Pages

20 November 2015

Commentary: 3 reasons to rethink Army University


By Clinton L. (Andy) Anderson
November 16, 2015 

Each year more than 300,000 service members enroll in college degree programs from accredited institutions, many using military tuition assistance or GI Bill education benefits to fund their educational pursuits.

Some 2,735 accredited colleges and universities across the country participate in the Defense Department’s Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding in support of voluntary education programs. These institutions are all accredited by national or regional accrediting agencies recognized by the Education Department. They award academic credentials broadly recognized by their peers and by federal and nonfederal employers alike.

A general and former division commander, then overseeing Army Unit Training in the Pentagon, once told me that Army voluntary education sits precariously on a “three-legged stool.” One leg supports Army training. A second leg supports military personnel management — recruitment, retention and similar. The third leg supports soldiers’ personal goals for educational development. He warned that when one leg becomes longer than the other two, the stool tips over and the soldier is not well-served.

The Army has worked diligently over the years to maintain that delicate balance. Service members and the U.S. military have been served well by the range of choices, the high quality, and the successful partnerships they have enjoyed with America’s world-class colleges and universities.

But it appears that the Army Training and Doctrine Command is testing the possibility of reorganizing the Army’s education enterprise for soldiers by consolidating military training and post-secondary education.

The scenario being explored would seek to allow TRADOC to award degrees, essentially replacing civilian academic credentials from accredited institutions with Army-issued substitutes. Here are three reasons to pause and rethink the proposal.

First, the economic argument is quite likely to prove false. The Army doesn’t manufacture its own weapons systems, vehicles or office supplies: It knows that buying rather than building is cheaper in the long run. For TRADOC schools to become degree-granting entities would require a shift in the focus of the Army’s military training philosophy and priorities — transforming Army schoolhouse personnel from developing and instructing mission-critical content, specialized knowledge and skills to instructional designers and academicians teaching to accredited college standards. There is a fundamental difference between “education” and “training” that must be recognized and watched over by the responsible national institutions. Just as soldiers deserve the best possible training for their military mission, so, too, they deserve the best possible academic credential available — at institutions whose primary focus is the provision of quality education and student development programs.

Second, while it is certainly true that a centralized Army U. may offer better academic outcomes than some existing civilian institutions, it is highly unlikely that an Army U. will exceed the vast majority of America’s superb colleges and universities in terms of quality of instruction or academic outcomes. Soldiers transitioning from the military will enter the civilian workforce and compete against people with civilian academic credentials from accredited institutions. The college degrees that they earn need to be of the same caliber and rigor as civilian institutions’.

Finally, the Army should contemplate the long-term effects of further separation of men and women in uniform from civilian society. For decades, the U.S. armed forces and service in the military were America’s great national unifier. With the advent of the all-volunteer force, that role has significantly shifted to America’s colleges and universities, which are often the first place where Americans of diverse backgrounds get to know each other and interact as peers. It is critically important for America’s men and women in uniform to continue to be visible on college campuses. Their continued presence will benefit them in the form of credentials that will have equal value in the civilian sector and in the military; benefit the Army by providing the very best education available for it to fulfill its mission; and benefit colleges and their students through firsthand interactions with the fewer than 1 percent of our population who have taken on the selfless duty of defending the United States.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Clinton L. (Andy) Anderson, senior consultant for Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges, served in the Field Artillery Branch and as an education officer for over six years at Headquarters Department of the Army in the management and operations of the Army’s continuing education programs. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Washington and Lee University, master’s degrees from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and Stanford University, and a Doctorate in Education from Teachers College, Columbia University.

No comments:

Post a Comment