Of course, if not successful at that point, their faculty
appointment at the Academy expires soon thereafter and is not renewed.
The Academic Dean and Provost meets with the Promotion and Tenure
Committee after they have concluded their reviews and discussions
relating to all candidates each year. Each case is thoroughly discussed
again in this setting. The Academic Dean and Provost then approves the
final recommendation list of successful candidates and informs the
Superintendent.
Town Hall meetings are held annually, at the Division level,
providing Promotion and Tenure Committee members the chance to convey
guidance/clarifications to all faculty members, and to answer faculty
questions in general.
The Promotion and Tenure Committee has met with specific
departments upon request, especially where the criteria for tenure are
less easily defined within the traditional academic framework, as a way
to achieve the greatest possible transparency and clarity for faculty
members in those departments. The Committee is also chartered as a
standing committee within the Faculty Senate to update the basic
processes as required, including the official written instruction
regarding submission of packages for review. This instruction is
updated typically in response to observed practices or requests for
more clarification, especially as venues for scholarly publication
evolve or new tools are developed for evaluating faculty performance.
In summary, feedback from faculty is periodically received
regarding clarity of the instruction for preparing promotion and tenure
packages; and feedback from entire departments whose disciplines are
rapidly evolving is periodically received relating to assessment of
scholarship. Both of these kinds of feedback are directly addressed as
described above, with broad information also being shared via the
annual Town Meetings and through interactions of the members of the
Promotion and Tenure Committee within their departments and divisions.
Questions or concerns regarding individual cases reviewed by the
Promotion and Tenure Committee are addressed in a confidential manner,
with feedback provided directly by the Promotion and Tenure Committee
during outbriefs with the candidate and their chain-of-command, with
written guidance provided as a follow-up to the outbriefs.
Dr. Snyder. Since the 2004 ``Larson Report,'' the USNA has
instituted a permanent military professor (PMP) program. Please
describe and discuss this program? How is it similar to, or different
from, those of the other Service Academies? How many PMPs are stationed
at the USNA? What are the numbers of PMPs according to rank? What is
the projected target number of PMPs? How many PMP candidates are
currently in school pursuing their advanced degrees? Please discuss any
effect that PMPs may have on the USNA's leadership structure.
Captain Klunder. The PMP program was created in 1997 by then-
Superintendent Larson as a cost-effective means of providing a stable
cohort of military role models in USNA classrooms who can also provide
meaningful curricular and personnel links to the operating forces of
the Navy.
USNA has traditionally depended on a balance of civilian and
military instructors to teach its classes. USNA has relatively fewer
military instructors than its sister academies, as a result. The USNA
PMP program--modeled on the Academy Professor program at USMA--is thus
considerably smaller than counterpart programs at USAFA and USMA. There
are 34 PMPs in residence at USNA in fall 2009; USAFA, if their budget
is approved, will have 65, and USMA has 64. Unlike its two sister
academies, USNA does not have any professors who serve as department
heads and retire in the rank of O-7. There are 19 such officers at West
Point and 21 at the Air Force Academy.
The Naval Academy currently plans for 50 PMPs on board. There are
21 PMPs in graduate school in the fall of 2009 pursuing the PhD.
PMPs' primary duties are as officer role models to midshipmen: in
the classroom, in the direction of USNA courses, and in the maintenance
of their discipline currency through relevant links to the Fleet and
through collaborative research programs with midshipmen. Occasionally
PMPs are asked to assume duties in the USNA leadership structure, as
department chairs, deputy division directors, and, in one instance, as
executive assistant to the Superintendent.
Dr. Snyder. What is the cost of the Permanent Military Professor
(PMP) program in real dollars? Recognizing that the PMP program is
fairly new, how much time, on average, will PMPs spend on the faculty
before reaching statutory retirement? What has been the shortest time
on record? The longest? Have any PMPs been released from their
commitment to serve on the faculty until statutory retirement? If so,
why?
Captain Klunder. The principal cost of the PMP program is in O-5
pay and allowances (individuals' account funds): three years for those
attending the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) (3 $174,991,
the annual DOD composite rate for 2009), and 4 $174,991 for
those attending civilian graduate school. There are no tuition costs
for NPS. We expect PMPs, on average, will spend approximately ten years
on the faculty, including those who have asked for continuation beyond
normal statutory retirement. No PMPs have been released from their
commitment once they have arrived at USNA. Two officers have asked to
be disenrolled while in graduate school because of the difficulty of
the doctoral course of study at NPS.
Dr. Snyder. To what extent may civilians from other government
agencies, such as the State Department or the CIA, be detailed to the
USNA faculty? How do these visiting faculty members help students
better understand the perspectives of other agencies?
Captain Klunder. Other government agencies may enter into
agreements, typically via Memoranda of Agreement, to have civilians
detailed to USNA to serve as part of the faculty. One such agreement is
currently in place with the National Security Agency. This agreement,
which could serve as a model for additional agreements with other
agencies, includes significant USNA involvement in the final step of
the selection process, helping assure that the detailed civilian
faculty member will have the greatest chance for success in the
undergraduate teaching environment at USNA. Most of the candidates for
these details do not have significant undergraduate teaching
experience, and depending on the agency, most will not have the Ph.D.
degree. Note that USNA cannot accept candidates without at least a
Masters degree in an appropriate discipline for accreditation purposes.
Detailees not only teach courses to midshipmen, but they also help
established other relationships between USNA faculty members and their
home agency, which can bear fruit in scholarly activity, including
midshipmen involvement in many cases. Detailees may also be invited to
address special gatherings of midshipmen, beyond their own assigned
classes, so that their perspectives and insights can be shared with a
broader audience at the Academy.
This past year, we have been approached by both CIA and the State
Department with proposals to work together to draft Memoranda of
Agreement for this very purpose, with a target of Fall 2010 semester
for initial implementation.
Dr. Snyder. How hard is it to attract top civilian faculty to the
USNA? Do you offer tenure to civilian faculty candidates? What
incentives do you offer civilian faculty candidates?
Captain Klunder. USNA competes in a national market to attract the
very best civilian faculty. We are successful in doing so because we
offer competitive salaries, an appropriate balance of teaching with
scholarly expectations, sufficient funding for ongoing professional
development, an opportunity to teach and learn with outstanding
students, and a system that leads to tenure after 6 years for those who
demonstrate outstanding performance. Hence, the vast majority of the
civilian faculty are in such tenure-track positions (positions that are
eligible to lead to tenure after six years); this is an important
``attractor'' for recruiting since institutions that do not offer
tenure-line positions rarely compete effectively in a national market.
These positions are ten-month academic year positions, with faculty in
a leave-without-pay status during the 2-month intercessional (summer)
period, unless other funding arrangements are made, such as external
research sponsorship. This tenure-track model has been the foundation
civilian faculty model at the Academy for many decades. All tenure-
track civilian faculty members possess the Ph.D. degree, and all are
expected to remain current in their academic disciplines in order to
keep the curriculum for academic program current, vibrant, and
exciting. The awarding of tenure requires that civilian faculty excel
in the classroom as well as in their scholarly activities, and to be
supportive of the ``whole person'' development of midshipmen consistent
with our mission. This is a special combination of expectations which
appeals to many potential faculty candidates.
There are several incentives that help in recruiting new civilian
faculty. For about the last decade, we have offered newly hired
civilian tenure-track faculty the option to apply for three years of
summer intercessional salary support, subject to approval by the
Academy's Research Council of the individual's proposed scholarly
activities. Of course, faculty are still encouraged to pursue external
funding via grant proposals, but for those unable to secure such
funding, we have been able to provide this support, in partnership with
the Office of Naval Research for technically oriented faculty. In
addition, we have seen recent activity and improvement in the area of
child care for civilian faculty, which has proven very helpful in
recruiting junior faculty in the past couple of years.
On the other hand, there are also several challenges that impede
our recruiting efforts. We have seen an increase in declined offers in
some disciplines, typically related to the long-term pay parity with
private sector counterparts. That is, in recent years, we have begun to
see an erosion of salary competitiveness in the highest academic rank
(Professor), which is attributed to the federal pay cap as applied in
the Department of Defense. As this trend continues, we see a growing
impact on recruiting faculty, especially in the disciplines whose
markets sustain higher salary requirements (engineering disciplines,
computer science, economics), since faculty hired into these
disciplines will only have 12-14 years within their 30-35 year careers
to be eligible for merit-based salary increases.
Other incentives common at many other academic institutions,
including many public state universities and colleges, but which are
not available to civilian faculty at USNA, include tuition assistance
for faculty dependents and faculty housing arrangements.
Dr. Snyder. Are there any significant impediments to sending USNA
faculty members, whether civilian or military, for professional or
academic purposes to foreign universities? Are there any significant
impediments to sending faculty members for the same reasons to top tier
universities within the United States?
Captain Klunder. No, although there are additional costs associated
with per diem for temporary lodging, food and incidentals.
Dr. Snyder. It has been asserted that institutional efforts to
generate more diversity in the student body have had a negative impact
on classroom dynamics and the quality of students and graduates. How do
you respond to those assertions?
Captain Klunder. The Naval Academy has graduated warrior leaders
for 164 years, and it continues to do so today. In order to carry out
our mission with an all-volunteer naval force during a time of war, the
Naval Academy has conducted a recruiting campaign to reach out to all
of America, particularly in under-represented areas of the nation. We
have found vast talent around the nation who simply do not know of the
opportunity to serve their country through the Naval Academy. Our
admissions department has reached out nationally to attract this
talent. For the incoming freshmen class of 2013, we attracted over
15,300 applicants--a 40% overall increase and the most in 21 years.
Included in the much larger applicant pool is a 57% increase in
minority applications from the previous year. The result is the Class
of 2013 is the most geographically, racially, and ethnically diverse
class in Academy history.
The Class of 2013 is comprised of well-rounded talent that brings a
broad spectrum of experience to the Naval Academy. The Naval Academy
admits only highly motivated young men and women based upon their
combined excellence in academics, athletics, leadership potential and
community service. While SAT scores alone are not predictors of success
either at the Naval Academy or in the Fleet, it is significant to note
that when their scores are compared to their national college-bound
ethnic peers, Naval Academy Hispanics were in the top 5%, African-
Americans were in the top 6%, and Caucasians were in the top 11%. Quite
simply, because of the increased outreach efforts, we greatly increased
number of applications. The Class of 2013 has more minorities because
more highly qualified minorities applied.
Quality is high, spirit is high, and we will continue to train the
finest students in the nation morally, mentally, and physically to be
among the finest leaders for our nation.
Dr. Snyder. Does the USNA receive funding for the purpose of
promoting diversity? If so, how is this funding utilized?
Captain Klunder. USNA outreach efforts are typically within the
operating funding provided to USNA Admissions Department as part of
their efforts across the nation in attracting youth. However, in the
FY2008 National Defense Authorization Bill congress specifically added
$460k to the U.S. Naval Academy for diversity outreach. This funding
was used to enhance the outreach efforts including travel of midshipmen
for school visits, outreach across the nation by midshipmen groups like
the USNA Gospel Choir, STEM camps at USNA and STEM outreach. Finally,
on a case-by-case basis, private gift funds are sometimes available to
support specific actions or programs from private donors.
Dr. Snyder. Please provide a comprehensive list with numbers of all
outside scholarships awarded to USNA graduates over the past five
years, together with a brief description of each.
Captain Klunder. Voluntary Graduate Education Program (VGEP). The
VGEP Scholars begin working toward advanced degrees at local
universities in the spring semester of their senior year at the Naval
Academy. They are continuing their graduate work as junior officers in
the Navy and Marine Corps. The VGEP Scholars will complete their
community schools in January of the following year.
2005 20
2006 19
2007 20
2008 19
2009 19
Immediate Graduate Education Program (IGEP) at the Naval
Postgraduate School and Air Force Institute of Technology. The IGEP
officers participate in accelerated one-year master's degree programs
in designated technical curricula.
2005 48 (18 Aviation, 13 Surface, 17 Submarine)
2006 39 (14 Aviation, 17 Surface, 8 Submarine)
2007 22 (13 Aviation, 5 Surface, 4 Submarine)
2008* 6 Bowman Scholars (5 Nuc Submarine, 1 Nuc Surface)
2009* 5 Bowman Scholars (4 Nuc Submarine, 1 Nuc Surface)
* IGEP at NPS limited to just nuclear power Bowman Scholars.
Authorized to accept scholarships at civilian universities--allows
up to 24 months for the officers to complete their master's degrees
before attending their service schools.
2005 40 (33 Navy and 7 Marine Corps) (4 Rhodes, 1 Marshall)
2006 32 (23 Navy and 9 Marine Corps) (3 Rhodes, 0 Marshall)
2007 39 (34 Navy and 5 Marine Corps) (1 Rhodes, 1 Marshall)
2008 32 (20 Navy and 12 Marine Corps) (1 Rhodes, 3 Marshall)
2009 38 (21 Navy and 17 Marine Corps) (0 Rhodes, 4 Marshall)
(9 Rhodes, 9 Marshall)
Numbers of Rhodes Scholarships to Oxford and Marshall Scholarships to
United Kingdom Universities are indicated on the right and are included
in the summary totals for each class.
Secretary of the Navy/Office of Naval Research Oceanography Program
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution.
2005 3
2006 2
2007 0 Graduating midshipmen became ineligible for
2008 0 the Oceanography at MIT program starting with
2009 0 the Class of 2007.
Burke Program students begin graduate work, usually at the Naval
Postgraduate School, after their first operational tour in the Navy or
Marine Corps.
Navy Burke Program
2005 48 (15 principals and 33 alternates)
2006 47 (15 principals and 32 alternates)
2007 24 (15 principals and 9 alternates)
2008 28 (15 principals and 13 alternates)
2009 29 (15 principals and 14 alternates)
Marine Corps Burke Program
2005 23 (15 principals and 8 alternates)
2006 23 (15 principals and 8 alternates)
2007 15
2008 14
2009 15
Olmsted Scholarship Nominees. The nominees will be screened for the
Olmsted Scholarship three to ten years after commissioning, by Navy-
Marine Corps screening committees. Ultimately, up to 10 Navy and 3 or
more Marine Corps Olmsted nominees may be selected for graduate study
at foreign universities, using a foreign language.
2005 29
2006 27
2007 32
2008 37
2009 46
Dr. Snyder. Among active duty personnel in the Navy and Marine
Corps, how many Flag and General officers are USNA graduates? Of the
total active duty Navy and Marine Corps Flag and General officer
populations, what percentages do these numbers represent?
Captain Klunder. USNA records indicate 13 of 107 Active Duty Marine
Corps General Officers are USNA graduates (12%). The current number of
active duty Navy Flag Officers who are USNA graduates is 137 (includes
flag selectees). The percentage of active duty Navy Flag Officers is
49% (includes flag selectees).
Dr. Snyder. What are the specific lengths of commitment incurred by
USNA graduates, according to Service selection and/or specialty?
Captain Klunder. For Naval Aviation, Navy pilots serve a commitment
of eight years after earning their wings and Naval Flight Officers
serve six years after earning their wings. For USMC, rotary pilots
serve six years after wings and fixed wing pilots serve eight years.
For USNA graduates who attend the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Services and become Medical Officers their active duty
commitment is twelve years. All other designators or military
occupational specialties incur the USNA minimum active duty service
obligation of five years.
Dr. Snyder. What are the current retention figures for USNA
graduates among active duty Navy and Marine Corps personnel,
respectively, at the five-, ten-, and fifteen-year milestones?
Captain Klunder. For Navy, personnel retention rates of USNA
graduates based on 2001-2006 career continuation rates are 80.8% at
five years, 41.4% at ten and 33.1% at fifteen years. For Marine Corps,
personnel retention rates are 90.7% at five years, 48.4% at ten and
36.1% at fifteen.
Dr. Snyder. Please comment on the most recent professional military
reading list compiled by Chairman Skelton.
Captain Klunder. #1. History Matters: This may seem rather over-
simplified, but when discussing Geo-Political Issues and U.S.
engagement in strategic regions around the world it is clear that one
should have a thorough understanding of that region and its history.
Works like Kaplan's ``Warrior Politics'', Sun Tzu's ``The Art of War'',
and Handel's ``Masters of War'' are some that immediately resonated
with me.
#2. Battles & Conflicts Repeat Themselves: In my study of
conflicts, great warriors and leaders often recognize the same critical
elements for mission success. Sir Gavin De Beer's ``Hannibal'',
Keegan's ``The Book of War'', and Freeman's ``Lee'' have particular
significance in this area.
#3. Study Great Leaders: The piece on Stonewall Jackson by
Robertson and the interesting read on Lincoln, ``Team of Rivals'' by
Goodwin are most interesting.
#4. A Strong Read for this Era: I am convinced that David
Kicullen's ``The Accidental Guerilla'' will influence our decisions for
many years to come with regard to modern warfare.
#5. Truly Understanding Afghanistan: If a reader wants to get a
comprehensive understanding of current Afghanistan society, one should
spend some time with Barrnett Rubin's ``The Fragmentation of
Afghanistan''. It is a detailed read, but extremely insightful
(recommend adding to the list).
#6. Understanding Military Discipline: This pertains to aviation;
however, the reader will quickly appreciate how critical discipline
becomes to a unit's mission success by reading Tony Kern's ``Flight
Discipline'' (recommend adding to the list).
#7. U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers: There is no better read on the
U.S. Navy's Aircraft Carrier than ADM James Holloway's ``Aircraft
Carriers at War'' (recommend adding to the list if an Aircraft Carrier
work is desired).
#8. If You Don't Read, You Can't Lead: We had a renowned speaker
come to the Naval Academy (Dr. Samuel Betances) and he mentioned these
strong words. In the discussion, he also recommended ``Future Think''
by Edie Weiner and Arnold Brown. I have just picked it up, but the
initial feedback regarding this book is very positive. It is a very
healthy read on managing change.
#9. Overcoming Resistance: ``The War of Art'' is another book that
I have just been recommended to read. It deals with achieving goals by
overcoming the resistance and hurdles that always seem to get in the
way. I haven't picked it up yet, but this is my next one in the queue.
#10. A Reading List is Created to Share: Thank you for sharing your
list with me. I clearly remember Chairman Skelton speaking to my
graduating class at National War College and one of the important
points he stressed regarded continual reading and learning. I am trying
to honor those words.
Dr. Snyder. Does the USNA have information technology challenges?
If so, please describe them. Are there educational advantages or
disadvantages associated with maintaining a ``.edu'' versus a ``.mil''
internet domain registration? Are there advantages or disadvantages
with maintaining both domain registrations?
Captain Klunder. The Naval Academy's information technology
challenge is to provide information technology to a U.S. Navy Echelon
II Command, in a competitive university setting, supporting a timeless
pedagogical mission, within the boundary conditions established by the
military.
There are significant advantages (and requirements) associated with
a ``.edu'' network/domain.
The Naval Academy's mission is exceptionally different from other
Navy commands; consequently our use of information technology (IT) is
inimitable when compared to other Navy organizations.
Operating as a .mil (e.g. in a .mil domain) does not support the
context within which the Naval Academy uses IT. The context dictates
the technology required, who uses it, and how it is used. Our context
is completely different than traditional naval shore establishments and
sea commands, including training commands. Most of the differences are
reflected in how the information and communication technology is
acquired, developed, integrated, and used. Examples of the context
include:
Accession Accession source for 1000 officers into the Navy and Marine Corps
Education Undergraduate degree granting institution
Research Pedagogical, scientific, and industrial research
Athletics NCAA participation in 30 Olympic sports at the intercollegiate level
Accreditation Academic and professional accreditation for all academic programs
Collaboration Collaborative membership in international research and education network
Exploration Evaluating technology futures--keeps us competitive with our peers
Each of the above requires a unique blend of hardware, software,
network/communication capabilities, and security either not available,
or not allowed on a .mil network.
``.Mil'' networks cannot support the complexity, diversity,
agility, responsiveness, and flexibility required of competitive,
degree granting, and fully accredited educational institutions such as
USNA.
By design, Academic programs (and therefore the Naval Academy),
require innovation, experimentation, and research as a requirement for
accreditation and as a requirement to improve teaching and learning
(pedagogy).
There are no advantages and significant disadvantages as discussed
above.
Dr. Snyder. Chairman Skelton is persuaded that the historical case
study is a particularly good way to teach both history and strategy. Do
you use the case study method and, if so, to what ends?
Colonel Tanous. The faculty at the Squadron Officer College (SOC)
agrees with Chairman Skelton and uses case-study methodology in both
the Air and Space Basic Course (ASBC) and Squadron Officer School
(SOS). The use of the case-study method aids in teaching history and
strategy, but is also valuable in strengthening students' skills in
critical thinking. Through their use of case studies, students conduct
analysis and have their interpretations of facts challenged by peers
and instructors alike.
The Air Force chartered ASBC to educate junior officers in the
capabilities and limitations of the U.S. Air Force. Those capabilities
and limitations are detailed in the Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD)-
2 series. SOC is using case studies to drive ASBC students into the
applicable doctrine, allowing them to discover linkages between
historical events and current doctrine, but also facilitating critical
thinking about the applicability and currency of the existing doctrine.
SOC employs case-study methodology in SOS in support of that
School's leadership-development mission. Students are exposed to case
studies and biographical information to analyze, assess and comment on
leadership traits and experiences of the past. In this way, they
correlate past leaders' approaches and accomplishments to today's
challenges and determine better ways to overcome obstacles and achieve
success.
Dr. Snyder. How do you factor Service, JCS and DOD requirements
into your approach to educating and developing junior officers?
Colonel Tanous. Service requirements are levied on the Squadron
Officer College (SOC) through the Air Force Learning Council and the
Institutional Competency List (ICL). Joint and DOD requirements are
transmitted via the Officer Professional Military Education Policy
(OPMEP), contained in CJCS Instruction 1800.01. In addition to the
OPMEP, the Joint Staff/J-7 Joint Education Branch conveys additional
topics it wants covered via its annual list of ``Special Areas of
Emphasis.'' SOC also responds to learning requirements levied by the
Air Education and Training Command, Air University, and the
Professional Center for Officer Development.
SOC regularly reviews assigned learning requirements to ensure the
curricula of its programs meet or exceed desired learning levels in
each area. Where shortcomings are noted, curriculum items are added or
revised appropriately. Similarly, requirements that are deleted are
reviewed to determine if they are no longer relevant to the curriculum
and, if determined to be inappropriate for retention, are eliminated.
All curriculum decisions, to include additions, revisions and
deletions, are weighed against the entire curriculum within any given
education program. Professional educators ensure programmatic decisions
are enacted in such a manner as to ensure a coherent educational
experience consistent with the mission and desired learning outcomes
for each academic program.
Dr. Snyder. In thinking about how to integrate the curricula of
ASBC and SOS, how do you compensate for the fact that the two schools
are years apart in an officer's career--and thus much of what is
learned at ASBC may be forgotten by the time an officer goes to SOS?
Colonel Tanous. Curriculum integration is a major concern not just
for Squadron Officer College (SOC) in its ASBC and SOS offerings, but
across the entire continuum of U.S. Air Force Professional Military
Education. To facilitate integration, the Air Force created a continuum
of learning, encompassing training, education and experience. The Air
Force Institutional Competency List (ICL) is based on this continuum
and helps the schools define their programs and integrate their
offerings across officers' careers.
Air University clarifies the Air Force's continuum guidance with
its own publication, the Continuum of Officer and Enlisted Professional
Military Education Strategic Guidance, commonly referred to as the
``CESG.'' The CESG, most recently published in April 2009, incorporated
the ICL, but adds several levels of granularity to ensure topic
integration and minimize the potential for duplication across the
University's educational offerings.
SOC ``deconflicts'' its educational requirements between ASBC and
SOS to ensure that curriculum is developed commensurate with the
specific needs of its students and assigned learning requirements.
There is very little review of ASBC curriculum in the SOS program. The
education and skills imparted through ASBC are reinforced through
experience and review of military doctrine that occurs as a natural
part of an officer's service.
A recent enhancement in officer education is SOC's new Leadership
Development Program (LDP). The LDP consists of four, self-paced courses
developed specifically to aid officers at particular points in their
career. The Company Grade Officer Development Course reinforces
precommissioning materials on officership and the profession of arms,
building on that knowledge to address the expanding responsibilities
and requirements junior officers face in the early years of their
careers. The Flight Commander Course provides additional instruction in
the areas of supervision and resource management. SOC's Organizational
Leadership Course delves into organizational theory to aid students in
designing, improving and leading organizations. Lastly, the
Expeditionary Leadership Course addresses specific requirements related
to deployment preparation and recovery, as well as unique challenges
associated with leading people in austere and/or hostile environments.
Together, the four courses of the LDP offer educational reinforcement
of basic concepts while building on those concepts in areas that
specifically meet the needs of today's junior Air Force officers.
In addition to LDP, Air Force officers also have the Warfighter
Developmental Education (WDE) program, a series of five courses
developed by the Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and
Education and presented across Airmen's careers to help keep them
current. The second of these courses, ``Foundations of Warfighting,''
specifically targets junior officers. It complements the ASBC and SOS
curricula and bridges the time between the two schools. The course
reinforces students' understanding of air, space and cyberspace power
employment from homeland to expeditionary operations; lessons critical
to all Airmen, but particularly pertinent to these junior officers.
Dr. Snyder. At the ASBC, virtually all USAF officers matriculate,
even recent USAFA graduates. Recent graduates reportedly consider the
ASBC experience to be a ``huge waste of time.'' How do you try to make
the ASBC experience a valuable one for students?
Colonel Tanous. ASBC was developed with the intent to create within
our junior officers an ``Airman First'' attitude, meaning airmen
recognize themselves as components of their Service first and foremost,
irrespective of accession source or specialty. While a challenging
goal, over the course of the last decade the course has matured, and
several successive Chief of Staff U.S. Air Force (CSAF)-directed
initiatives have continued to improve ASBC, culminating in the current
ASBC ``Retool'' effort. The collective result of the CSAF-directed
initiatives, as well as internal reviews and student and faculty
feedback, addresses many of the concerns referenced above. The singular
focus for ASBC across Squadron Officer College (SOC) is to maximize the
value of this unique learning opportunity for the entire officer corps
just as they begin their careers.
As noted above, the CSAF-directed changes have significantly
enhanced the ASBC experience, and today's ASBC bears almost no
resemblance to the course our Lieutenants went through ten years ago.
These included the addition of a ``combined ops'' curriculum
(cooperative, experiential sessions between ASBC and Senior Non-
Commissioned Officer Academy [SNCOA] students), new learning outcomes
aimed at imparting a warrior ethos in ASBC graduates. SOC has recently
completed a major adjustment in ASBC to achieve these ends, however;
some replication between commissioning sources and the resulting
educational program were almost immediately obvious to the students,
faculty and staff. Just as quickly, SOC is making additional
adjustments.
In terms of the expeditionary skills imparted in the Course, SOC
has coordinated with Air Force expeditionary skills program managers to
deconflict its offerings with those of the Academy, the Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) and Officer Training School (OTS). More
importantly, SOC incorporated ASBC into its curriculum-revision
undertaken earlier this year to elevate that program to higher levels
of learning.
Instead of merely focusing on ``the family business'' and imparting
warrior skills, the educational aims of the past, the revised ASBC is
offering expeditionary skills in the intellectual context of 21st
Century warfare. Students are immersed in a simulated expeditionary
environment, but their learning experiences are specifically linked to
Air Force doctrine and the context of modern warfare as never before.
The result is a more coherent and more valuable learning experience.
The new ASBC program consists of three, key stages of development,
each dedicated to a specific area of student learning. The course opens
with the Blue Thunder experience, a simulated-deployment, tent city
located on Maxwell Air Force Base where students are acquainted with
the expeditionary skills and requirements that define modern Air Force
operations. Blue Thunder serves as an ``equalizer'' for students from
varying commissioning sources and specialties ensuring a common
baseline of understanding for the next two stages.
In the second stage of development, students participate in three
weeks of rigorous academics and one week of Combined Ops with students
from the SNCOA. The academic portion of the course has been extensively
modified to provide a far more rigorous learning experience; one
specifically focused on higher-headquarters-directed learning
requirements as they apply to these junior officers. The Combined Ops
activities encourage collaboration, team-building and understanding
between the junior officers and mid-level senior NCOs. In addition to
experiential activities and problem-solving scenarios, there is ample
time for interaction on issues of vital concern to today's Air Force.
Many students in both ASBC and SNCOA consider the combined-ops
experience to be the highlight of their educational endeavors.
In the final stage of the ASBC experience, Vigilant Warrior,
students ``deploy'' to a simulated deployment site at a pristine
location 25 miles north of the base. Here they are provided
opportunities to demonstrate all that they have learned throughout the
course in a series of challenging scenarios. This unique and rewarding
learning experience is drawing rave reviews from students, faculty and
staff alike both for its authenticity and its focus on real-world
challenges.
Combined, the three stages of ASBC build upon the knowledge
imparted in precommissioning educational opportunities, carrying
students to higher levels of learning in the skill and knowledge areas
most appropriate to junior military officers. They create an
intellectual context into which students can better comprehend the
importance of their unique contributions to the Air Force and Joint-
Force missions they will support, and they have a broader understanding
of the full spectrum of Air Force capabilities and the ways in which
their Service supports Joint Force commanders and national security
objectives.
This transformation of ASBC is still underway and will be complete
in early 2010. SOC will continue to monitor very closely student,
faculty and staff feedback as it progresses toward its goal of creating
a gateway educational experience that prepares these junior Air Force
officers for the operational challenges they will face in their
careers.
Dr. Snyder. We understand that there is a recently completed
curriculum review that, among other things, focused on operational art,
language and culture, and the balance of joint concepts between ASBC
and SOS. The goal for ASBC is the ``awareness level,'' and for SOS the
``competency level.'' What more can you tell us about this review?
Please differentiate the substantive meanings of the terms ``awareness
level'' and ``competency level.''
Colonel Tanous. The curriculum review was launched on 1 April 2009
and involved the identification and review of every learning
requirement assigned to the Squadron Officer College (SOC). Conducted
by a team of faculty and staff members from within SOC, but
supplemented by educational experts across the University, the team
identified a number of requirements that were not being adequately
addressed, but also vast opportunities for improvement in terms of both
curriculum currency and relevance. The team concluded its deliberations
on 15 April, forwarding a curriculum plan for senior leaders to
coordinate and approve. The plan was approved and launched on 1 May
2009. As of this writing, 101 of the 124 lessons of the new SOC
curriculum are in work, with 22 already in use in the classrooms.
The new curriculum is focused entirely in SOS' core mission area,
leadership. Using cutting-edge leadership theory, experiential
activities, a new instructional approach that challenges students to be
more proactive in their learning, and new assessment strategies,
students are developing enhanced communications and critical thinking
skills even as they are honing their leadership skills.
The curriculum in ASBC is changing as well. The ASBC curriculum is
delving further into the intellectual context of 21st Century warfare
to make the existing expeditionary-skills and combined-operations (in
conjunction with Senior Non-Commissioned Officer Academy students)
portions of the curriculum more relevant. The curriculum updates in
ASBC and SOS will be complete no later than March 2010, however,
already SOC is realizing gains through its aggressive student and
faculty feedback programs.
SOC envisions itself as the premier leadership-development
institution in the U.S. Air Force; a program respected throughout the
Air Force and beyond. With the changes underway today, SOC is well on
its way to reaching its vision.
Other educational institutions agree. SOC has established
partnerships with several educational institutions, both civilian and
military, to expedite the changes underway. The results have been
phenomenal. The University of Texas has visited to observe the new
educational approach and has reported phenomenal successes. The Air
Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) has assisted by designing a
leadership-assessment survey that is helping SOS students comprehend
their leadership strengths and weaknesses so they can build personal
development plans. AFIT is also helping SOC reengineer its
distinguished-graduate/recognition programs to better incentivize
desired student behaviors. Michigan State University is collaborating
with SOS to conduct a wargaming exercise that assesses and develops
team-building and decision-making skills. These are just some of the
partnerships contributing to the success of SOC's new educational
approach.
SOC does not differentiate its educational offerings in terms of
``awareness'' and ``competency'' levels. Learning requirements are
assigned by higher headquarters via the Air Force Institutional
Competency List, the Joint Staff's Officer Professional Military
Education Policy, the Air University Continuum of Officer and Enlisted
Professional Military Education Strategic Guidance, as well as other
mechanisms, typically using the learning levels associated with Bloom's
Taxonomy. Those levels are: knowledge, comprehension, application,
analysis, synthesis and evaluation. SOC reviews its assigned learning
requirements and, at its discretion may exceed assigned learning levels
in the interest of producing a better graduate for the Air Force.
It is inaccurate to state that the ASBC curriculum targets lower
learning levels than SOS'. ASBC reaches desired learning levels in its
focus areas, team-building, expeditionary operations and Air Force
capabilities and limitations, often reaching application and analysis.
SOS reaches its desired levels of learning in its focus area, which is
leadership.
Dr. Snyder. What constitutes ``rigor'' in your educational program?
How do you establish and evaluate ``rigor'' for any particular course
offering or academic program? Do you give letter grades? Please
explain.
Colonel Tanous. The Squadron Officer College (SOC) enhances the
academic rigor of its educational offerings by focusing on higher
levels of learning as defined by the Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning.
Instead of rote memorization, a hallmark of past offerings, SOC is
delving more deeply into activities that demand analysis and
application from its students. Instead of multiple-choice testing and
simple experiential activities, SOC is adopting a wide array of student
assessments that combine to provide a more holistic picture of student
learning and success while at the same time challenging students to
master critical thinking and communication skills as an inherent
element of their learning.
In support of these initiatives, SOC has completely revised its
Academic Evaluation Plan. Part of that plan includes implementing
letter grades for academic assignments. Additionally, rubrics are being
created to guide instructors in assessing student performance. These
rubrics, available to students in advance of their performances, help
guide both students and instructors to focus on the desired behaviors
and performance levels while simultaneously limiting subjectivity in
instructor assessments.
In addition to these initiatives, SOC is currently revising its
distinguished-graduate/recognition programs. The goal in this
initiative is to incentivize those behaviors desired in SOC's
students--those behaviors, skills and knowledge areas most desired by
the Air Force and Joint Staff. Combined, these initiatives help instill
and assess academic rigor as never before.
Dr. Snyder. How does performance in primary-level PME matter for
onward assignments? Should attendance of the primary-level PME schools
in-residence matter for later assignments?
Colonel Tanous. Squadron Officer College (SOC) has anecdotal
evidence that distinguished graduates fare better in their future
assignments. SOC is initiating an endeavor to employ the institutional-
effectiveness experts at the Spaatz Center for Officer Professional
Development to conduct studies of demographic data to provide
additional insights into the short- and long-term aspects of its
educational offerings on students' careers.
This initiative is timely, given the fundamental alterations
underway in primary PME. The new curricula in the Squadron Officer
School (SOS) and the Air and Space Basic Course (ASBC) will produce
officers whose knowledge and skill sets are more closely aligned to the
needs of the U.S. Air Force and joint community. SOC expects that
student and supervisor surveys will also bear out the value of the new
approach. Although it is still too soon in this process to definitively
claim success, early student, faculty and staff feedback clearly
indicates SOC is on the right path. External reviewers, to include
academic partners from civilian educational institutions and higher
headquarters concur.
Attendance at primary-level PME should matter a great deal in
considering officers' assignments. Attendance should not be just a
``square-filler,'' however. Graduates from SOC's programs should
possess skills and knowledge that set them apart from their peers who
have not attended. They should be better leaders and more knowledgeable
of Air Force capabilities. They should be better team-builders and have
a broader working knowledge of Air Force processes. SOC should
definitely ``count'' in assignment decisions, but the responsibility
for making it ``count'' clearly lies with SOC. SOC has to create and
deliver educational offerings that empower its students to success and
make them more desirable to the Air Force. That transformation is
underway. It is already producing early signs of success.
Dr. Snyder. How do you evaluate the performance of the faculty and
staff at your institution?
Colonel Tanous. In addition to initiating a complete review and
revision of its curriculum, the Squadron Officer College (SOC)
simultaneously launched a comprehensive review of its faculty
recruitment, development, evaluation and recognition programs this
spring. In the past, faculty evaluations were conducted by the
individual instructor's chain of command. Faculty duty was not well
incentivized and the faculty was not empowered to provide coaching and
mentoring. Instead, the faculty was limited to an evaluator/observer
role.
All of that has changed. Robust development opportunities, to
include preparatory courses, in-service educational opportunities and
increased sharing among the faculty are now a regular part of the SOC
teaching experience. Two of the preparatory classes have been reviewed
by a civilian academic partner and graduated faculty members receive
six hours of transfer credits into that University's Master's of Adult
Education Degree.
Faculty observations and evaluations are conducted by senior staff
members as well as identified master instructors across the faculty,
with feedback directed at improving teaching performance. Instructional
skills are incentivized with awards, ``senior'' and ``master''
rankings, as well as opportunities for off-duty research and
participation in subject-relevant symposia.
Specific to this question, a new faculty-observation/evaluation
form has been developed, with an accompanying Operating Instruction, to
guide reviewers to identify and report on desired teaching behaviors in
the classroom. The evaluation process relies on candid peer reviews,
focused entirely on student learning outcomes.
The results of these initiatives are maturing now across the
College. What was a few months ago a ``band of brother instructors'' is
emerging as a faculty, committed to student learning and sharing ideas
on better ways to reach students and guide them to achieve desired
learning objectives. SOC is moving toward the graduate-level
educational experience it seeks to become. The instructor observation/
evaluation program is facilitating this transformation.
Dr. Snyder. What is the SOC doing to eliminate perceptions among
its military faculty that duty at the SOC is neither professionally
satisfying nor career enhancing? Do these perceptions impact the
school's ability to select qualified military instructors? Do your
military faculty members get promotions and are they selected for
command? Please provide statistics for the last five years.
Colonel Tanous. In spring of 2009, the Squadron Officer College
(SOC) simultaneously launched comprehensive reviews of its curriculum
and its faculty recruitment, development, evaluation and recognition
programs. These reviews uncovered vast opportunities for improvements
in the educational programs SOC delivers in support of the Air Force
mission. SOC is capturing and enacting these improvements which are
being captured and enacted in a series of changes affecting lesson
content and delivery, as well as faculty selection, preparation and
support. The transformations underway at SOC are fundamentally altering
the quality of instructors' assignments to the College.
First, SOC's academic day--as calculated in ``contact hours'' has
been contracted to allow more time for faculty preparation and
development, as well as more time for student reflection. The absence
of time for grading papers, classroom preparation and professional
development was a major detractor noted by past faculty members.
Secondly, SOC is better preparing its faculty for success. The time
invested in faculty development reinforces SOC's commitment to its
teaching staff. In return, this ensures a more capable and more
committed faculty. Further, the interactive, developmental
opportunities SOC is providing open additional avenues for
communication providing faculty with a greater voice in the curriculum,
delivery methods, and even College procedures.
Third, the focus of faculty duty is transforming. Moving from an
observer-evaluator to a coach-mentor approach is empowering faculty
members to become involved in their students success. Where in the past
the faculty was on the sidelines observing students, they are now ``in
the game,'' playing alongside their charges and extolling them to
higher levels of achievement. This has created a far more satisfying
experience for the faculty members while at the same time making them
far more effective as educators.
Lastly, SOC is incentivizing top-notch teaching. In the past, SOC's
awards programs tended to recognize outstanding performers who
completed special projects outside of the classroom. Now SOC is
recognizing its outstanding teachers and using them to model effective
educational techniques across the College. In addition, SOC has
identified a list of qualifications it desires in its new faculty
members and is working with the Air Force Personnel Center to identify
officers who meet or exceed these standards, knowing that the enhanced
quality will translate into greater student respect and higher prestige
for faculty. Lastly, SOC is incentivizing faculty duty through
opportunities for additional education (SOC recently requested two
additional Advanced Academic-Degree slots), attendance at subject-
related symposia, opportunities for individual research, and
opportunities to present research and personal experiences in faculty
fora both within the College and beyond. Combined, these incentives and
the increased responsibilities entailed in the new teaching approach
are eliminating some of the major detractors of faculty duty identified
in the past, and making an assignment to SOC more highly prized than
ever before.
There is currently no statistical data supporting the relative
value of faculty service. However, promotion rates for SOC have
exceeded Air Force averages. For the last several years, the USAF
promotion rate to the rank of major has averaged around 94%, and 74%
from major to lieutenant colonel. In comparison the promotion rate for
2008 within SOC for captains meeting their primary board for promotion
to major was 100%, as was the rate for Majors meeting their primary
board for Lt Colonel. The impact may be discernable at more senior
levels of service, however, that data has not been captured. SOC is
working with the Spaatz Center for Officer Professional Development to
develop new approaches to capture and analyze data supporting its
institutional effectiveness program. Part of this initiative is to
partner with the Air Force Personnel Center to capture demographic data
looking into the areas of retention, promotion, and selection for
command.
Dr. Snyder. We understand that approximately 80 percent of USAF
Captains go to SOS in-residence. Should the USAF establish a screening
process for SOS to make attendance more selective?
Colonel Tanous. In effect, a screening process already exists. Wing
and Numbered Air Force commanders currently make SOS attendance
selections based on those eligible to attend. Although these commanders
have to take operational factors and timing into consideration, they
nevertheless make a ``quality cut'' in their selection decisions. This
process ensures that only the most qualified individual are selected to
attend. No additional screening process is warranted.
Dr. Snyder. Are we identifying the potential for high-level
strategic thinking in promising young officers early enough in their
careers? How is this potential for strategic thinking subsequently
tracked and monitored?
Colonel Tanous. The new Squadron Officer College (SOC) curriculum
places a greater emphasis on critical thinking than at any time in the
College's past. Students that perform well and indicate high capacity
in this area will be recognized via the distinguished graduate program
or through other student-recognition programs. These distinctions are
recorded on the students' Training Reports (AF Forms 475) which become
a permanent part of the officers' military record. As such, they are
reviewed and pertinent excerpts are incorporated into recommendation
forms at each promotion opportunity. In this way, the superior thinking
abilities of these officers are tracked throughout their careers.
Dr. Snyder. Please comment on the most recent professional military
reading list compiled by Chairman Skelton.
Colonel Tanous. Chairman Skelton's list provides both breadth and
depth in exploring personalities and key events in military history. It
is commendable in that it balances recent works on recent operations
(Fiasco, The Gamble, The War Within, etc.) and works covering events
and personalities throughout military history.
While an outstanding list for uniformed personnel and people
associated with military operations, this list, in conjunction with
Chairman Skelton's original list, constitutes 100 recommended works.
Because of the tempo of operations in the military, a brief guide to
the readings would be helpful so interested personnel could select
those works most relevant to their current challenges and level of
experience. For example, the Constitution--a reading from the first
list--remains a touchstone reading that every military member should
read and reference often. The biographies are most appropriate to
officers who are transitioning from followership to leadership roles--
about the 4-7 year point for Air Force officers. Strassler's
Thucydides, however, is more appropriate to more senior officers, as it
encompasses military and national strategies and the larger
international security issues.
Therefore, the Squadron Officer College (SOC) recommends that the
list be revised in such a way as to target specific audiences. Perhaps
the ``Google Books'' descriptions could be replaced by a few lines
guiding readers to works more pertinent to their specific levels of
development, interests, academic pursuits or responsibilities.
In addition, SOC notes the singular lack of air, space and
cyberspace power reading in the list. In the original list, there were
two books specifically devoted to air power, Homan and Reilly's Black
Knights and Coram's biography of John Boyd. In this list, we find
Korda's With Wings Like Eagles, Davis' biography of Carl Spaatz, and
Clodfelter's Limits of Airpower. In order to develop a broader
understanding of joint-service capabilities, SOC suggests increasing
the presence of air, space and cyberspace power offerings in the list.
Dr. Snyder. Does the SOC have information technology challenges? If
so, please describe them. Are there educational advantages or
disadvantages associated with maintaining a ``.edu'' versus a ``.mil''
internet domain registration? Are there advantages or disadvantages
with maintaining both domain registrations?
Colonel Tanous. Yes. This is common to all educational institutions
attempting to employ educational technology, however. For the readers'
convenience, specific challenges are reviewed below:
Limited information-technology (IT) resources: IT can be
expensive. Investments in IT come at a cost, normally resulting in cuts
elsewhere. Further, IT personnel and expertise are now obtained through
contracts, not through indigenous capabilities. This results in
increased costs and reduced flexibility. The absence of an indigenous
capability also reduces opportunities to employ multimedia and online
simulations to the degree we would like. The fact that supporting
services have to be contracted for these capabilities results in both
an initial cost and additional costs for revisions and updates.
Access is also problematic. In fact, access is probably
the greatest challenge we face today. The very real cyber-security
concerns that protect our systems from hostile intruders also limit
students' access to course materials put on our servers. We can
minimize these restrictions by hosting courseware on contracted
civilian servers--and have done so in the past--but this comes at a
cost. Further, as there are not yet centralized DoD data solutions, we
have yet to capture efficiencies across the Department in this
important area.
Similarly, multiple DOD users are contracting
individually for learning management system access. SOC, like many
entities at Air University, employs the Blackboard system. Were all DOD
users of Blackboard to join together, we could take advantage of
quantity discounts that would substantially reduce costs.
The ``.edu'' domain offers potential remedies for access, to the
extent that security restrictions will permit. As the Air Education and
Training Command (AETC) and Air University (AU) work together toward an
AF.EDU domain solution, numerous decisions are being addressed. The
Defense Research and Engineering Network (DREN) was selected as a
bandwidth provider for a future AF.EDU domain for several reasons.
Reduced cost was a critical consideration as was the need to provide an
acceptable level of security for the Air Force data that will reside on
and traverse through this domain. DREN, being a DoD network, must
follow the security standards dictated by Defense Information Systems
Agency to ensure the AF.EDU is secure and data is properly protected
albeit in a less restrictive manner than on ``.mil.''
The educational advantages of the AF.EDU environment are many. The
domain, using DREN, would provide less restrictive Internet access to
AU's faculty and students to support expanded research and
collaborative opportunities. Many websites of interest to AU's students
and faculty that are currently blocked in the Air Force ``.mil'' domain
are accessible through DREN.
In addition, an AF.EDU domain would give AU more flexibility with
the use of the standard desktop configuration. Air Force educational
communities use unique software not employed by other organizations and
not approved for use on the military network. An AF.EDU domain would
give increased decision-making authority to local leadership to assess
risks and implement software solutions to support their unique
educational missions.
Another benefit is collaboration. AU faculty members routinely
collaborate with personnel and agencies outside the military
environment. AF.EDU would provide a collaborative environment through
which guests could be invited to work together on academic programs and
projects.
Since AU has more than 100,000 distance-learning students located
around the world, the AF.EDU environment would be ideal to host the
University's student management, registration and content-delivery
systems, making them accessible anywhere and at any time. Use of the
AF.EDU domain would balance AU's need for academic freedom to teach our
Airmen to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace while
protecting the rest of the Air Force military network from security
risks and vulnerabilities.
Dr. Snyder. Please elaborate on the Expeditionary Warfare School's
plans to upgrade its infrastructure and information technology assets
to meet students' computer needs. When will these improvements be fully
implemented? Will additional funding be required?
Colonel Beaudreault. Expeditionary Warfare School (EWS) is in the
process of implementing the EWS Distributed Education Network (EDEN)
which rides on the EWS Local Area Network (ELAN). ELAN currently
provides file sharing, e-mail, SharePoint, Command and Control Personal
Computer (C2PC), mIRC (Internet Relay Chat) and the potential for
simulation applications. EDEN enhances EWS' mission by allowing
collaborative planning, facilitates critical thinking, tactical
decision making, provides ready access to the academic year's
coursework and it exposes the students to the command and control
systems in use throughout the operating forces. EWS currently has 110
laptops in its inventory. Three of the 15 conference groups (49
students) have been individually issued laptops in support of the EDEN
initiative. The balance of the laptop computers are set up in two
advanced electronic classrooms to support individual training in
various software applications that the students will use when they
return to the Operating Forces. EWS also has three ELAN desktop
computers situated in 12 of the 15 conference group rooms. The three
conference groups without the desktop computers use their individually
issued laptops to access the ELAN. Additionally, each conference group
is wired for access to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). The EWS
plan calls for a total purchase of 250 laptops to support the entire
student body. EWS must not only acquire the laptops, servers and
software but must also make substantial infrastructure upgrades to
Geiger Hall. Those upgrades include installing network drops in the
classrooms and conference rooms, power upgrades to support the
additional users, and permanent technical support to manage the
network. The goal is to complete the project prior to commencement of
the next academic year. While we have received initial funding for this
project, an additional 1.2 M is required for full implementation.
Training & Education Command and the Marine Corps University are
evaluating funding strategies to support the effort.
Dr. Snyder. Are there educational advantages or disadvantages
associated with maintaining a ``.edu'' versus a ``.mil'' internet
domain registration? Are there advantages or disadvantages with
maintaining both domain registrations?
Colonel Beaudreault. The primary educational advantage of operating
within an ``.edu'' domain is the enhanced access it provides between
EWS personnel and other civilian organizations and higher education
institutions. The primary disadvantage of operating within an ``.edu''
domain may be the restricted access to ``For Official Use Only''
government web sites and information available only from ``.mil''
domains. The advantages of an ``.edu'' domain are significantly
reduced, however, if severe information security restrictions (common
to many ``.mil'' networks) are placed on the ``.edu'' domain. While
security risk is always a concern, it must be balanced with
accessibility and a physically separate ``.edu'' domain should be able
to tolerate a higher level of risk when combined with a lower level of
sensitive information.
While there is additional overhead in maintaining dual ``.edu'' and
``.mil'' domains, this approach may be useful in providing the
necessary access in both the military and higher education
environments. The ``.mil'' domain provides access for performing
government functions such as military performance evaluations, civilian
personnel management and provides access, when required, to sensitive,
but unclassified ``For Official Use Only'' information. The ``.edu''
domain provides greater access to non-government resources and
facilitates collaboration with other educational institutions. Other
than increased overhead, the primary disadvantage to maintaining two
domains is the inability to transfer information between the domains.
Physically connecting the domains would defeat the security protections
and would be unacceptable.
Dr. Snyder. Chairman Skelton is persuaded that the historical case
study is a particularly good way to teach both history and strategy. Do
you use the case study method, and if so, to what ends?
Colonel Beaudreault. EWS uses the case study, battle study and
staff ride methodology throughout its curriculum. Historical studies
are used as a means of reinforcing the subject educational material in
Command and Control, MAGTF Operations Ashore, Naval Expeditionary
Operations and Professional Studies. This method allows for an
examination of how historical actions contributed to the formulation
and reasons for the doctrine in use today; how it changed the ways and
means we conduct ourselves; and mistakes that led to changes in both
doctrine and operations both today and into the future. EWS also offers
an elective in the study, use, and development of the Case Study
Method.
The specific studies we use are:
Operation Albion--supports the USMC Planning Process
Guadalcanal--supports MAGTF Operations
Inchon--supports amphibious planning and expeditionary ops
Gallipoli--supports amphibious planning
Restore Hope--supports MPF planning and operations
Desert Shield/Desert Storm--supports offensive operations
Chosin Reservoir--(Fox Co 2/7) supports defensive ops
Dewey Canyon--supports ACE and heliborne operations
Task Force 58 (Afghanistan)--supports logistics operations
Iwo Jima--supports amphibious assault operations
Tarawa--supports naval expeditionary operations
Somalia NEO--supports MEU operations
Fallujah--supports current operating environment
Antietam and Gettysburg staff rides support leadership studies
Dr. Snyder. What constitutes ``rigor'' in your educational program?
How do you establish and evaluate ``rigor'' for any particular course
offering or academic program? Do you give letter grades? Please
explain.
Colonel Beaudreault. Rigor is addressed in multiple ways. Students
are evaluated with tests and also by quality of participation in their
seminar group. Students are evaluated in their participation in
Tactical Decision Games, Practical Exercises, Battle Studies, Mission
Analysis, Mission Planning and Briefing, and Mission Execution.
Students are taken on Staff Rides and are responsible for understanding
and briefing the historical aspects of the given battle as well as
finding linkages and relevance to today's operating environments. There
is a professional communications program consisting of a research/
decision paper and nine short analysis papers. Students are required to
make multiple oral presentations and briefings throughout the
curriculum. There is also an in-depth required reading program for
every course throughout the curriculum. All of these evolutions are
graded and debriefed by the faculty. The students earn a numerical
grade for each (see attached grade worksheet) ranging from 1-100. The
students are eligible for various writing awards at the end of each
academic year. Additionally, this academic year, EWS implemented an
electives program to expand academic challenges beyond the robust core
curriculum where the school is leveraging the talent of the Marine
Corps University's PhD faculty.
The legend that corresponds to the attached grade worksheet is as
follows:
Legend:
SPT Self Paced Text
IMI Interactive Media Instruction
MR Marked Requirement
PE Practical Exercise
LE Leadership and Ethics
OC Operational Culture
Dr. Snyder. How do you evaluate the performance of the faculty and
senior staff at your institution?
Colonel Beaudreault. EWS goes to great lengths to properly prepare
our faculty and staff to ensure their performance meets the Marine
Corps' standards. The first step in faculty preparation is a four-week
Faculty Development Program conducted prior to the start of the
academic year for both new and returning faculty. Each faculty member
is ``murder boarded'' by their Division Head and other experienced
faculty members on their knowledge and presentation abilities prior to
assuming classroom responsibilities. The faculty is then evaluated on
their presentations in both the large classes and conference group
environments. Areas of evaluation include their facilitation skills and
use of the Socratic method of instruction. To highlight strengths and
weaknesses, all evaluations are debriefed with the faculty member by
their Division Head and the Chief Academic Officer. Each presentation
by the faculty is also evaluated by the students using an Instructor
Rating Form. It is important to note that the instructor evaluation
process is an integral tool in the overall professional development of
the faculty throughout their time at EWS. All military faculty are also
evaluated in accordance with the standard performance evaluation
reports that each service uses for promotion and other selection board
processes.
Dr. Snyder. Are we identifying the potential for high-level
strategic thinking in promising young officers early enough in their
careers? How is this potential for strategic thinking subsequently
tracked and monitored?
Colonel Beaudreault. EWS does not teach at the Strategic level of
war. While we introduce Operational concepts and briefly discuss
Strategic considerations, our focus is teaching captains Tactical
fundamentals. Our promising young, career-level officers are formally
identified at the conclusion of each academic year, namely those in the
top 10% of the graduates gain the prestige of being designated as
Distinguished Graduates of EWS. The subsequent duty assignments and
longer-term tracking of all officers, including these top performing
officers, remains the responsibility of the assignments monitors at
Headquarters Marine Corps, Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Dr. Snyder. Please comment on the utility of the most recent
professional military reading list compiled by Chairman Skelton.
Colonel Beaudreault. As with the Marine Corps' Professional Reading
Program, also known as the Commandant's Reading List, any structured
reading program is beneficial to the professional education and
intellectual growth of our Marines. While Congressman Skelton's list is
principally aimed at the officer corps, the Marine Corps' list is
further broken down by rank to ensure that each Marine studies topics
that are essential for their position and grade while it also provides
a great reference for the next grade and higher should a particular
officer be a voracious reader. Congressman Skelton's comprehensive list
positively complements the Commandant's required list.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
