Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Directorate for Joint Force Development (J-7), The Joint Staff

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Directorate for Joint Force Development (J-7), The Joint Staff"— Presentation transcript:

1 Directorate for Joint Force Development (J-7), The Joint Staff
Student to Faculty Ratio Study 8 February 2012 (Draft Briefing) Next Slide. Dr. Jerry West, JS J7 JEB Education Advisor

2 Introduction Purpose Respond to DJS request for rationale for OPMEP S/F Ratio Standard Present recommendations for further study BLUF: No changes recommended in the OPMEP S/F Ratio

3 Background Historic Rationale:
Congressman Ike Skelton Panel Recommendation: Skelton Report, 1989 “…Small group seminar method used at the service and joint colleges warrants a relatively low student/faculty ratio overall ranging between 3 and 4 to 1 with the lower ratios at the senior schools… “… the SECDEF, with the advice of the Chairman, JCS, should assure comparability of the joint and service school student/faculty ratios.

4 External View – US News and World Report Rankings
OPMEP student-to-faculty ratio standard cannot be modeled after top tier US Graduate Schools. Formula Weighting Value Variables Weights Faculty resources for academic year 20% Faculty compensation 35% Percent faculty with top terminal degree in their field 15% Percent faculty that is  full time 5% Student/faculty ratio Class size, 1-19 students 30% Class size, 50+ students 10% US News And World Report Formula for Ranking US Colleges and Universities

5 (Socratic, Seminar-based, Small Class Sizes)
Findings A steady state teaching environment built on a dedicated and highly qualified faculty remains the bedrock of high quality in-residence, graduate level education. Pedagogy Model (Socratic, Seminar-based, Small Class Sizes) Pedagogy Model (Socratic, Seminar-based, Small Class Sizes) Faculty Model (Teaching Expertise,Relevant Experience, Professional and Academic Credentials) Student/ Faculty Ratio Student Model (Competitive, Well-educated,Functional Expertise)

6 Findings: Internal Assessment of Steady State Faculty Requirements
Standard faculty annual teaching load = (# of core course & electives) + Curriculum/course development + Student advising/counseling/mentoring/evaluation + Management/administrative duties + Outreach, research/publication Core curriculum faculty requirements: Total# of students divided by # of students/seminar = A: (# of seminars for each core course) # of core courses x # of seminars/core course = B: (# of seminar leads/year for core courses) # of faculty leads/Per Field Studies seminars = C: (# of FS leads/year) Core and FS Curriculum Faculty Required = B + C (FTEs) This is a rough calculation of our staffing requirements if we adhere to the educational approach just discussed First box defines our standard faculty teaching load We halve the standard for new faculty Also halve the standard for the academic leadership (Dean, 3 associate deans, 2 department chairs, 7 core course directors) Second box calculates how many core seminars we have to cover – and thus how many Faculty Seminar Leads (FSLs) we need Third box takes our current authorized staffing (3.5:1) and computes how many seminars we can cover Adjusts for new faculty and academic leadership carrying only half workload With 35 faculty covering 3 seminars each and 29 faculty covering an average of 1.5 seminars each, we can cover 148 seminars, exactly our requirement  no flex While this calculation accounts for 25% new faculty, as often as not we turnover more than 25% of the faculty in a year – this year the turnover was 33%, and we anticipate about the same next year Our current faculty staffing of 66 (2 above 3.5:1) is anomalous Shortfalls require asking some faculty to teach more than a standard (or half-standard) load, which impinges on educational quality Available faculty resources:  Total faculty Authorized = D (Based on OPMEP Guidance) - X (new half load) - Y (academic Part-time load) FTE Adjusted = full load: part-time load Can Maximum FTEs Available meet Faculty Required? Is OPMEP S/F Ratio acceptable

7 What it is? AY 10-12 Senior Level College Assessment AWC USAWC CNW
USMCWAR NWC ICAF JAWS Students 242 368 251 27 221 321 42 Seminar Size 15 16 14-16 or 10-12 13 15-16 Seminars required 23 18 2 17 21 3 Faculty per Seminar 3-4 1 1(note 1) Total Faculty Required 72.5 114 158*** 11 64 93 12 Teaching Faculty Req’d 66 96 140*** 87 Non-Teaching Faculty Req’d 10 6 Part-time Faculty Req’d Adjunct FTEs Req’d 6.5 8 18*** Total Faculty Authorized 75 150*** 80(note 2) Total Faculty Assigned 79 95(note 3) Teaching Positions Filled via MOA/MOU STFR (Unadjusted*) 3.78:1 4.13:1 -- *** 2.4:1 3.45:1 3.69:1 3.5:1 STFR (Adjusted**) 3.33:1 3.23:1 *Unadjusted STFR includes assigned teaching faculty and excludes adjuncts, part-time, non-teaching faculty. **Adjusted STFR includes assigned, adjuncts, part-time, non-teaching faculty. ***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC 1 faculty per course, w/teaching team of 5 faculty(fall) & 3-4 faculty in spring Includes 13 Faculty DOD MIPR funded (8 DAU + 5 DSLDP) Includes 23 Faculty provided via MOA/MOU and 13 DOD MIPR funded(note 1)

8 Senior Level College Assessment Cont’d
What it should be? (AY 13-15) AWC USAWC CNW USMCWAR NWC ICAF JAWS Students 242 380 249 52 221 252(note 1) 42 JAWS Seminar Size 15 16 14-16 or 10-12 13 12 Seminars required 24 18 4 17 21 3 Faculty per seminar 2 3-4 1 1(note 2) Total Faculty Required (FTEs) 114 158*** 64 93 Teaching Faculty Req’d 66 96 140*** 87 Non-teaching Faculty Req’d 10 6 Part-time Faculty Req’d Adjunct Faculty Req’d 6.5 8 18*** Total Faculty Authorized 77 80 Total Faculty Assigned TBD Teaching Positions Filled via MOA/MOU 23 STFR (*Unadjusted) 3.78:1 4.17:1 -- *** 3.47:1 3.45:1 2.90:1 3.5:1 STFR (***Adjusted) 3.33:1 3.28:1 --*** 2.71:1 Based on # of seminars and ideal # of students/seminar 1 faculty per course, w/teaching team of 5 faculty(fall) & 3-4 faculty in spring Includes 13 Faculty DOD MIPR funded (8 DAU + 5 DSLDP) Includes 23 Faculty provided via MOA/MOU and 13 DOD MIPR funded(note 1) ***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC

9 Intermediate Level College Assessment
What it is? AY 10-12 ACSC CGSC CNCS MCCSC JCWS Students 514 1390(note 1) 322 204 255 Seminar Size 12-13 16 10-16(note 2) 14-15 18-19 Seminars required 40 86-92 18 14 15 Faculty per seminar 1 4 2 3 Total Faculty Required 129 366(note 3) 105*** 50.25 Teaching Faculty Req’d 115 319 87 63.75 Non-teaching Faculty Req’d 47 Part-time Faculty Req’d Adjunct Faculty Req’d 13.75 10.25 0.75 Total Faculty Authorized 366 150 63 Total Faculty Assigned Teaching Positions Filled via MOA/MOU STFR (*Unadjusted) 4.46:1 4.35:1 3.98:1 5.1:1 4.0:1 STFR(**Adjusted) 3.99:1 3.8 3.33:1 4.05:1 NOTES: Ranged from 1375 to 1439 Varies by trimester: Either or 14-16 for core courses 3. Ranges between ***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC

10 Intermediate Level College Assessment Cont’d
What it should be? AY 13-15 ACSC CGSC CNCS MCCSC JCWS Students 514 1400 (note 1) 322 208 255 Seminar Size 12-13 16 10-16(note 2) 13 Seminars Required 40 89-92 18 15 Faculty per Seminar 1 4 2 3 Total Faculty Required (FTEs) 129 366 (note 3) 105*** 49.5 63.75 Teaching Faculty Req’d 115 319 87 63 Non-teaching Faculty Req’d 47 Part-time Faculty Req’d Adjunct Faculty Req’d 13.75 .75 Teaching Faculty Authorized 366 150 Teaching Faculty Assigned TBD Teaching Positions Filled via MOA/MOU STFR(*Unadjusted) 4.47 4.38:1 3.98:1 4.2:1 4.0:1 STFR(Adjusted**) 3.99:1 3.8 3.33:1 NOTES: Ranges between1375 to 1439 Varies by trimester: Either or 14-16 for core courses 3. Ranges between ***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC

11 Findings: Maintain OPMEP S/F Ratio for SLC
OPMEP Standard 3.5

12 Findings: Maintain OPMEP S/F Ratio for ILC
OPMEP Standard

13 Recommendations for Future Study
Retain the long-standing OPMEP S/F ratio standards of 3.5:1 or less for senior level JPME and 4.0:1 or less for intermediate level JPME. Task the MECC WG to examine whether establishing class size standards would potentially improve academic quality, and if so, would it be practical to do this, at what cost, and what would those standards be?

14 Supplemental Slides Case Study Results

15 MECC WG Participants The Joint Staff Joint Education Branch wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the following members of the MECC WG for their contributions to the study. COL Thomas Santoro, JS J7 Joint Education Branch Chief Dr. Harry Dorsey, Industrial College of the Armed Forces Dr. David Tretler, National War College Dr. Mark Conversino, Air War College Dr. Jeff Reilley, Air Command and Staff College Dr. Linda McCluney, Joint Forces Staff College Dr. Ken Pisel, Joint Forces Staff College Dr. Robert Mahoney, Marine Corps War College Dr. Jerre Wilson, Marine Corps Command and Staff College Dr. John Persyn, Army Command and General Staff College Dr. William T. Johnsen, Army War College Dr. William Spain, College of Naval Warfare Dr. Brenda Roth, National Defense University Dr. Charles McKenna, Marine Corps Command and Staff College Dr. Suzanne Logan, Spaatz Center for Officer Education Dr. Leslie Cordie, Air University Dr. Hank Dasinger, Air University Dr. Jerry West, JS J7 Joint Education Branch, Study Advisor Mr. Jack Roesner, JS J7 Joint Education Branch

16 Approach Assumptions:
Rationale must comply with the law (10 USC) and JPME policy (OPMEP). Rationale must be consistent with fiscal policy constraints (current and projected) Rationale must be evidence-based and reflect a consensus position from MECC WG leads. The overall quality of JPME will not be degraded. Rationale must preserve active learning (seminar-based et al) in the context of a professional education environment. External View (15 Mar -15 Aug11) J7 JEB Survey (15 Aug-18 Oct 11) Case Studies (19 Oct-1 Dec11) Synthesis 2 Dec Jan 12 MECC Brief 8 Feb 12 Phase I Data Collection Stage 1 (External View): (15 March -15 August 2011) Literature search to determine the origin, evolution and rationale behind the OPMEP student-faculty ratio standard as a measure of the quality of education. Inquiries to US News Week and World Report (USNWWR) and top US graduate schools to determine the rationale behind higher education use of student-faculty ratio metrics to rank schools. Research of studies and meta-analyses performed by Department of Education et al were cited as a means of quantifying a standard that is based on optimal class sizes and instructional strategies. Stage 2 (Internal View): (15 August October 2011) Qualitative justification of the OPMEP STFR standard by the academic heads of the JPME schools. A questionnaire of seventeen questions to arrive at a consensus on factors affecting an ideal S/F Ratio STFRS. Review of STFRS history, metrics and Process for Accreditation of Joint Education (PAGE) Reports Stage 3 (Case Studies): (19 October – 1 December 2011) Independent case studies performed by each school to derive analytically the ideal STFR standard based on current and future requirements. A common format prescribed to ensure that considerations for faculty, student, curriculum, teaching model, and facilities were addressed by each case study. Published separately, each case study presents conditions for steady-state delivery of JPME and gives a broader view of the OPMEP standard and informs Services and interagency resource providers of first, second and third order effects of inadequate resourcing and governance models. Stage 4 (Synthesis): (2 December – 15 January 2012) Analysis and dissecting the case studies putting the pieces together; documenting patterns and trends across the schools regarding what constitutes a high quality PME faculty-student model. Phase II Phase III

17 Background Challenge: Services are challenged to meet JMPE requirements for resourcing sufficient quantity and quality of students and faculty to JPME schools in a period of prolonged fiscal austerity which threatens compliancy to and enforcement of the OPMEP student-faculty ratio standard (SFRS). Academic Year , student-to-faculty ratios ranged from 2.1:1 (College of Naval Command and Staff) to 7.7:1 (Marine Corps Command and Staff College) 1989 Skelton Report: recommended student-faculty ratios for JPME schools to be maintained between 3:1 and 4:1 with the lower ratio associated with senior level colleges (SLC) and the higher ratio with intermediate level colleges (ILC) 1990 to Present- CJCS Military Education Policy Documents formally established and preserved the student-faculty ratio standard (STFRS) as part of goal to deliver high quality JPME Senior-level– not more than 3.5:1 Intermediate-level and Armed Forces Staff College--- not more than 4:1 Feb 2011 MECC: DJS tasked the MECC to develop a rationale to justify the student-faculty ratio standard introduced by the Skelton Panel

18 Stage 1. Literature Review
APPENDIX A Stage 1. Literature Review

19 External View – US News and World Report Rankings
OPMEP STFRS cannot be modeled after top tier US Graduate Schools Formula Weighting Value Variables Weights Faculty resources for academic year 20% Faculty compensation 35% Percent faculty with top terminal degree in their field 15% Percent faculty that is  full time 5% Student/faculty ratio Class size, 1-19 students 30% Class size, 50+ students 10% US News And World Report Formula for Ranking US Colleges and Universities

20 External View Cont’d PME vs US Graduate School Faculty Considerations
Categories Professional Military Education US Graduate School Education S/F Ratios JPME schools rely on S/F ratio as the primary organizational metric to maintain steady-state high quality in-residence professional educational. Civilian schools use S/F ratio primarily for marketing purposes; S/F ratios published by schools are used by US News and World Report (USNWR) to rank schools based on reputation and prestige. JPME schools are not ranked. Curriculum Development No curriculum developers; since faculty members may be teaching outside their area of expertise, collaborative course development is required Individuals are experts in the areas they teach and develop their own curricula Teaching Assistants Faculty responsible for all teaching Teaching assistants occasionally available in masters’ programs Research and Writing Faculty responsible for all research and writing Research Assistants often provided Project and Field-Studies Advisors Faculty members Preparation and Development Much required due to high faculty turnover Minimal required due to small turnover of core faculty Higher Headquarters’ Support Requirements Significant Typically limited to the areas of grant application/execution Direct Support to Deployed Forces Required Not Required Deployments Research and Project Support to Senior Leaders Research is required but at the discretion of the faculty Functional Area of Expertise Faculty often times teach outside areas of specialization Faculty members teach within their areas of specialization Classroom Experience Faculty members routinely assigned with no prior teaching experience More stable faculty means few faculty members are without prior teaching experiences

21 External View Cont’d PME vs US Graduate School Student Considerations
Categories Professional Military Education US Graduate School Education Student Profile Students are year professionals; Therefore requires higher level of faculty preparation. Students are between 23 and 30 years old with fewer than 5 years of professional experience Contact Hours Multi-disciplinary programs require students to work outside their academic backgrounds. This requires greater student-faculty interaction than in a single discipline program. Single discipline focus Learning Environment Laptop and I-Pads maybe Social Engineering/ Mobile Devices probable Products Project Term Papers Thesis Headquarter(HQ) Demands Administrators required to support HQ calls for data and project support . No HQ exists which allows administrators to focus primarily on managing programs in support of the faculty and students Administrative Requirements Administrative requirements (e.g., all mandatory annual Service training, such as safety, EEO, Information Assurance, SAEDA; having to act as your own personnel, time, pay, transportation clerks; contracting) External Support Faculty requested to support requests from external oversight bodies (such as: MECC, MECC WG, USAWC Board of Visitors, DA Historical Advisory Committee, Army Learning Coordination Council) Minimal support to external bodies required

22 External View Cont’d PME vs US Graduate School Administration Considerations Categories Professional Military Education US Graduate School Education Headquarter(HQ) Demands Administrators required to support HQ calls for data and project support . No HQ exists which allows administrators to focus primarily on managing programs in support of the faculty and students Administrative Requirements Administrative requirements (e.g., all mandatory annual Service training, such as safety, EEO, Information Assurance, SAEDA; having to act as your own personnel, time, pay, transportation clerks; contracting) Single discipline focus External Support Faculty requested to support requests from external oversight bodies (such as: MECC, MECC WG, USAWC Board of Visitors, DA Historical Advisory Committee, Army Learning Coordination Council) Minimal support to external bodies required Selection of Military and Possibly Agency Faculty Members Limited control on selection. Personnel system-dependent. Results in increased teaching burden and decreased development time for core faculty. Faculty are selected for their expertise in the particular discipline. Technology Transformation Often severely limited because of accessibility of desired technology and information assurance requirements. Technology becoming more available and faculty development on use of technology is available.

23 Bibliography Bedard, K., & Kuhn, P. (2008). Where Class Size Really Matters: Class Size and Student Ratings of Instructor Effectiveness. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), doi: /m.econedurev Brehman, G. E., Jr. (1978). A Study of Faculty Workload in Pennsylvania State-owned Institutions of Higher Education, (pp. 28). Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State Dept. of Education Burnsed, B. (2011). Liberal Arts Colleges with Lowest Student-Faculty Ratios. US News and World Report, (April 26, 2011). Retrieved from Cartter, A.M. (1966). An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Chapman, L., & Ludlow, L. (2010). Can Downsizing College Class Sizes Augment Student Outcomes? An Investigation of the Effects of Class Size on Student Learning. Journal of General Education, 59(2), 105- De Paola, M., & Scoppa, V. (2011). The effects of Class Size on the achievement of college students. The Manchester School, 79(6), doi: /j x Edmonson, J. B., & Mulder, F. J. (1924). Size of class as a factor in university instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 1-12. Englehart, J. (2007). The Centrality of Context in Learning from Further Class Size Research. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), Hinrichsen, B. B., Jackson, J. E., Johnson, C. E., Templeton, R. A., Flannigan, P. N., Lawrence, B. J. (2002). A Study of Faculty Workload as a Means of Improving the Student Learning Environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Eduational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Hofmann, J. M., & et al. (1994). Adult Learners: Why Were They Successful? Lessons Learned via an Adult Learner Task Force. Paper presented at the Adult Learner Conference, Columbia, SC. Imel, S. (1999). Using Groups in Adult Learning: Theory and Practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 19(1),

24 Bibliography Cont’d Jaciw, A. (2011). The Use of Moderator Effects for Drawing Generalized Causal Inferences (pp. 10). Evanston, IL: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE) Johnson, I. Y. (2010). Class Size and Student Performance at a Public Research University: A Cross-Classified Model. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), doi: /s y Kokkelenberg, E. C., Dillon, M., & Christy, S. M. (2008). The Effects of Class Size on Student Grades at a Public University. Economics of Education Review, 27(2), doi: /j.econedurev McKeachie, W. J. (1980). Class Size, Large Classes, and Multiple Sections. Academe, 66(1), National Council of Teachers of English, U. I. L. (1998). NCTE Position on Class Size and Teacher Workload, K-College (pp. 10). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English Redlinger, L. J., & Valcik, N. A. (2008). Using return on investment models of programs and faculty for strategic planning. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2008(140), doi: /ir.272 Shea, C. (1998). Do smaller classes mean better schools? Economists aren't so sure. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(30), A17-A18. Sibley, J., & Parmelee, D. X. (2008). Knowledge Is No Longer Enough: Enhancing Professional Education with Team-Based Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008(116), doi: /tl.332 Sweitzer,Kyle, & Volkwein, Fredericks(2009). Prestige Among Graduate and Professional Schools: Comparing the U.S. News’ Graduate School Reputation Ratings Between Disciplines,

25 Appendix B. Internal View

26 Findings Cont’d First and Second Order Effects of Changing the Standard Reduced quality of seminar-based education as a result of increase in number of students per seminar. Forced larger class sizes which could not be accommodated with a number of colleges already operating at the limits of active, adult based learning. May require shifting personnel from other organizations into a greater teaching load, thereby degrading their ability to perform their primary missions. Affect curriculum development and evolution will suffer with fewer faculty. Reduce the opportunities for faculty and students of the Services’ schools to support the overall mission of the school. Diminish faculty development opportunities. All of the above will have an adverse effect on the ability to recruit and retain quality faculty.

27 Findings Cont’d Survey concerns include:
Large class sizes( 7 of 12 Schools reported class sizes of students) Ability of services to provide faculty with the requisite qualifications Services ability to fill authorizations (JFSC authorizations filled at only 75% to 80%) Agency budget cuts resulting in sustained losses in faculty provided by agencies and requirement to fill agency vacancies with Title 10 hires Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) actions which reduce core faculty

28 JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys
CGSC CNCS ACSC USMCCSC JFSC 1. What is your student to faculty ratio during a typical classroom period for one seminar? 16:1 The ratio is 12 or 13:1 depending on the seminar size (i.e., AY 12 has a total of 514 students divided among 40 seminars 7-to students per seminar. Two faculty members usually attend a seminar. JAWS/ 5.25:1-14:1 JCWS/ 4.25:1-17:1 2. What is your preferred student to faculty ratio during an ideal classroom period for one seminar? 3. How do you determine your student to faculty ratio? OPEP + SOP dated 8 Sep 10 4. Who counts as a fulltime equivalent (FTE) at your school? FTE teaches core and electives, curriculum development and research Faculty members conducting full-time teaching, curriculum development, research. Fulltime faculty who conduct only teaching duties must teach at least three courses to be considered a FTE. Full time faculty members include personnel assigned full-time as faculty Those that teach core and electives and curriculum developers count as one FTE.

29 JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d
CGSC CNCS ACSC USMCCSC JFSC 5. How do you use adjunct faculty members? SMEs who teach IA part-time electives .2 FTE Adjuncts teach core and elective courses We do not count adjunct faculty external to Marine Corps University Primarily to teach electives 6. What other positions are used to determine your ratio? Basic Instructor: Teaching FTE Faculty who are assigned to ACSC’s Research Department or are conducting full time research count as one FTE. Deployed resident faculty count as one FTE. Course directors, dean, director, deputy director/dean of students, and war-gamming personnel. Only faculty members who teach electives or a series of classes are counted in the partial count of faculty. Chairs, Senior Fellows, adjuncts, and others count a variable amount determined by the amount of time dedicated to JCWS, JAWS, and AJPME. 7. How do you determine the % each non-full time faculty counts in your ratio? Curriculum Developer: .33 Teaching FTE, .67 CD FTE Leader Digital Development Center (CPOF, and simulations education): .33 Teaching FTE;.67 non- Department Director: .67 Supervisory FTE, .33 Teaching FTE Library Support: Research FTE, 0 Teaching FTE ACSC CF, Dean, and Director of Joint Education count as a FTE; Adjuncts receive a part time equivalent (PTE) credit of .25 for every core course or elective they teach. Partial count is awarded to personnel who teach electives and classes. Their contribution ranges from 0.25 to MCU scholar teaches one elective he/she will count as 0.25. Faculty member teaches only an elective or only part of the year: .2 FTE

30 JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d
CGSC CNSC ACSC CSC JFSC 8. What has the trend been for the overall student/faculty ratios at your school over the last three years? AY 2011: 3.80:1 AY 2010: 3.86:1 AY 2009: 3.93:1 AY 08 4:01:1 (highest) AY :1 AY 12/ 3.99:1 AY 11 (ratio reported last year) 4.88:1 AY 10 (ratio reported year before last) 4.54:1 AY 12/ 4.1: 1 AY 11/4:1 AY 10/ 4:1 The only trend has been variability. JFSC has been in and out of compliance with the OPMEP standard 9. Do you feel the ratio is appropriate for your school? Yes. Yes, with full manning 10. If you could change it, what would you propose as justification? No Change. Current ratio provides sufficient manning to support quality education Recommend this study to determine whether the status quo, some adjustment, or a change would be in order No Change. I would not change the ratio, but allow for flexibility in counting personnel who develop, assess, or assist in the delivery of the curricula. No change. A change would only alter the threshold of failure 11. Is there pressure from your parent organization to raise the ratio No Yes. This entire study has its roots in a collaborative effort by the OPNAV staff and the Air Force staff to raise the issue of the CJCS requirement and its rationale Indirectly. the increase in student without an increase in authorized faculty. 12. Are you expecting your budget to be reduced this academic year? Next year? Yes. Unknown USNWC took an end-strength decrement of 22 for FY 11 with more decrements planned for the out-years. Yes. Yes. Not so much this year, but definitely next year. Unknown in both cases. 13. Are you enhancing your current residence course this academic year through the use of multimedia, online materials, or social media? Yes. On-going Yes. Exploring more effective means of leveraging multimedia and online materials to enhance student learning. Yes, except for social media Have been for years.

31 JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d
CGSC CNCS ACSC USMCSC JFSC 13. Are you enhancing your current residence course this academic year through the use of multimedia, online materials, or social media? Yes. On-going Yes. Exploring more effective means of leveraging multimedia and online materials to enhance student learning. Yes, except for social media Have been for years. 14. Would you consider adding blended learning opportunities to your course in the coming year if it could be moved from the non-resident section of the OPMEP to be acceptable additions to a resident course? N/A 15. What potential challenges do you see that would threaten your ability to meet the required STFR next year? Replacing civilian faculty losses from normal attrition with active duty military faculty Increase of 50 USN students in CNC&S (ILC) over the next three academic years. Faculty shortfalls will eventually occur. Non-forecasted SERB or RIF CMC has directed an increase in student attending resident ILS and CLS. Without additional faculty, CSC will not have sufficient faculty to meet the 4-to-1 ratio. Services filling authorizations at only 75% to 80% 16. What has been your greatest challenge for meeting the STFRS for the last 3 years Limited availability of active duty military faculty Meeting the 60:40 military mix required for a large faculty that teaches both ILC & SLC Filling rated billets. ACSC can expect 78% fill. ACSC can normally plan on a 90% entitlement fill of support officer billets. Obtaining qualified officers/USMC included) to deliver the curriculum. Lack of expertise to deliver a quality seminar to a very experienced group of students. JFSC has been in and out of compliance with the OPMEP standard. Services filling authorizations at only 75% to 80%

32 JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d
CGSC CNCS ACSC CSC JFSC 17. What would be affected if the ratio were to be 5:1 Change would detract from accomplishment of the faculty domains USNWC would lose significant faculty billets; Faculty development and then curricula development would likely diminish; the institutional mission capacity would be degraded ACSC could not perform its curriculum development or research duties The obvious answer is that we would lose 10 faculty members. As far as second and third order effects, faculty would work harder, fewer electives would offered, faculty professional development off-sites (sabbaticals) would disappear—ultimately, some faculty would probably quit If we go to 5:1 and are manned at 80% we have the same problem, only more severe 18. Are you expecting student throughput to change significantly this AY? Next AY No. No. 8 more international students for ILC. Additionally, the Navy determined this past summer that it would grow the CNC&S (ILC) student body by 50 students over the next three fiscal years. In total, this would add 4 seminars to our ILC program. Reduction of 20 students per year for AY Not this academic year. As described above we will increase 38 Marine students over the next four years.

33 JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey
USAWC AWC CNW MCWAR 1. What is your student to faculty ratio during a typical classroom period for one seminar? Core: 16:1 Electives: 1-56:1 Core: 15:1; Electives: 6-12:1 Core: Varies between 5:1 and 14:1 depending on curriculum and Trimester Electives: :1 27 total students divided into two seminars. 2. What is your preferred student to faculty ratio during an ideal classroom period for one seminar? 16:1 15:1 10-16:1 13-14:1 3. How do you determine your student to faculty ratio? OPMEP; SOP Dtd. Jan 08 OPMEP; SOP Dtd. Sep 10 JS J-7 SOP of 9 Jan 2008 Metrics from the OPMEP. 4. Who counts as a fulltime equivalent at your school? 1 FTE teaches core and electives, curriculum development and research All assigned faculty count as 1 FTE including Deans and Dept Chairs Faculty principal duties for developing and teaching ILC & SLC PME are counted as 1.0 FTE. Each faculty member is counted as a full-time equivalent, including the Director, Dean and Associate Dean. 5. How do you use adjunct faculty members? Teach part-time electives Teach electives and advise on research projects Teach electives and perform research We use outside faculty members for some classes. Not counted in the ratio

34 JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d
USAWC AWC CNW MCWAR 6. What other positions are used to determine your ratio? Dean (1 FTE) Dept. Chairs(1 FTE) Director Institutional Assessment (1 FTE) Occasionally, we may include Vice Commandant Dean of Academics, our Associate Dean of Academics for Electives and Directed Research and our Institutional Research Professor meet the OPMEP definition and SOP requirements: However, not counted in ratio None. 7. How do you determine the % each non full-time faculty counts in your ratio? those who teach part-time electives .2 FTE adjuncts are rated at .25 up to .50 Adjunct faculty teach in the elective program count as 0.25 for each Trimester Non full-time faculty not counted in ratio 8. What has the trend been for the overall student/faculty ratios at your school over the last three years? FY 12/ 3.23:1 FY 11/ 3.46:1; FY 10/ 3.28:1 AY 12/ 3.4:1 AY 11/ 3.38:1 AY 10/ 3.42:1 Number of faculty available exceeds the number required, i.e. AY 11 < 3.5 AY 10 << 3.5 AY 09 <3.5 Steady. 9. Do you feel the ratio is appropriate for your school? Depends on Counting Rule: Faculty filling staff and administrative requirements are counted in STFR Yes. Faculty is fully employed and USNWC has adjusted workload expectations Yes. 10. If you could change it, what would you propose as justification? Before applying SOP 5:1; Applying SOP 3.5;; Seminar-based with seminar ratio of 16:1 Requires further study; AWC has only 64 Authorized faculty billets; Requires 70 FTE to support student throughput of Requires study; civilian-military faculty mix has changed significantly since 1989; statutory and policy expectations have grown accordingly Wouldn’t. It is fine as is.

35 JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d
USAWC AWC CNW MCWAR 11. Is there pressure from your parent organization to raise the ratio Yes. 8:1 or seminar Moderate: Alternatives considered including Navy Model which would result in loss of 70 Slots. Rejected by CSAF This entire study has its roots in a collaborative effort by the OPNAV staff and the Air Force staff to raise the issue of the CJCS requirement and its rationale No. 12. Are you expecting your budget to be reduced this academic year? Next year? No. Unknown Yes. 35% budget cut expected USNWC took an end-strength decrement of 22 for FY 11 with more decrements planned for the out-years. No for this year. Yes for next. 13. Are you enhancing your current residence course this academic year through the use of multimedia, online materials, or social media? Yes. On-going Yes We currently use IPADs, electronic and paper readings, and the Blackboard learning management system within our academic program. We use blackboard to deliver our entire curriculum and Microsoft Office for the calendar 14. Would you consider adding blended learning opportunities to your course in the coming year if it could be moved from the non-resident section of the OPMEP to be acceptable additions to a resident course? N/A Different topic for a different time

36 JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d
USAWC AWC CNW MCWAR 15. What potential challenges do you see that would threaten your ability to meet the required STFR next year? Services fail to provide JPME II faculty; 60:40 military faculty ratio; balance of military and Title 10 faculty Reliance on Academic Centers at Air Univ to meet faculty requirements. Officer force reductions Balancing operational currency with CJCS requirements for SLC faculty; Recent SERB will affect a significant number of the USNWC faculty Large budget crunch that could cause outside services/agencies to withdraw their faculty 16. What has been your greatest challenge for meeting the STFRS for the last 3 years Force drawdowns such as O-6 Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) and on-again, off-again freezes against Title X hiring Meeting the 60:40 mix required for a large faculty that teaches both ILC & SLC and meet SLC military faculty requirements. Budget shortfalls 17. What would be affected if the ratio were to be 4:1 Could lose 40 Faculty; program destroyed Could sustain the core but reduce outreach, slow curriculum changes, reduce number and variety of electives and actually force further reductions in our ability to respond to taskings USNWC would lose significant faculty billets: faculty development and curricula development would likely diminish as Dept. Chairs would have less flexibility: institutional mission capacity would be degraded; only one (educational) of four vital mission functions of the college could be achieved. If we went to 4:1, we would possibly use more guest speakers 18. Are you expecting student throughput to change significantly this AY? Next AY Yes. Current increase in 17 IF. Next year plus 13 IF; Could increase US Army students by 20 and still meet OPMEP and Law None. Remain at 245 students None. None

37 JPME Senior Level Colleges
NWC ICAF 1. What is your student to faculty ratio during a typical classroom period for one seminar? 13:1 15:1 2. What is your preferred student to faculty ratio during an ideal classroom period for one seminar? 12:1 3. How do you determine your student to faculty ratio? IAW OPMEP IAW OPMEP. 4. Who counts as a fulltime equivalent at your school? Everyone assigned to the NWC faculty counts as “1” FTE. Includes the Dean of Faculty, Associate Deans, Department Chairs, Course Directors and International Affairs Adviser Everyone assigned to the ICAF faculty counts as "1" FTE, although not all FTEs teach. Includes the Dean of Faculty, Associate Deans, Department Chairs, Course Directors and International Affairs Adviser. 5. How do you use adjunct faculty members? Not used. ICAF does not use adjunct faculty members. 6. What other positions are used to determine your ratio? None None. 7. How do you determine the % each non-full time faculty counts in your ratio? the Commandant, Chief of Staff/Dean of Students, and Director of Institutional Research and Assessment not counted in ratio Per ICAF business case. 8. What has the trend been for the overall student/faculty ratios at your school over the last three years? AY 12 /3.35:1 AY11 /3.45:1 AY10 /3.68:1 FY 11/ 3.5:1 FY 10/3.4:1 FY 09/3.5:1 9. Do you feel the ratio is appropriate for your school? We believe 3.5:1 is appropriate for National War College Yes.

38 JPME Senior Level Colleges
NWC ICAF 10. If you could change it, what would you propose as justification? Would not change it No Change. 11. Is there pressure from your parent organization to raise the ratio No. Yes. July 2010 SecDef budget efficiency cuts. Projected POM cuts 12. Are you expecting your budget to be reduced this academic year? Next year? Unsure. Reduced ≈5% from FY10 to FY11─Programmed to reduce another ≈8% from FY10 levels in FY13, but may be directed to take that reduction this FY─ After FY 13, programmed to reduce another ≈3% from FY10 levels AY : Amount TBD. AY : $1.18M out of current Impact – 3 faculty members and on support staff 13. Are you enhancing your current residence course this academic year through the use of multimedia, online materials, or social media? Yes; moving to deliver all our course materials via BlackBoard; Additionally continuing exploitation of a variety of multimedia applications as appropriate Yes; ICAF is moving to deliver all course materials via Blackboard 14. Would you consider adding blended learning opportunities to your course in the coming year if it could be moved from the non-resident section of the OPMEP to be acceptable additions to a resident course? N/A 15. What potential challenges do you see that would threaten your ability to meet the required STFR next year? Budget reduction and/or hiring freeze; Reduction in faculty from the Services and/or Agencies (e.g., State Department); NDU decision to shift military and/or agency faculty normally assigned to National War College for duties elsewhere within the University; Increase in student load without provision for proportional increases in faculty staffing ICAF faculty is funded from nine independent sources. Processes and cuts are not coordinated and have multiplier impact.

39 JPME Senior Level Colleges
NWC ICAF 16. What has been your greatest challenge for meeting the STFRS for the last 3 years Title 10 retirements/resignations coupled with Title 10 hiring delays/freezes imposed by NDU and/or DOD; Vacancies created by Title 10 retirements/resignations must be filled via new Title 10 hires because we can get no additional military or agency faculty Maintaining the number of MOU/MOA civilian agency faculty to ensure 3.5:1 ratio 17. What would be affected if the ratio were to be 4:1 Increasing our ratio to 4:1 would damage the quality of our educational program: Force us to assign new faculty as primary seminar leaders before they were ready─ And/or force us to increase the number of students per seminar; -would also significantly reduce, or even eliminate, opportunities for faculty sabbaticals First impact would be on amount of time available of professional development and research. Second impact would be to shift some current seminars to lectures. Would prefer to see throughput reduced after that to maintain the essential nature of current program. 18. Are you expecting student throughput to change significantly this AY? Next AY Yes. reduce the number of Navy students in next year's class by 5. without replacements from USMC or Coast Guard leave us well short of the OPMEP requirement that we must have approximately equal representation. DCPMS might pull all 13 of the DSLDP students. If so must offsite with other agencies in the national security arena AY 11-12: No. AY reductions in DSLDP students.

40 JPME In-Residence Student Faculty Model (Senior Level Colleges)
SLC In-Residence Seminar-based Instruction (1-4 Faculty per Seminar) Faculty NWC, ICAF, JAWS ( 1/3, 1/3,1/3) Military (100% Military with ILC or SLC graduates with relevant joint experience JFSC Host/non-host; non-host equally divided (Services) 60/40 75 % with SLC Degree or JQO (Services) Faculty Student Ratio =3.5:1 (13-16 Students per Seminar) Students NWC, ICAF, JAWS, (1/3,1/3,1/3) (Services) 60/40 Host/non-host >1 officer from each non-host Dept. Seminars) (Services/ Military faculty either prepare, design, conduct research, or teach PME. This provides sufficient flexibility for all colleges to meet stringent student:faculty ratio requirements.

41 JPME In-Residence Student Faculty Model (Intermediate Level Colleges)
ILC In-Residence Seminar-based Instruction (1-4 Faculty per Seminar) Faculty (Services) Non host >5% each) JFSC Military Mix (1/3,1/3,1/3)* (Services) 75 % ILC or SLC graduates or JQOs ** Faculty Student Ratio= 4.0:1 (12-16 Students per Seminar) Students JCWS(Allocated in accordance with Services JDAL billets) >1 officer from each non-host Military Depts Seminars) (Services/ Military faculty either prepare, design, conduct research, or teach PME. This provides sufficient flexibility for all colleges to meet stringent student:faculty ratio requirements. *For JFSC, all military faculty should be graduates of an ILC or SLC program and have comparable joint experience **In PME institutions where a single faculty is indistinguishably responsible for both intermediate and senior JPME curriculum, total host military department faculty shall be no more than 60 percent of the total military faculty whose primary duty is student instruction of JPME; 75% of the military faculty should be graduates of a senior-level PME program or be JQOs…OPMEP

42 APPENDIX C Stage 3. Case Studies
Case Studies are available at https://jdeis.js.mil/jdeis/index.jsp?pindex=0

43 Findings: Internal View Steady State Faculty Requirements
Standard faculty annual teaching load = (# of core course & electives) + Curriculum/course development + Student advising/counseling/mentoring/evaluation + Management/administrative duties + Outreach, research/publication Core curriculum faculty requirements: Total# of students divided by # of students/seminar = A: (# of seminars for each core course) # of core courses x # of seminars/core course = B: (# of seminar leads/year for core courses) # of faculty leads/Per Field Studies seminars = C: (# of FS leads/year) Core and FS Curriculum Faculty Required = B + C (FTEs) This is a rough calculation of our staffing requirements if we adhere to the educational approach just discussed First box defines our standard faculty teaching load We halve the standard for new faculty Also halve the standard for the academic leadership (Dean, 3 associate deans, 2 department chairs, 7 core course directors) Second box calculates how many core seminars we have to cover – and thus how many Faculty Seminar Leads (FSLs) we need Third box takes our current authorized staffing (3.5:1) and computes how many seminars we can cover Adjusts for new faculty and academic leadership carrying only half workload With 35 faculty covering 3 seminars each and 29 faculty covering an average of 1.5 seminars each, we can cover 148 seminars, exactly our requirement  no flex While this calculation accounts for 25% new faculty, as often as not we turnover more than 25% of the faculty in a year – this year the turnover was 33%, and we anticipate about the same next year Our current faculty staffing of 66 (2 above 3.5:1) is anomalous Shortfalls require asking some faculty to teach more than a standard (or half-standard) load, which impinges on educational quality Available faculty resources:  Total faculty Authorized = D (Based on OPMEP Guidance) - X (new half load) - Y (academic Part-time load) FTE Adjusted = full load: part-time load Can Maximum FTEs Available meet Faculty Required? Is OPMEP S/F Ratio acceptable

44 Faculty Workload (Typical)
Duties Man-hours (per yr) Man-hours (per wk) Instructional Tasks 1147.0 22.9 Curriculum Development 136.0 2.7 Student Counseling 406.2 8.1 Faculty Development 388.0 7.8 Miscellaneous/Admin 553.2 11.1 Teaching Team 112.4 2.2 Additional Tasks 56.0 1.1 Total 2798.8 Presented here is a typical Faculty Workload Summary (Based on 2004 and 2006 Manpower Surveys). DUTIES (Examples) Prepare for classroom instruction Instructional Tasks Conduct classroom instruction Evaluate/Grade student performance Lsn/Crse authorship (Common Core & AOWC) Curriculum Development Tasks Lsn/Crse authorship [AAPs, ASIs, JAWS, & SOF) Prepare/Participate in PICs and CDRs Student Counseling SGA administrative duties SGA observation of staff group SGA support to Guest Speaker Program MMAS thesis committee Oral boards (MMAS, Strategist, etc.) Faculty Development FDP1 - Basic Instructor Crse (all Instructors via DAD) FDP2 - Common Core, AOWC, & AAPs (each Dept) FDP3 - Author's Crse (each author via DAD) Prepare for FDP2 FDP4 - Ldr Professional Dev (all via CGSC) Staff & Faculty Updates Adjunct Faculty Miscellaneous/Admin Support Form (OER/NCOER/Civ Eval) Electronic Correspondence Doctrine & Publication Reviews Subject Matter Expert Exchange (SMEE) trips Individual Development Plan Professional Reading & Research Attend/Participate in professional symposia Administrative Coordination for Guest Speakers Teaching Team Attend Team Meetings Team Teach as an Asst Instructor Teaching Team Train-up Additional Tasks Visit Joint regional commands Research & write articles for professional journals

45 The official ratio is 3.8:1, which complies with OPMEP guidelines of no more than 4:1. The count is based on Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) for the following categories of faculty: supervisory, teaching, curriculum development, and research, per J7’s OPMEP counting SOP dated 8 Sep 10.

46 National War College Faculty Staffing Requirements
Standard faculty annual teaching load = 3 core course & 1-2 electives + Curriculum/course development + Student advising/counseling/mentoring/evaulation + Management/administrative duties + Outreach, research/publication Core curriculum faculty requirements  /seminar = 17 seminars/core course  6 core courses x 17 seminars = 102 faculty seminar leads (FSL)/yr 23 Field Studies 2 faculty/FS = 46 FSL/yr TOTAL FSL REQUIRED/YR = 148 This is a rough calculation of our staffing requirements if we adhere to the educational approach just discussed First box defines our standard faculty teaching load We halve the standard for new faculty Also halve the standard for the academic leadership (Dean, 3 associate deans, 2 department chairs, 7 core course directors) Second box calculates how many core seminars we have to cover – and thus how many Faculty Seminar Leads (FSLs) we need Third box takes our current authorized staffing (3.5:1) and computes how many seminars we can cover Adjusts for new faculty and academic leadership carrying only half workload With 35 faculty covering 3 seminars each and 29 faculty covering an average of 1.5 seminars each, we can cover 148 seminars, exactly our requirement  no flex While this calculation accounts for 25% new faculty, as often as not we turnover more than 25% of the faculty in a year – this year the turnover was 33%, and we anticipate about the same next year Our current faculty staffing of 66 (2 above 3.5:1) is anomalous Shortfalls require asking some faculty to teach more than a standard (or half-standard) load, which impinges on educational quality Faculty resources 3.5:1  Total faculty required for 221 students = 64 = 192 FSL/yr std teaching load)  Adjusted for half load: ≈ 16 new faculty/yr (average) FSL/yr 13 faculty in academic leadership FSL/yr TOTAL FSL 3.5:1 = 148 (meets requirement, best case)

47 National War College Steady State STFR Justification
Seminar-based Instruction (6 sequential core courses taught in 17 seminars + 23 Field Studies seminars + 4 electives) 64 Faculty full load half load 221 Students 13 students/seminar 1 faculty/seminar STFR 3.45:1 This gives thumbnail sketch of our STFR “steady state” A couple of things to note Equal distribution of U.S. military students and U.S. military faculty among the 3 military departments Size of civilian component of student body Current faculty staffing Two more than needed for 3.5:1, so appears we’re “fat” But much higher faculty turnover coming into this year (23 new faculty ≈ 33%)  means we’re 4 seminar leads short unless some faculty carry more than a standard (or half-standard) workload Military Land/Sea/Air 9/9/8 Civilian DoD/Non-DoD 25/13 Military Land/Sea/Air 43/44/43 Civilian DoD/Non-DoD 24/33/34 Faculty contact hrs/wk 13 Justification based on evidence of steady-state conditions satisfied by case study

48 S/F Ratio Justification (U.S. Army Command and General Staff College)
Instructi onal Model Seminar- based Instructio n (Staff Groups) Teaching Teams (12 Instructor s per Team, 4 Staff Groups per Team) Faculty 366 Faculty (FTE) 12 Instructor s per Team 70% Civ/30% Mil (Goal) 74.2% Civ/25.8 % (Current) Non-host Ratio Sea Svc 8.5% Air Force 9.2% JQO Experience 75 % with ILC or SLC or S/F Ratio 3.80:1 OPMEP 5.33:1 Team 16:1 Classroo m Student s 1390 Students (2 starts) 16 Students per Staff Group 4 Staff Groups per Team 87 Staff Groups Host/Non-host Student Mix 71/29 (Current) Non-host/SG >1 officer from each service The official ratio is 3.8:1, which complies with OPMEP guidelines of no more than 4:1. The count is based on Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) for the following categories of faculty: supervisory, teaching, curriculum development, and research, per J7’s OPMEP counting SOP dated 8 Sep 10. The student load for this OPMEP count is 1390 students (1054 in the August 2011 class and 336 in the February 2011 class). The number of students in the current count is up 15 (nearly one staff group) from 1375 in the previous report. The number of OPMEP faculty FTEs for the current count is , down slightly from in the previous count. The 3.8:1 ratio is the result of dividing 1390 students by 366 faculty FTEs. The Sea Service percentage of the military faculty is 8.5%, and the Air Force percentage is 9.2%. These percentages meet the OPMEP military faculty guidelines of a minimum of 5% for each non-host Military Department. The civilian and military faculty percentages are 74.2% and 25.8%, respectively. These percentages reverse the trend of moving away from the goal over the last three reporting periods, with each percentage now one point closer to the goal than the previous report (75.2% and 24.8%) six months ago. Army/non-Army ratio is 64.2% for class and 73.2% for class 12-01, for a combined ratio of 71.0%. Non-host per staff group (21 and 66 staff groups for and respectively, 87 total) (class 11-02/class 12-01/total) Air Force 1.38/1.00/1.09 Sea Service 1.00/1.00/1.00 International 2.24/1.05/1.33 Faculty experience: 366 total faculty JQO 79 (22%) SLC 53 (14%) PhD 56 (15%)

49 USAWC Steady State Student-Faculty Ratio (AY12)
(6 Core Courses taught in 23 Seminars Seminar-based Instruction 114 FTE Faculty 1 FTE; .2 FTE) Military (Land, Sea ,Air) ( 30, 11, 9) (50 FTE) Civilian/Int’l (64FTE) STFR 3.23:1 (16 1 Faculty per Seminar) 368 Students (Land, Sea, Air) (210,34,32) (DoD, Non-DoD, IFs) Civilians/IFs (21,4,67) Faculty Contact Hrs/wk (12 for planning; 15-22 in reality) Military faculty either prepare, design, conduct research, or teach PME. This provides sufficient flexibility for all colleges to meet stringent student:faculty ratio requirements. We will go to 24 seminars next year; numbers and ratios will not change dramatically, as Army resourced us for two additional faculty.

50 ACSC Steady State STFRS Justification
(9 Core Courses taught in 40 Seminars) Seminar-based Instruction 66 Faculty load; half load) Military AF/AR/MA/NA/IO) ( 68,8,4,2,3) Civilian (DoD) (30) STFR 3.99:1 ( Faculty per Seminar) 514 Students (AF, AR,MA, NA) (341,43,10, 30) (DoD,Non-DoD,Int’l) (14,1,76) Faculty Contact Hrs/wk (15) Military faculty either prepare, design, conduct research, or teach PME. This provides sufficient flexibility for all colleges to meet stringent student:faculty ratio requirements. Justification provided based on evidence of steady-state conditions satisfied based on case study.

51 AWC Steady State STFR Justification
(6 Core Courses taught in 16 Seminars*) Seminar-based Instruction 64 Faculty load; half load) Military (Air, Land,Sea) ( 21, 7, 9, 2 Int’l) Civilian (DAF,Non-DAF) (22, 3) STFR 3.78:1** 3.33:1*** (15 1 Faculty per Seminar) 242 Students (Air, Land,Sea) (132, 34,21) (DoD, & Non-DoD,Int’l) (9, 46) Faculty Contact Hrs/wk (12-15) *Includes Regional and Cultural Studies, with 2 faculty leads each) ** Using faculty AUTHORIZED to AWC; does not include adjuncts; *** w/adjuncts, 3.33:1

52 College of Naval Warfare (CNW), US Naval War College (ILC)
Seminar-based Instruction 154 Faculty Authorized Non host >5% each) 75 % with ILC or SLC or JQO Experience Faculty Student Ratio: 322 Students* 41/36 Host/non-host Military student mix >1 officer from each non-host Military faculty either prepare, design, conduct research, or teach PME. This provides sufficient flexibility for all colleges to meet stringent student:faculty ratio requirements. *Includes international students

53 Industrial College of the Armed Forces (SLC)
Seminar-based Instruction 94 Faculty ( 1/3, 1/3,1/3) Military Faculty 75 % with SLC Degree or JQO or Joint Exp Faculty Student Ratio 3.41:1 321 Students Land,Sea, Air (62,61,61) (DoD,Non-DoD,IF,IndF*) (67,36,25,9) Civilians Military faculty either prepare, design, conduct research, or teach PME. This provides sufficient flexibility for all colleges to meet stringent student:faculty ratio requirements. *IF (International Fellows); IndF (Industry Fellows) .

54 JAWS: SLC 42 Students 12.25 Faculty STFR (13 Seminar) 3.43:1
(3 Core Courses taught in 3 Seminars/Individual Thesis Research Seminar-based Instruction 12.25 Faculty Military (Land,Sea,Air) 2/3/2 DOD Civilian 5 Academic Dean .25 STFR 3.43:1 42 Students (13 Seminar) 9/9/9 Civilian (DoD,Non-DoD,IF) 5/6/3 Faculty Contact Hrs/wk 15-20 Military faculty either prepare, design, conduct research, or teach PME. This provides sufficient flexibility for all colleges to meet stringent student:faculty ratio requirements. Justification provided based on evidence of steady-state conditions satisfied based on case study.

55 Seminar-based Instruction
JCWS: ILC Seminar-based Instruction 3-instructor team/seminar 63.25 Faculty .75 Adjunct Military (Land/Sea/Air) 13/19/14 DOD Civilian 17 Academic Dean .25 STFR 4.03:1 255 Students/class 4 classes/year 298/300/333 DOD Civilian/Int’l Fellows 13/72 Faculty Contact Hrs/wk 26


Download ppt "Directorate for Joint Force Development (J-7), The Joint Staff"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google