Military Review English Edition May-June 2016 | Page 77

RIGOROUS EDUCATION

I had observed an informal consensus among faculty
that some students, in the absence of any screening
mechanism, had academic skills well below the standards needed for graduate-level work. The presence of
those weaker students sometimes caused instructors
to teach to the lowest common denominator of knowledge. This was most apparent during group instruction
in subjects such as deliberate planning. The expression
of “no-major-left-behind” came into common usage
among students, reflecting a widely held perception of
absent rigor and markedly less-capable graduates than
ILE before 2004.17
The current CGSC standard places students on
academic probation for receiving a final end-of-class
grade of C+ (“below average,” ranging from 78 to
79.99) or U (“unsatisfactory,” below 70). An academic
review board is required for a third end-of-class grade
of C+, or C (“marginal,” ranging from 70 to 77.99) or
below, or a second U grade.18 Any grade of U requires
remediation before graduation, but it also places that
student at a disadvantage since he or she is attempting
to remediate previously failed course material and
keep pace with classmates.
Instead of the current system, students receiving any
two end-of-class grades of C+ or C, or any end-of-class
grade of U at the end of a course, should be immediately
disenrolled from that phase of ILE without prejudice.
Instead of expending time and energy in academic
retention boards to retain borderline performers who
may never catch up to their peers intellectually, educationally, or professionally, such boards should occur only
in truly extenuating circumstances. Those who desire to
complete ILE need to begin their studies with sufficient
academic, professional, and communication skills to
meet standards, without exception.
The aggregate effects of an attritional PME model,
building on rigorous screening criteria for attendance,
would challenge students through creating an intellectually rigorous environment to promote greater self-discipline. An attritional model would also contribute to
addressing the PME prestige gap that Brown mentions.

Change 4: ILE as a Placement Tool
Another Army cultural norm related to ILE is that
the time taken for study is a break from duties, rather
than preparation for future responsibilities. One indicator of that norm is the expression “it’s only a lot of
MILITARY REVIEW  May-June 2016

reading if you do it,” a common utterance among ILE
students.19 The prevalence of that expression also reflects
the relative lack of importance placed on grading in
ILE courses, and it validates Brown’s observation of an
“Industrial Age legacy” approach geared to mass production of forces.20
Instead, academic performance should be a key
factor in assignments subsequent to ILE. The 2015 Army
Vision states that the Army must “commit to personnel
policies that better develop and manage soldiers and
Army civilians in order to optimize individual performance, best meet our manning requirements, and assure
the health and welfare of our force.”21
Tying academic performance in ILE to future assignments would be a substantive step toward promoting all
of those goals, while addressing current cultural norms
that devalue grades in ILE. It would also require adjusting personnel policies to account for grading, including
redirecting officers should they have significant downturns in academic performance during the year. The
friction incurred by implementing such a system would
be offset by the gains from matching ILE graduates’
skills and academic performance to the units that need
their skills the most. Matching student performance to
subsequent assignments would also provide a tangible
incentive for ILE students to maximize their efforts
during the course.

The Payoff
The challenges of complexity and uncertainty in the
security environment now and in the future, combined
with the cascading effects of leader development on the
rest of the force, require the Army to have the fortitude
to prepare officers intellectually to meet those challenges.
Revitalizing the place CGSC occupies in PME is a critical step in setting the force for the future, both through
its students and its instructors.
Changing the system would offer several immediate
benefits. First, an entrance examination and GRE score
in conjunction with a selection board would identify, and
then best serve, those most capable of benefitting from
the unique resources available at Leavenworth. Those
attending satellites after passing the entrance examination and board selection would necessarily outnumber
those attending at Leavenworth. However, distributing
best-qualified officers of all branches throughout all the
ILE locations would benefit the force at large. Doing so
75