ERIC ED351479: Professional Military Education. Hearings before the Military Education Panel of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress. First Session (February 5, April 17, 24, September 18, November 1, 5, a

316 Pages·1992·3.8 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
CE 062 233
ED 351 479
before the
Professional Military Education. Hearings
TITLE
Armed
Military Education Panel of the Committee on
Hundred
Services, House of Representatives, One
(February 5, April 17,
Second Congress. First Session
December 16,
24, September 18, November 1, 5, and
1991).
House
Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C.
INSTITUTION
Committee on Armed Services.
HASC-102-56; ISBN-0-16-039089-3
REPORT NO
92
PUB DATE
333p.
NOTE
Superintendent of
U.S. Government Printing Office,
AVAILABLE FROM
Washington, DC
Documents, Congressional Sales Office,
20402.
Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)
PUB TYPE
MFO1 /PC14 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Military
Curriculum Development; Educational Change;
DESCRIPTORS
Service;
Schools; Military Science; Military
*Military Training; *Officer Personnel; Postsecondary
Education
Congress 102nd
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
statements
This document reports the oral and written
hearings on the subject of
of persons who testified at congressional
included members of
professional military education. Witnesses
officers from various branches
Congress, active and reserve military
of the services' military
of the armed services, and supervisors
Jones, Director of Defense
colleges. Testimony, presented by Paul L.
Accounting Office, indicated that
Force Issues at the U.S. General
responded favorably in
the military's professional schools had
of a Congressional panel
implementing previously made recommendations
military education. Other
concerning phase 1 of joint professional
promotions for officers,
witnesses addressed questions about lines of
qualifications for admittance to
the'need for more officers, student
reform, and school
the schools and for promotion, curriculum
requirements. (KC)
***********************************************************************
be made
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can
from tne original document.
***********************************************************************
[H.A.S.C. No. 102-56]
EDUCATION
PROFESSIONAL MILITARY
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
PANEL
MILITARY EDUCATION
OF THE
SERVICES
COMMITTEE ON ARMED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONGRESS
ONE HUNDRED SECOND
FIRST SESSION
HEARINGS HELD
18, NOVEMBER 1, 5, AND
FEBRUARY 5, APRIL 17, 24, SEPTEMBER
DECEMBER 16, 1991
U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educahohal Research and improvement
VCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organtzation
oronating it
0 Mono, changes have been mace to improve
reproduchon Quaid y
Points of new of OpntOns staled .n lns Ott u
ment do not neCeSSa.ly represent ott.c,ai
OERI post/on or policy
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1992
41-949..
l'or sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington. DC 20402
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office.
ISBN 0-16-039089-3
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
MILITARY EDUCATION PANEL
IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman
RONALD K. MACHTLEY, Rhode Island
OWEN B. I-ICKETT, Virginia
BEN BLAZ, Guam
MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
(vacancy)
GLEN BROWDER, Alabama
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
CHET EDWAR' ), Texas
ARCHIE D. BARRE-rr, Professional Staff Member
ANNE E. FORSTER, Staft Assistant
AUSTIN MILLER, GAO Staff
3
CONTENTS
HEARINGS
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF
1991
Page
1
Professional Military Education)
Tuesday, February 5 (GAO Briefing on
31
of Panel Recommendations)
Wednesday, April 17 (Implementation
103
Recommendations for Joint PME)
Wednesday, April 24 (Panel
173
Joint Education Policy Initiatives)
Wednesday, September 18 (JCS
199
of Instruction)
in and Scope of New Course
Friday, November 1 (AFSC Phase
229
Reserve Officers)
Tuesday, November 5 (PME for
293
Reserve Officers)
Monday, December 16 (PME for
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY
174
from Texas
Edwards, Hon. Chet, a Representative
Ranking
Representative from Rhode Island,
Machtley, Hon. Ronald K., a
104
Education Panel
Minority Member, Military
Military Edu-
from Missouri, Chairman,
Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative
1, 31, 103, 173, 199, 229, 293
cation Panel.
SUBMITTED
APPEARED IN PERSON OR
PRINCIPAL WITNESSES WHO
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
Commandant, U.S. Army College:
Cerjan, Maj. Gen. Paul G.,
45
Statement
47
Prepared statement
252
Chief of Air Force Reserve
Closner, Maj. Gen. John J.,
Guard,
Deputy Director, Army National
D'Araujo, Brig. Gen. John R., Jr.,
Department of the Army:
235
Statement
237
Prepared statement
Deputy Chief of
U.S. Marine Corps, Assistant
Davison, Maj. Gen. Hollis E.,
U.S. Marine
Affairs, for Reserve Affairs,
Staff, Manpower and Reserve
246
Corps:
Statement
247
Prepared statement
Reserve Affairs,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Duncan, Hon. Stephen M.,
U.S. Department of Defense:
294
Statement
298
Prepared statement
Staff College:
Commandant, Air Command and
Ford, Brig. Gen. Philip J.,
107
Statement
109
Prepared statement
National Security
Force Management Issues,
Jones, Paul L., Director, Defense
Office:
Division, U.S. General Accounting
and International Affairs
2
Statement
6
Prepared statement
Headquarters, U.S
Director, Air National Guard,
Killey, Maj. Gen. Philip G.,
Air Force:
252
Statement
255
Prepared statement
Forces Staff College,
Jr., Commandant, Armed
Kwieciak, Brig. Gen. Stanley,
Norfolk, VA:
200
Statement
4.1
IV
Page
Kwieciak, Brig. Gen. Stanley, Jr., Commandant, Armed Forces Staff College,
Norfolk, VAContinued
Prepared statement
204
Link, Maj. Gen. Charles D., Commandant, Air War College:
Statement
116
Prepared statement
117
Miller, Maj. Gen. John E., USA, Deputy Commandant, U.S. Army Command
and General Staff College:
Statement
55
Prepared statement
59
Sandler, Maj. Gen. Roger. W., Chief, Army Reserve Office, Chief, Army Re-
serve, Department of the Army:
Statement
231
Prepared statement
232
Simpson, Brig. Gen. Kenneth W., USA, Deputy Director, Joint Staff, for
Military Education:
Statement
174
Prepared statement
176
Strasser, Rear Adm. Joseph C., USN, President, Naval War College:
Statement
32
Prepared statement
34
Taylor, Rear Adm. James E., U.S. Navy, Director of Naval Reserve, Com-
mander Naval Reserve Force:
Statement
242
Prepared statement
243
Vetter, Col. David A., U.S. Marine Corps, Director, Marine Corps Command
and Staff College
104
5
PROFESSIONAL MILITARY
GAO BRIEFING ON
EDUCATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
MILITARY EDUCATION PANEL,
1991.
Washington, DC, Tuesday, February 5,
9:10 a.m., in room 2212, Ray-
The panel met, pursuant to call, at
Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman of the
burn House Office Building,
panel) presiding.
SKELTON, A REPRESENTA-
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE
CHAIRMAN, MILITARY EDUCATION
TIVE FROM MISSOURI,
PANEL
Mr. SKELTON. Good morning.
briefing from the General Ac-
This morning we will receive a
of its examination of profes-
counting Office on the interim results
is structured as a briefing
sional military education. This session
been officially appointed as
because the committee panels have not
has been appointed, I will ask
of this moment. As soon as the panel
briefing be considered a hearing of
unanimous consent that today's
inasmuch as we will adhere
the panel. This last step is a formality,
to.
Desert Storm underscores the
I welcome you to this briefing.
for our military officers.
operational importance of joint education
examples of jointness displayed by
I am heartened by the obvious
in many in-
Persian Gulf, which I feel is directly,
our forces in the
Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.
stances, attributable to the
testimony from Mr. Paul
This morning the panel will hear
and we thank you.
Jones. Mr. Jones, we welcome you
Mr. JONES. Thank you.
of Defense Force Manage-
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Jones is the Director
Security and International Affairs Di-
ment Issues in the National
OfficeI bet you can't repeat
vision of the General Accounting
that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. JONES. Not very fast.
results of the GAO work at
Mr. SKELTON. He will brief us on the
professional military educa-
the services' intermediate and senior
five intermediate schools and
tion schools. As you know, there are
for your assistance. This is, we
five senior schools. We thank you
all that newsworthy but in the
feel, monumental work. It is not
for the national security of
long result it will have telling effects
our Nation. We thank you.
there with you, sir?
Would you care to introduce the gentlemen
(1)
2
STATEMENT OF PAUL L. JONES, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE FORCE
MANAGEMENT ISSUES, NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNA-
GENERAL ACCOUNTING
TIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
U.S.
OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE E. BREEN AND FRANK
BOWERS
Mr. JONES. Thank you. I will, sir.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the panel this
morning to discuss the results of our review of intermediate and
senior service schools on the implementation of the panel's recom-
mendations concerning phase I of joint professional military educa-
tion.
Accompanying me today are Mr. George Breen, or "Chip" Breen
as we call him. He is the assistant director who is responsible for
this area of work, and Mr. Frank Bowers who is the evaluator-in-
charge of this particular review.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize my statement and re-
quest that my full statement be entered in the record.
Mr. SKELTON. Without objection, your entire statement will be
put forth into the record.
Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In responding to your request, Mr. Chairman, we are preparing,
under separate covers, four reports that detail actions taken by
each service to implement recommendations made by the panel
concerning phase I joint professional military education at interme-
diate and senior service schools.
The seven service schools have responded very favorably to the
panel's recommendations, each school has implemented or partially
implemented, at least 90 percent of the panel's recommendations.
Mr. SKELTON. Did you say each school?
Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.
Mr. SKELTON. Thank you.
Mr. JONES. Each school.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just summarize some of the
concerns that were raised by the schools. Again, the gist and detail
of our review will be reported in separate reports. I want to just
mention this morning the concerns that the schools have raised
about certain recommendations.
Specifically, concerns have arisen in the areas of the in-residence
phase I education as a prerequisite for phase II; the distinction be-
tween the intermediate school and the senior school curricula at
the Naval War College; the prescribed levels of non-host faculty
and student mixes and student/faculty ratios; and there are some
concerns about letter grades at the Army senior school and at both
Air Force schools.
Mr. SKELTON. On that last point, some concerns about what, sir?
Mr. JONES. Some concerns about the letter grades requirement.
Mr. SKELTON. The letter grades.
Mr. JONES. Yes.
Mr. SKELTON. That's my phobia.
Mr. JONES. Yes. There were some concerns about letter grades at
the Army senior school and at both Air Force schools.
I would like to briefly discuss each area of concern.
I
3
the
requirement, or recommendation,
Regarding the in-residence
requires
because the recommendation
schools have some concerns
prerequisite for phase II educa-
in-residence phase I education as a
I re-
and agreed that the phase
tion. School officials recognized
the Armed
before attending phase II at
quirement must be met
Forces Staff College.
completing
Air Force officials said that
For example, Army and
equivalent education is a prerequisite
intermediate in-residence or
that,
However, they expressed concern
for selection for promotion.
education
for in-residence phase I
if implemented, the requirement
signals to offi-
phase II might send unintended
as a prerequisite to
for phase I. Also, it
attend in-residence education
ce,-s who don't
preselection for choice duty assign-
give the impression of
Migai
send a
promotions. Again, this would
ments and for subsequent
in-residence
who are not selected for
negative message to officers
phase I education.
and
have established non-resident
To counter this, the services
in the process of trying to get
correspondence programs. They are
correspond-
JCS. As you know, once the
these programs certified by
JCS, they meet the re-
are certified by
ence or non-resident courses
officer can attend phase II.
quirement for phase I and the
curricula at Naval intermediate
Regarding distinctness in the
operation-
know, the panel recommended
and senior schools, as you
strategy
intermediate schools and military
al art as the focus of the
College has not es-
senior schools. The Naval War
as the focus of
its schools. The Navy schools
tablished this distinctness among
primari-
the focus of both schools is
have comparable curricula and
be-
This similarity is intentional,
ly on national military strategy.
send its officers to
in the past, didn't intend to
cause the Navy,
mili-
curriculum focusing on national
both schools. Hence, it has a
schools.
tary strategy for both
right there.
Mr. SKELTON. Let me interrupt you
the
the initial report came out? Is
Do you see any change since
than
to both schools more now
Navy sending them in proportion
they used to?
they
Navy still has the same focus,
Mr. JONES. Although the
curric-
by establishing more distinct
intend to separate the schools
but the plans are to establish
ula. They haven't gotten there yet,
that
curricula. But it is my understanding
separate and distinct
the
officers to only one school, one of
they still plan to send their
understanding to date.
two schools. That's our
the Navy schools meet the
Regarding the faculty mix, only
non-host faculty mix. But, for the
panel's recommended level for
Education
schools do meet the Military
most part, the service
goal for non-host faculty mix.
Policy Document, or the MEPD,
the senior level service schools
The panel recommended that
of about 10 percent from each
should have military faculty mixes
departments by academic year 1989-
of the two non-host military
level schools should attain the same
1990, and that intermediate
the other hand, has a set goal of
mix by 1990-1991. The MEPD, on
department at the intermediate
5 percent from each non-host
of a
senior schools. So there is a bit
schools and 10 percent at the
recommendation and what the
difference between the panel's
MEPD now states.
I
4
Mr. SKELTON. What was the date of that document?
Mr. JONES. The MEPD is a recent document revision, I believe in
mid-1990 it was revised. It was May of 1990.
There was concern also as to the student body mix. The Marine
Corps and Navy schools are currently meeting the student mix rec-
ommended by the panel. Air Force and Army officials told us, on
the other hand, that they have met or intend to meet MEPD goals.
Again, there's a difference between MEPD goals and the panel's
recommended goals.
MEPD calls for at least one officer from each of the non-host
services per seminar at both intermediate and senior level schools.
The panel recommended that the senior level schools have student
body mixes of about 10 percent from each of the two non-host de-
partments by academic year 1989-1990, and that intermediate
schools should have one officer from each of the two non-host mili-
tary departments per student seminar by academic year 1990-1991.
School officials did not address the panel's additional outyear
mixes.
On the recommended student/faculty ratio, none of the interme-
diate schools is fulfilling the panel's recommended student/faculty
ratio of 4 to 1, although the Army and Air Force schools are close.
They are 4.1 and 4.4 to 1, respectively. The ratio at the Marine
Corps school is more than 6 to 1. Officials there expect this figure
to improve with the addition of new civilian faculty on their staff.
Also, due to the relatively small size of the Marine Corps school,
they should be able to meet this goal of the panel. It is difficult to
compute a similar figure for the Navy schools because, as I said
before, the same faculty serves both schools. Collectively, the ratio
at the Navy school is higher than the 4 to 1. It's about 4.6 to 1.
The panel recommended a student/faculty ratio of 3 to 1 at the
senior level. Only the Army senior school meets this standard,
about 2.6 to 1. The Air Force ratio is 3.9 to 1. Again, it is difficult
to compute separate ratios for the Navy schools because of the com-
bined faculty for both schools.
The final area of concern I would like to discuss is the area of
letter grades. All schools state that they have rigorous student
evaluation standards. However, letter grades are not administered
at the Army senior school or at either Air Force school. Basically,
the Army said that letter grades foster competition and discourage
cooperation. They further said that since Army senior school stu-
dents are recruited from the top 6 percent of all eligible Army offi-
cers, they have already competed against each other. Army offi-
cials told us that their emphasis at the War College should be on
achieving academic objectives in a joint strategic environment
where cooperation, not competition, is encouraged.
Air Force officials explained that it is more important for their
students to be able to demonstrate operational competency rather
than academic excellence.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to stress that I have high-
lighted the areas of concern. Please keep in mind that there has
been considerable receptiveness to the panel's recommendations
and that each school has had about a 90-percent success rate in
either implementing or partially implemented the panel's recom-
mendations.
5
oral statement. I will be
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my
might have at this time.
pleased to respond to any questions you
1v