Educational Changes in the Transforming Army

Engineer: The Professional Bulletin for Army Engineers, May, 2001 by Colonel James R. Rowan, Major Dallan J. Scherer II

The Army Vision: We are about leadership; it is our stock in trade, and it is what makes us different. We take soldiers who enter the force and grow them into leaders for the next generation of soldiers. We will continue to develop those leaders through study in the institutional schoolhouse, through field experiences gained in operational assignments, and through personal study and professional readings.

General Eric K. Shinseki

Chief of Staff of the Army

Army Transformation has been well underway for more than a year now. Most people with any interest in the Army are very aware of the three-axes model depicting the Legacy Force, the Interim Force, and the Objective Force. The Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) at Fort Lewis, Washington; the Interim Armored Vehicle; and the Interim Division (IDIV) are also recent headline news. Less well known are the changes that TRADOC and the proponent schools are making in military training and education systems and their impact on soldiers of the current and future Army. The leader-development operational and organizational document covers all proposed leadership educational transformations (such as the Noncommissioned Officer Education System and the Warrant Officer Education System).

The first part of this article highlights some of the current training challenges for lieutenants, captains, and majors and then focuses on the transformation of the Officer Education System (OES) and the rapid changes occurring within TRADOC.

Current Officer Education System

The current OES has served the Army well for many years. Very few large organizations in the world are able to devote the time and resources the Army does to ensure that its leaders are developed and prepared for increased responsibility. General Lesley J. McNair, often referred to as the "educator of the Army" and the "trainer of the Army," had an enormous impact on our current education model for training officers, NCOs, and soldiers. The McNair Model, developed for World War II mobilization, produced large numbers of soldiers and leaders to meet requirements generated by a 100-division Army (see endnote, page 48). While this training strategy has served our nation well through the end of the Cold War, where World War III European scenarios required large numbers of personnel replacements, it is simply not efficient enough to meet the needs of today's force. With a smaller, busier, and resource-constrained Army, a new training paradigm is being realized.

As we progress into the twenty-first century, the United States finds itself without peer competitors. The battlefields of this century are not likely to be total wars but small-scale contingency operations at various flash points around the world. The hostilities of the future may be more like our experiences in Bosnia or Kosovo and less like our involvement in the Gulf War.

Over the last two decades, the Army has continually reduced its manpower, but missions and deployments have steadily increased. In the past, we had the luxury of following an "alert, train, deploy" model for most of our major deployments. But the transformed Army--in order to meet General Shinseki's aggressive timelines for brigades and divisions to be operational in theater--must now move to a "train, alert, deploy" model. This places much tougher requirements on training institutions and operational units throughout the Army.

The current Army officer educational model is based on the three pillars shown in Figure 1: institutional training, self-development, and operational assignments.

Institutional Training

The institutional piece of officer training is well established. TRADOC has set precommissioning requirements that are accomplished through the Reserve Officer Training Corps, the United States Military Academy, or the Officer Candidate School. After being commissioned, officers attend the basic course of their branch. While the lengths of branch courses vary considerably, their common goal is to train second lieutenants on the leadership and technical skills they must possess to meet the challenges associated with their first unit assignment. It's important to note that lieutenants are not taught every critical task while attending the officer basic course. The Engineer Officer Basic Course (EOBC), for example, only covers about 65 percent of the critical tasks for junior engineer officers. Accordingly, field commanders must build upon the lieutenants' newly acquired skills and train those tasks not covered during their initial officer training, thereby ensuring that these officers are competitive for promo tion and increased responsibility.

After their promotion to captain, officers attend the Captain's Career Course (CCC), which is usually at their branch school. This course is taught primarily in a small-group environment and is one of the real highlights of an officer's education. Officers who attend the Engineer Captain's Career Course (ECCC) bring a wide variety of experience and knowledge from their previous assignments and are trained by a carefully selected team of small-group leaders. When they complete training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, most captains attend the Combined Arms and Services Staff School (CAS3) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Additionally, many officers participate in the cooperative graduate-degree program through the University of Missouri at Rolla (UMR) or the University of Missouri at St Louis (UMSL). After 24 to 33 weeks, these officers are ready to serve on a brigade or battalion staff and command company-sized units. Clearly there is a disconnect here since many of these officers have already been primary staff officers at a battalion or brigade and, for a number of reasons, a key part of their training may be coming too late.