Naval War College: Implementation of Professional Military Education Recommendations, Summaries of Art

Download Naval War College: Implementation of Professional Military Education Recommendations and more Summaries Art in PDF only on Docsity! Lll,lycylyl ,,.,, ““,,~,“~,I*,,,IIu,““~l~“l I” “_ ... 1.1 rrilvd SLaks Gerreral Acct~unting Office ..-- .-.. -.---- --..---.- - ..--- ----- GAO 13rid’ing Report to the Chairman, Panel ’ on M ili thy Education, Comrnittee on Armed Services, House of Repreuentatives Status of Recommendations on Officers’ Professional Military Education 143500 i.. C;AO/NSIAD-91.124HR . ..-.. --.. ..-..... ----___ -____ ‘I 1 IN42181 In each case where we were told that officials had implemented or par- tially implemented a recommendation, we reviewed and analyzed the supporting documentation used in making their characterization. In addition, we examined their methodology used to produce supporting data. Where additional action was still required, we met with College officials to discuss future plans. We obtained documents supporting those plans whenever possible. In the case where officials told us that they had not taken any action in response to a Panel recommendation, we interviewed appropriate officials to obtain their reasons for non- implementation. We performed our review from June through December 1990 in accord- ance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We did not obtain formal comments from the Naval War College. How- ever, we discussed a draft of this report with the President of the Naval War College and other officials. We considered their comments when finalizing this report. Unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the President of the Naval War College, and appropriate congressional committees. Copies will also be made available to others on request. We are also providing additional reports under separate cover on the results of our work at the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps intermediate and senior schools on their implementation of sim- ilar Panel recommendations. Please contact me at (202) 275-3990 if you or your staff have any ques- tions. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. Sincerely yours, Paul L. Jones Director, Defense Force Management Issues Page 3 GAO/NSlAl%91-124BR Profdd Military Edtwdon Conknts Letter Appendix I Status of Naval War College Implementation of Panel Recommendations on Professional Military Education 1 6 Appendix II Major Contributors to This Report Glossary 38 Table Table 1.1: Summary of College’s Implementation of Various Recommendations 7 Abbreviations AFSC Armed Forces Staff College CNO Chief of Naval Operations DOD Department of Defense JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff JSO Joint Specialty (Specialist) Officer MEPD Military Education Policy Document PME professional military education Page 4 GAO/NSIAD91-124BR Professional Military Education Page 5 GAO/NMAD-9l-124BR Profemional Bfilitary JZduatin Appendix I St&w of Naval War College Implementation of Panel Recommendations on Profeeeional Military Education No Panel - repoti 35 V-24 36 V-25 37 V-26 38 V-27 Subject Rigorous performance standard Evaluation of examinations/ caters I I~ I Distinguished graduate program Officer efficiency reports status 01 recommendationsb Page I 34 I 34 I 35 I 35 BKey recommendations are those recommendations that the Panel identified as key in the executive summary to its report. Recommendations II-4 and II-5 appear in Panel report chapter II, entitled “Edu- cating Strategists.” Recommendations Ill-2 through Ill-8 appear in Panel report chapter III, entitled “An Expanded Role for Joint Education.” Recommendations IV-1 through IV-24 appear in Panel report chapter IV, entitled “Realigning Professional Military Education.” Recommendations V-l through V-27 appear in Panel report chapter V, entitled “Quality.” bStatus of recommendations: I = Implemented PI = Partially implemented NI = Not implemented Recommendation Number 1 Faculty Quality Improve the quality of faculty (1) by amending present law to facilitate hiring civilian faculty and (2) through actions by the Chairman, JCS, and the service chiefs to ensure that only high-quality military officers are assigned to faculties. (Key 2, Panel Report p. 3.) College Characterization Implemented. status Legislation has been enacted to facilitate the hiring of civilian faculty, but the College already had this authority. Although the College does not make the final selection decision, it does assist in the selection process for Navy and other service faculty nomi- nees and can reject unqualified nominees. The College identifies and interviews potential candidates for teaching faculty positions from a number of sources-College of Naval Warfare students directly upon graduation, College of Naval Warfare graduates who have completed a professional tour of duty, and military officers who expressed an interest in a faculty position. Page g GAO/NSIAD-Bl-l!UBR Professional Military Education Statw of Naval War College Implementation of Panel Recommendetiona on Profetwirmal Military Education Recommendation Number 2 Two-Phase Education College Charactmization Implemented. status In 1990, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), issued the Military Education Policy Document (MEPD) establishing a two-phased JSO educa- tion program. Phase I is that portion incorporated into the curricula of intermediate and senior service schools that is accredited by the Chairman. The College’s two schools have been certified by the Chairman, JCS, as Phase I schools. Establish a two-phase Joint Specialist Officer (JSO) education process with Phase I taught in service colleges and a follow-on, temporary-duty Phase II taught at the Armed Forces Staff College (AFSC). (Key 3, Panel Report p. 3.) Recommendation Number 3 Strategy Focus/Military Faculty and Student Mix At the senior service colleges (1) make national military strategy the primary focus, and (2) increase the mix by service of both the military faculty and military students. (Key 5, Panel Report p. 5.) College Characterization Implemented. status The primary focus at the College’s senior service school is national mili- tary strategy, constituting about 36 percent of the senior school’s core curriculum hours in academic year 1989-90. As a goal, the Panel report had recommended that the College have a mix of approximately 10 percent each from the Army and the Air Force in its faculty and student bodies by academic year 1989-90. The College Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-Bl-124BR Pcofeasional Milttary Education Appendix I Stat1113 of Naval War College Implementation of Panel Recommendations on Professional lKUita,ry Education exceeded the faculty recommendation with 18 percent Army and 12 per- cent Air Force in academic year 1989-90. The student body mix was 17 percent Army and 9 percent Air Force in the same academic year. The Panel also recommended that the College make plans to achieve higher faculty and student mixes by academic year 1996-96. (See recom- mendations 17 and 18.) Changes in faculty and student body mixes are coordinated by the service schools, and the service secretaries. Recommendation Number 4 Distinct Intermediate and Review the Navy military education system to determine whether Navy Senior School officers should and can attend both intermediate and senior colleges and whether each College school should have a more distinct curriculum. (Key 7, Panel Report p. 6.) College Cham.cterization Partially Implemented. Status The decision to assign Naval officers to both an intermediate and a senior service college is the Chief of Naval Operations’ (CNO) responsi- bility. College officials stated, however, that operational problems would be created if officers were required to attend both schools. Disrupting an officer’s career pattern by 1 or more years would create manning and readiness difficulties throughout the service. In addition, although attendance at intermediate and senior service schools is considered prominently in promotion decisions for Army and Air Force officers, attendance at these schools is not a requirement in Navy promotion decisions. Because Navy officers generally do not attend both schools, the College has developed curricula at its intermediate and senior schools that have extensive similarities to accommodate the PME needs of all its officers. Similarly or identically titled seminar sessions with comparable learning objectives and similar or identical readings and case studies are used in seminars. Page 10 GAO/NSIADBl-l!MBIt Professional Military Education Appendix I Statxu of Naval War College Implementatbn of Panel Recommendatlonn on Professional Mill- Education The College has received congressional authorization to award a Master of Arts Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies. Recommendation Number 6 Senior School Focus on National Military Strategy College Characterization status The revamped National War College (or the proposed National Center for Strategic Studies) should focus on national security strategy. The service war colleges should make national military strategy their-3 mary focus and gradually but significantly increase the portion of their curriculum devoted to the subject. (Chapter II, No. 4, Panel Report p. 41.) Implemented. Actions taken on this recommendation are included in recommendations 3 and 12. Recommendation Number 7 Faculty Teaching Strategy The faculty teaching strategy should consist of civilian educators, active duty and retired military specialists, and former senior military officers. To ensure that students have access to the depth of knowledge that only a career of scholarship in a particular area can produce, respected civilian educators who are recognized experts in specific disciplines related to the teaching of strategy should be faculty members at senior schools. Active duty and retired military officers with actual experience in the strategic arena are also needed for strategy instruction. Finally, a few carefully selected retired three- and four-star officers can con- tribute significantly to the teaching of operational art, campaign anal- ysis, national military strategy, and national security strategy. (Chapter II, No. 6, Panel Report p. 41,) Page 13 GAO/NSIADBl-124BR Prof~sionaI Military Education Appendix I St&w of Naval War College Implement&Ion of Panel Recommendationa on Professional Military Education College Characterization Partially Implemented. Status College faculty members, both active duty and retired military and civilian who teach strategy, have extensive backgrounds in various fields, including strategy, which contribute significantly to the educa- tion of students. Military faculty members have not only service opera- tional expertise, but various faculty members have graduate level degrees in such areas as strategic nuclear warfare, policy-making and implementation, military intelligence, arms control, international rela- tions, national security affairs, and history. Of the 67 military and other uniformed teaching faculty, 9 teach predominately national military strategy. College civilian faculty members have expertise in specific disciplines. The College’s Strategy and Policy Department’s civilian faculty members have graduate level degrees in history, philosophy, politics, economics, international affairs, international relations, military history, Russian history, and Soviet nuclear affairs. A majority of the civilian faculty have published articles or books within the past 3 years. Some faculty members are currently writing books for publication. No retired three- and four-star officers are included on its faculty. The dual-compensation law requiring the reduction of retired pay discour- ages retirees from seeking employment at the College. The College, how- ever, supports using selected retired three- or four-star officers in this capacity, and some retired flag or general officers have taught part-time in core curriculum courses. Currently, five retired flag or general officers are also teaching in the College’s non-resident seminar program. These retired officers’ salaries do not exceed the dual-compensation guidelines. Recommendation Number 8 Service/Joint Expertise ” For joint education to be meaningful and productive, a prerequisite for officers is competence commensurate with their rank in all elements of their own service in professional knowledge and understanding (e.g., in the Navy, surface and aviation and subsurface) as well as demonstrated Page 14 GAO/NSIADBl-124BR Professional Military Education Appendix I SWIM of Naval War College Implementation of Panel Recxunmendatione on Professional Military Education performance. Also an integral part of joint education is an officer’s study of the other services. (Chapter III, No. 2, Panel Report p. 81.) College Characterization Implemented. StatUS Officers sent to the College are well versed in all elements of their own service. In addition, at the College, students become familiar with the roles, missions, and major organizations of the Army and the Air Force, including warfighting capabilities and limitations. Students become familiar with how the Air Force and the Army intend to use military force within the context of joint operations. Students also become familiar with how amphibious (Marine Corps) forces can contribute to a successful military or naval campaign. The study of the other services is complemented by a study of the principal organizational units that com- prise the Navy and Marine Corps. Recommendation Number 9 Teaching Systems Service/ Joint College Characterization Implemented. Status The College teaches intermediate school students about both joint and service systems. Systems’ education includes courses in organizations, processes, procedures, and staff skills. The College’s intermediate school curricula include sessions that address both unified command planning and joint doctrine for the organization of forces. Students also study how the services organize their forces for combat. The service intermediate schools should teach both joint and service sys- tems-organizations, processes, procedures, and staff skills-to all stu- dents. This is necessary to meet the Goldwater-Nichols Act requirement to revise the curricula of service schools to strengthen the focus on joint matters and prepare officers for joint duty assignments. (Chapter III, No 3, Panel Report p. 81) Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-Bl-124BR Professional Military JMucation St&w of Naval War College Implementation of Panel Recommenddio~ on Profedond lblWary Education College Characterization status l At the primary level an officer should learn about, in Army terms, his own branch (infantry, armor, artillery, etc.) or in Navy terms, his warfare specialty (surface, aviation, and submarines). l At the intermediate level. where substantial formal ioint nrofessional militarv education begins. an officer should broaden his knowledge to include both (1) other branches of his own service and how they operate together (what the Army calls “combined arms” operations) and (2) other militarv services and how thev ooerate together in the; &r-level warfare (commonlv referred to as “onerational art”). The service intermediate colleges should focus on joint operations from a service perspective (service headquarters or service component of a unified command). AFS should focus from a joint perspective (JCS, unified command, or joint task force). . At the senior level, an officer should broaden his knowledge still further to learn about national strategy and the interaction of the services in strategic operations. The senior service schools should focus on national military strategy. The National War College should focus on national security strategy, not only the military element of national power but also the economic, diplomatic, and political elements. Graduates of service war colleges should attend the senior joint school. (Chapter IV, No. 1, Panel Report p. 126.) Partially Implemented. The College has implemented the sections of this recommendation dealing with the curricula content of both intermediate and senior schools. The focus of the intermediate school is about 30 percent national military strategy and the remainder focuses on joint opera- tional art, national security strategy, and other elements necessary for this graduate degree level program. Because Navy officers generally do not attend both schools, the College has developed curricula at its inter- mediate and senior schools that overlap extensively to accommodate the PME needs of all attending officers. Although time-consuming and evolu- tionary, efforts are being made to change the intermediate school’s focus to operational art. The primary focus of the senior school is on national military strategy, with approximately 36 percent of its curricula devoted to employing military forces to achieve national policy objectives. It includes familiar- izing students with national strategy and the interaction of the services in strategic operations. For example, seminars teach students about strategic and operational principles and concepts and ideas for land and Page 18 GAO/NSIABBl-124BR Profeaeioual Milbry Education Status of Naval War College Implement&on of Panel Recommendatlona on Profedonal Military Education sea warfare. Students examine these issues using readings from distin- guished strategic and operational thinkers of the past. Students also learn how Army and Air Force capabilities support maritime operations and how Naval platforms can play a significant role in land warfare. (Recommendations 3,4,6,19, and 20 are related to this recommendation.) Recommendation Number 13 Jointness Initiated at Intermediate Level Although students should be introduced to joint matters at pre-commis- sioning and primary-level schools, it is at the intermediate schools that substantial joint education should begin. (Chapter IV, No. 2, Panel Report p. 126.) College Characterization Implemented. Status In academic year 1989-90, the College estimated that about 65 percent of the intermediate school’s core curriculum was devoted to joint mat- ters. The College has listed all curriculum hours spent teaching students to think strategically as constituting joint matters, a process consistent with the Panel report’s definition of joint matters. This accounts for the large percentage of hours designated as joint hours. College officials believe that complying with the joint military education learning objec- tives of the MEPD ensures that the College will maintain its emphasis on joint matters. Recommendation Number 14 Phase I Availability to All The Secretary of Defense, with the advice and assistance of the Chairman, JCS, should establish a two-phase Joint Specialty Officer (JSO) education process. The service colleges should teach Phase I joint educa- tion to all students. Building on this foundation, AI?% should teach a follow-on temporary-duty Phase II to graduates of service colleges en Page 19 GAO/NSIADBl-124BR Professional Military Education St&u of Naval War College ImplementaUon of Panel &c4bmmendatlo~ on Profemional Military Education route to assignments as joint specialists. Because of the Phase I prepara- tion, Phase II should be shorter and more intense than the current AFSC course. The curricula for the two phases should be as follows: . Phase I curriculum at service colleges should include: capabilities and limitations, doctrine, organizational concepts, and command and control of forces of all services; joint planning processes and systems; and the role of service component commands as part of a unified command. l Phase II curriculum at AFSC should build on Phase I and concentrate on the integrated deployment and employment of multi-service forces. The course should provide time for: (a) a detailed survey course in joint doc- trine; (b) several extensive case studies or war games that focus on the specifics of joint warfare and that involve theaters of war set in both developed and underdeveloped regions; (c) increasing the understanding of the four service cultures; and (d) most important, developing joint attitudes and perspectives. (Chapter IV, No. 3, Panel Report p. 126.) College Characterization Implemented. Status The curricula of the College’s schools includes the components of phased education. Recommendation Number 15 In-Residence Prerequisite College Characterization Status In-residence service intermediate education should be a prerequisite for attendance at AFYX to ensure that students are already competent in their own service, that they have acquired basic staff skills, and that they have achieved a minimal level of education in joint matters. (Chapter IV, No. 6, Panel Report p. 127.) Partially Implemented. The CNO, and not the Naval War College, has the ultimate responsibility for deciding which Naval officers will have the opportunity to receive an in-residence service intermediate school education. Navy analyses have shown that it is not possible for all Naval officers to receive an in- residence service intermediate school education before being nominated Page 20 APPe* I Strwu Of Naval War College Implementation of Pand Reiwmmendatioxk3 on proreesiod blilitary Educadon l The senior service schools should have student body mixes approxi- mating 10 percent from each of the two non-host military departments by academic year 1989-90 and 26 percent by academic year 1996-96. . The intermediate service schools should have student body mixes of one officer from each of the two non-host military departments per student seminar by academic year 1990-91 and two officers per seminar by aca- demic year 1996-96. Eventually, each military department should be represented by at least three students in each intermediate school sem- inar. (Chapter IV, No. 14, Panel Report p. 128.) College Characterization Implemented. Status Both the College’s intermediate and senior schools already meet the near-term student mix standards established in this recommendation. In academic year 1989-90, Army students constituted 17 percent and Air Force students constituted 9 percent of the College’s senior school stu- dent body. In academic year 1990-91, the intermediate school student body mix meets the Panel’s standards of one officer per seminar from each of the two non-host military departments. The MEPD has established intermediate and senior school student body mixes, which are less than those recommended by the Panel for aca- demic year 1996-96. The College may be required to meet the MEPD mixes. College officials stated that service secretaries and the service schools make the final decisions on the numbers of Air Force and Army officers enrolled at the College. (Recommendations 3 and 11 are related to this recommendation.) Recommendation Number 19 Distinct Intermediate and Senior School The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) should review the Navy PME system to determine whether Navy officers can and should attend both intermediate and senior colleges and whether each Naval War College school should have a more distinct curriculum. Page 23 GAO/NSlAD91-124BR Professional Military Education Status of Naval War College Implementatiun of Pad Recouuuendations on Profedonal Military Education l The Chairman, JCS, and the civilian leadership of both the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense should exercise oversight because the issue has national security implications for the development of the military officer corps and leadership of all services. (Chapter IV, No. 21, Panel Report p. 129.) College Chamct.erization Partially Implemented. StatUS Actions taken on this recommendation are the same as those taken in recommendation 4. Recommendation Number 20 Focus on National Military The senior service colleges should make national military strategy their Strategy primary focus. (Chapter IV, No. 24, Panel Report p. 130.) College Characterization Implemented. status Actions taken on this recommendation are discussed under recommen- dations 3,4,6, 12, and 19. Recommendation Number 21 Recruiting Maintainin Faculty and .g Quality Faculty is the key element in determining the quality of education in PME schools. To develop an outstanding faculty, the impetus must start at the top. The Chairman, JCS, and the service chiefs must place a very high priority on recruiting and maintaining highly qualified faculty to teach at both joint and service PME colleges. (Chapter V, No. 1, Panel Report p. 167.) College Characterization Implemented. Status The College actively assists in the selection and recruitment of military faculty members. The College can both nominate potential candidates as Page 24 GAO/NSIAl%91-124BB Professional Military Education Statue of Naval War College implementation of Panel i&womme~ndatlo~ on Professional MUi- Educ8t.ion faculty members and refuse those candidates recommended by the ser- vices if they do not meet the school’s academic standards. Operational experience, academic background, and the potential for classroom inter- action are the College’s top priorities in accepting military service faculty nominations. In some instances, faculty members are identified in advance through their participation in either the resident or non- resident programs. Civilian faculty members are hired through professional contacts, based on their academic reputations or through advertising. All candidates go through a rigorous process of interviews and meetings with department chairs and other faculty members. Each department chairperson han- dles his/her own interviews and establishes his/her own hiring criteria subject to the needs of the College, his/her department, and the College president. (Recommendations 1 and 28 are related to this recommendation.) Recommendation Number 22 Specialists/Career Educators College Characterization status The military faculty should include three groups: officers with current, credible credentials in operations; specialists in important functional areas; and career educators. Incentives must exist to attract outstanding military officers in each of these groups. (Chapter V, No. 2, Panel Report p. 167.) Implemented. The College’s military faculty includes officers in the first two groups. It does not have Navy career educators. The College believes incentives already exist to attract outstanding mili- tary officers. College officials stated that time spent as members of the faculty by other military officers is considered joint duty and is career enhancing. College officials believe Navy officers serving on the faculty remain competitive. In the recent past, three Navy teaching faculty members have been selected to fulfill major responsibilities, including the command of a cruiser. Page 26 GAO/NSIAIb91-124BR Professional Military Education Appendix I Status of NavaI War Cdege Implementation of Panel Reconunendadons on Profemaiond Military E&wadon College Characterization Not Implemented. status The service chiefs are responsible for establishing a cadre of career edu- cators for PME schools. Navy policy does not permit the establishment of this cadre or educational specialty. Therefore, the College cannot estab- lish a cadre or educational specialty track. As a result, the College relies more heavily on operational experience, classroom teaching potential, and academic background in nominating Navy officers as faculty mem- bers. (Recommendation 22 is related to this recommendation.) should be managed like those of other “professional” groups in the mili- tary. (Chapter V, No. 6, Panel Report p. 167.) Recommendation Number 26 In-Residence Graduates as As a goal, about 76 percent of the military faculty at the intermediate Faculty schools should be graduates of an in-residence intermediate (or higher) school and should have an advanced degree. (Chapter V, No. 6, Panel Report p. 167.) College Characterization Implemented. status For academic year 1990-91, the College has 86 percent of the military teaching faculty as graduates of in-residence intermediate school or higher programs and have advanced degrees. Recommendation Number 27 Retired Officers Teach Without Penalty Selected retired officers, particularly senior general and flag officers, could contribute appreciably to the teaching of operational art and mili- tary strategy at the war colleges. The dual compensation law should be amended to waive the financial penalties these officers incur by serving their country again. (Chapter V, No. 8, Panel Report pp. 167-68.) Page 28 GAO/NSIAD91-124BR Professional Military Education Status of Naval War College Implement&ion of Pauel Recommendations on Professional Military Education College Characterization Implemented. status The CNO has proposed legislation that would waive the financial penal- ties imposed by the dual-compensation law. The Panel did not specify that senior general and flag officers be the only individuals teaching operational art and military strategy or that they be exclusively full-time faculty members. Retired flag and senior general officers have not been hired as interme- diate and senior school faculty members because of the financial penal- ties imposed by the dual-compensation law. However, guest lecturers are invited, which include retired flag officers, to enhance seminar and case-study discussions. In addition, the College’s non-resident seminar program currently employs five retired flag or general officers. The retired officers do not exceed the law’s requirement for reduced compensation. Retired military officers below the rank of senior general and flag officers are members of the College’s civilian faculty. Of the 30 civilian faculty members, 8 are retired colonels or Navy captains. Recommendation Number 28 Civilian Faculty Quality/ The PME faculty should have a high-quality civilian component in order Mix for PME schools to attain a genuine “graduate” level of education. The civilian faculty should be a mixture of experienced, well-respected indi- viduals of national stature, who, in combination with outstanding younger Ph.D.s, will provide balance, expertise, and continuity. Civilian professors must continue to research and publish not only to keep them- selves in the forefront of their academic field, but also to ensure their academic credibility. The panel believes that civilian faculty are particu- larly important at senior colleges, where they should make up a substan- tial portion, perhaps around one-third of the faculty. (Chapter V, No. 9, Panel Report p. 168.) College Characterization ” Implemented. Page 29 GAO/NSLAD91424BR Professional Military Education Appendix I Status of Naval War College Implementation of Panel Recommendations on Professional Military JZducation status The College’s civilian teaching faculty includes about 34 percent of the total teaching faculty. Currently, of the College’s 30 civilian teaching faculty members, 28 (or 93 percent) have graduate level (master’s degree or higher) degrees. All civilian faculty members are highly respected experts in their fields of study. While the College does not have a “publish or perish” requirement, 8 of the 28 faculty members in academic year 1989-90 provided articles for publication in journals or other publications. In addition, faculty members conduct independent research and present their findings at outside conferences. The College places more value on the intelligence, experience, and enthusiasm that civilian teaching members bring to seminars than on their publishing efforts. To ensure a high level of teaching expertise and quality, each civilian faculty member is given an annual performance appraisal. Faculty mem- bers are appraised primarily on their teaching skills and abilities in leading seminar discussions. In addition, the College has established pro- grams designed to maintain faculty teaching skills. Recommendation Number 29 Advanced Degrees As a goal, all members of the faculty at senior schools should have Required for Senior School advanced degrees. The panel believes a doctorate is desirable. Faculty (Chapter V, No. 10, Panel Report p. 168.) College Characterization Partially Implemented. status Not all members of the College’s teaching faculty have advanced degrees. In academic year 1990-91, about 88 percent of the total teaching faculty had advanced degrees. About 32 percent have doctoral degrees. While the College concurs with the Panel report’s recommenda- tion that a doctorate is desirable, military faculty members would find it difficult to meet this requirement due to their individual service profes- sional career paths. The College places a greater emphasis on its faculty’s teaching capabilities than degree status. Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-91-124BR Professional Military Education Appendix I Statue of Naval War College Implementation of Panel bcommendatione on Profetdonal Bfilbry Education The Naval War College president takes an active role in students’ educa- tion. During annual professional ethics and media or congressional liaison conferences, the president participates in conference discussions and visits and observes classroom seminars on an unscheduled basis. He also holds officers call-meetings to discuss educational issues with stu- dents, faculty, and staff. Recommendation Number 34 Active/Passive Instruction The Chairman, JCS, and service chiefs should review the current methods of instruction at PME schools to reduce significantly the curric- ulum that is being taught by passive methods (e.g. lectures, films). PME education should involve study, research, writing, reading, and seminar activity-- and, in order to promote academic achievement, students should be graded. The commendably low lo-percent passive education for the Army Command and General Staff College sets a goal for the other schools. (Chapter V, No. 23, Panel Report p. 169.) College Characterization status Implemented. In academic year 1989-90, the percentage of curricula taught by active methods at both the intermediate and senior schools was 91 percent. The instructional program for students at both schools consists of pre- paring for and attending core curricula courses, preparing for and attending one elective in each of the three trimesters, and attending lec- tures. All time spent by students attending core curricula courses is con- sidered active learning because the instructional method is the seminar. Time spent preparing for core curricula courses is also considered active learning, as students use this time to read, write essays, prepare for tutorials, and study for examinations. Preparing for and attending core curricula courses represents more than 76 percent of the instructional program at both schools. Passive learning at both schools consists primarily of time spent in por- tions of the electives classroom and in attending lectures, each of which Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-91.134BR Professional Military Education Appendix I &atua of Naval War College Implementation of Panel Recommendations on Rofewdonal Military Education covers about 6 percent of the instructional program. Although all lec- tures are passive, some are used to support core curricula learning objectives and include question and answer’sessions. At both the intermediate and senior schools, students receive letter grades (A,B,C, or F) although electives are graded on a pass/fail scale. Final grades are assigned based on assessments of written examinations, papers, essays, and seminar participation. Recommendation Number 35 Rigorous Performance Standard The Chairman, JCS, and each service chief should establish rigorous standards of academic performance. The panel defines academic rigor to include a challenging curriculum, student accountability for mastering this curriculum, and established standards against which student per- formance is measured. (Chapter V, No. 24, Panel Report p. 169.) College Characterization Implemented. status Actions taken under this recommendation are discussed in recommenda- tions 6 and 34. Recommendation Number 36 Evaluation of Examinations/Papers All intermediate- and senior-level PME schools should require students to take frequent essay type examinations and to write papers and reports that are thoroughly reviewed, critiqued, and graded by the faculty. Examinations should test the student’s knowledge, his ability to think, and how well he can synthesize and articulate solutions, both oral and written. (Chapter V, No. 26, Panel Report pp. 169-70.) College Characterization Implemented. Page 34 GAO/NSJ.AD-91-134BR Professional Military Education APpsndlr I St&w oi Nwai War college Implementation of Puwl lt0commeudatione on Pmfeesional MUI- EXucation status Actions taken under this recommendation are discussed in recommenda- tions 6 and 34. Recommendation Number 37 Distinguished Program Graduate All PME schools should have distinguished graduate programs. These programs should single out those officers with superior intellectual abil- ities for positions where they can be best utilized in the service, in the joint system, and in the national command structure. (Chapter V, No. 26, Panel Report p. 170.) College Characterization Implemented. status Roth schools have distinguished graduate programs. The top 6 percent of each class graduates “with highest distinction” and the next 16 per- cent graduates “with distinction.” Navy fitness reports and equivalent efficiency reports for other services contain the “with distinction” or “with highest distinction” designations. Accordingly, the services are able to identify and recognize those officers with superior intellectual abilities and assign them for duty within their service, the joint system, or the national command structure. (Recommendation 6 is related to this recommendation.) Recommendation Number 38 Officer Efficiency Reports The Chairman, JCS, and the service chiefs should give serious considera- tion to using officer efficiency reports rather than training reports for PME institutions. (Chapter V, No. 27, Panel Report p. 170.) College Characterization Implemented. status The College completes officer efficiency reports (fitness reports for Navy) on all students completing either the intermediate or the senior program. The fitness reports summarize courses taken, the officers’ Page 85 GAO/NSIAD-Sl-124BR Professional Military Education Glossary Intermediate Service School This is generally the third level of an officer’s formal ~ME and officers with about 10 to 16 years of military experience attend one of the four intermediate schools. (These schools are the U.S. Marine Corps Com- mand and Staff College in Quantico, Virginia; the College of Naval Com- mand and Staff in Newport, Rhode Island; the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; and the U.S. Air Force Command and Staff College at Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama.) An officer is usually at the major rank in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps or lieutenant commander in the Navy. At the intermediate level, the focus is on several branches of the same service as well as on the operations of other services. Joint Professional Military This education encompasses an officer’s knowledge of the use of land, Education sea, and air forces to achieve a military objective. It also includes dif- ferent aspects of strategic operations and planning, command and con- trol of combat operations under a combined command, communications, intelligence, and campaign planning. Joint education emphasizes the study of these areas and others from the perspectives of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps services. Joint School Joint PME from a joint perspective is taught at the schools of the National Defense University located at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C., and another location in Norfolk, Virginia. For the most part, officers attending a joint school will have already attended an intermediate and/ or senior service school. Joint Specialty Officer An officer who is educated and experienced in the formulation of strategy and combined military operations to achieve national security objectives. Operational Art The employment of military forces to attain strategic goals in a theater of war or theater of operations through the design, organization, and conduct of campaigns and major operations. Phase I That portion of joint education that is incorporated into the curricula of intermediate and senior level service colleges. Page 88 GAO/NSIAD-Bl-124BR Profeasiona.l Military Education Senior Service School This level is normally attended by lieutenant colonels and colonels in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and by Navy commanders and cap- tains with about 16 to 23 years of military service. The senior service schools generally offer an education in strategy. (The four senior level schools are the College of Naval Warfare in Newport, Rhode Island; the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; the Air War Col- lege at Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama; and the Marine Corps Art of War Studies program in Quantico, Virginia.) Service School One of the individual Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps interme- diate or senior PME institutions. Strategy National military strategy is the art and science of employing the armed forces of a nation to secure the objectives of national policy by applying force or the threat of force. National security strategy is the art and science of developing and using the political, economic, and psycholog- ical powers of a nation, together with its armed forces, during peace and war, to secure national objectives. (291124) Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-91.124BR Ft-ofessional Military Education