Outcomes-Based in Name, Industrial-Age in Practice

Donald Vandergriff's Substack | Donald Vandergriff

On 12 February 2026, the Joint Staff published CJCSM 1810.01A to transition Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) from an input-based curriculum to an outcomes-based model. This policy shift mandates that programs establish Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) and execute continuous assessment plans to secure certification. However, the 174-page manual imposes a highly centralized compliance framework that contradicts the decentralized philosophy of mission command.

Bureaucracy smothers educational agility. By requiring extensive documentation, annual Common Educational Standards reports, and biennial PLO effectiveness reviews, the Joint Staff J-7 maintains deep control over instructional methods. Furthermore, the manual preserves statutory Title 10 topics and Special Areas of Emphasis as mandatory inputs, reinforcing traditional lecture-and-seminar pedagogy over experiential wargaming. Consequently, the personnel and promotion systems remain unaligned with these educational aspirations, continuing to produce risk-averse staff officers rather than adaptive leaders who can operate effectively under degraded command and control.

Comment

The publication of CJCSM 1810.01A exposes a persistent doctrinal friction within the US Joint Staff J-7 regarding the implementation of mission command. While the manual advocates for Outcomes-Based Military Education, its rigid administrative structure mirrors the centralised control of second-generation warfare. This tension suggests that the Joint Staff J-7 preference for process-oriented metrics continues to override the operational requirement for cognitive adaptability. Consequently, the Process for Accreditation of Joint Education remains focused on bureaucratic compliance rather than cultivating tactical initiative.

This administrative inertia is driven by the statutory requirements of Title 10, which mandate specific topic coverage and force the integration of Special Areas of Emphasis. By codifying these inputs into rigid reporting templates, the Joint Staff J-7 inadvertently incentivises institutions like the National War College to prioritise syllabus mapping over free-play wargaming. Ultimately, this structural misalignment ensures that CJCSM 1810.01A-compliant curricula continue to produce staff officers optimised for predictable planning cycles rather than the chaotic, degraded environments of modern conflict.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If the Joint Staff J-7 continues to enforce the rigid reporting milestones of CJCSM 1810.01A, does the Process for Accreditation of Joint Education inevitably default to a compliance-driven model, or can individual institutions like the National War College successfully preserve educational agility?

The historical pattern of military education reform suggests that centralized reporting requirements almost always overwhelm institutional autonomy. While leadership at the National War College may attempt to foster adaptive pedagogy, the administrative burden of CJCSM 1810.01A compliance will likely force faculty to prioritize standardized documentation over innovative, free-play wargaming. Consequently, the accreditation process is highly likely to remain a mechanism of bureaucratic standardization rather than a catalyst for genuine educational transformation.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here