Initiatives to improve education system that has served the Army well
Army News Service
Release Date: 4/23/2004
By Joe Burlas
Editor's note: This is one article in a weekly series on the 17 Army focus areas. This one focuses on "Leader Development and Education." WASHINGTON (Army News Service, April 23, 2004) -- Today's methods of training the force and growing leaders are not broke, but they do need some tweaks to ensure continued success on tomorrow's battlefields, according to the findings of Task Force Leader Development and Education.
Leader Development and Education is one of 17 focus areas Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker has directed the Army to examine closely for recommendations to channel Army efforts in winning the global war on terrorism and increasing the Army's relevance and readiness.
"We have what I consider a world-class Army and world-class leaders today -- you have to recognize they are products of the (education) system we have in place today," said Brig. Gen. James Hirai, Army Command and General Staff College deputy commanding general. "Recognizing that level of competence, we still need to grow. We need to anticipate and prepare for the unknown."
As part of its charter, the task force reviewed the findings from the officer, warrant officer, noncommissioned officer and civilian Army Training and Leader Development Panel surveys that were conducted over the past few years. The task force validated the majority of those findings, Hirai said.
However, the task force did not limit itself to just validating past studies. It has taken a broad look across the Army, Hirai said. He talked about what the task force has determined to date under several categories:
Lifelong Learning
While the Army has long espoused a culture of lifelong learning in leaders of all levels, accountability for that lifelong learning has not been well defined. The individual Soldier, the organizations the Soldier belongs to during an Army career and the institution itself all have roles to play in that lifelong learning journey, Hirai said. Those roles need to be clearly defined and understood by each player, he continued.
Additionally, there must be some form of formal standards-based assessment and feedback mechanism in place in order to determine if lifelong learning goals are being met and to adapt to changing learning needs or emerging technologies.
High-Payoff Initiatives
The task force is recommending that Army schoolhouses move toward a common scenario based upon today's asymmetrical threat. Working off a common scenario may allow different career field training centers to build synergies in conducting collective joint exercises via linked simulators and computer networks, Hirai said.
Another high-payoff initiative the task force recommends is conducting a formal reoccurring training needs assessment across the Army, Hirai said.
Education System
Task Force Leader Development and Education is also reviewing content delivery and timing of training. Part of that is determining when a Soldier should get resident training and the duration of that training.
"The question is what type and amount of training does the Soldier or leader need to be comfortable with in current and future operations," Hirai said.
Joint operations training is one area that should be done at a lower level than most Army school curriculum -- likely at the basic qualification course, the general said.
"Joint interoperability, joint operations (training), is not at the right level," Hirai said. "We are finding in the contemporary operating environment today that joint operations are done by junior leaders."
Not all institutional training may need to be done at the schoolhouse, Hirai said, especially with off-the-shelf technology that allows for more distance education than available 10 years ago.
Leveraging Technologies
Leveraging technologies includes distance learning via linked simulators and distance learning via the Web, but it is more.
"We are looking at the human dimension -- how people learn," Hirai said. "It's about identifying what leaders and Soldiers have to do and how to most effectively deliver the training they need to do those tasks."
Single Education Proponent
Agreeing wholeheartedly with the Civilian Army Training and Leader Development Panel finding, the task force is recommending a single education proponent for all Soldier and Department of the Army civilian training.
Under the current system, civilian training is managed through the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, G1, with major commands footing the bill. Soldier training management is an Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, G3, responsibility, with the Human Resource Command paying travel and other costs.
Hirai said he envisions a single organization responsible for managing the training of both the military and civilian workforces. Whatever that organization ends up being, it would still need to coordinate with G1 and G3 to ensure legal mandates are met.
As far as civilian leader development, Hirai said there are many courses out there, but none tied to career progression. The task force recommends the Army establish a specific civilian leader development program.
Integration
The Leader Development and Education Task Force has been in close contact with the other area task forces, Hirai said, as what each finds often impacts other areas.
The focus areas are all linked and all designed to improve the readiness of the Army. When one of the other task forces recommends a new piece of equipment or process, Army training will play a role in ensuring Soldiers know how to use that equipment or procedure, Hirai said.
"Current and past leader development and education programs have served our nation very well," Hirai said. "Our leaders, in fact, have been pretty well prepared to plan and execute complicated operations in combat. We are building on success."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
