Skip to main content

Article – A Response To ‘Does Army Need Better Educated Soldiers?’

The professional military education investigation paper titled Does Army Need Better Educated Soldiers? raises a great question and my short response would be “yes.”

The opening lines of the paper accurately describe the perception that the opportunities for military education in the Australian Army are for officers. While this perception may be incorrect, I feel that opportunities such as the Civil Schooling Program, the Army Tertiary Education Program and Defence Assisted Study Scheme are not apparent to soldiers or not made obvious by those who command soldiers. Furthermore, there is a lack of acknowledgment that soldiers need time to study or conduct professional military education. Whether embedded in a unit battle rhythm, a training continuum or posting cycle, the reliance on soldiers to volunteer their time to study in an ad hoc fashion is insufficient when compared with a structured, more formalised approach. In establishing a culture of lifelong learning, there needs to be consistent exposure to both formal and informal learning opportunities.

As the paper mentions, Army frames its intellectual need around the skills of communication, thinking and decision-making. The development of these skills requires an individual to read. The Scholastic Australia Reading Report of 2016 indicates that nearly two thirds of children up to 17 years were not reading enough at school. Various other references suggest that people have become fearful of reading and that technology has swamped us with bursts of ‘on-demand’ information. The result is that people do not read sufficiently to form their own opinions and would rather borrow opinions from others. Coupled with the increasing use of social media formats, individuals are more likely to ‘chunk’ or ‘micro read’ rather than immerse themselves in reference books. This lack of reading results in poor communication, poor language skills and a lack of understanding of the environment and culture – all of Army’s intellectual skill requirements for the future operating environment.

As I described in my article, Learning How to Learn via Grounded Curiosity when do we switch from training to education? How do we arm ourselves with the cognitive skills to allow us to engage in life-long learning? and more importantly at ease with the requirement to be able to move between the various learning experiences and styles of courses available. The suggestion that there is a range of education initiatives within All Corps Soldier Training Continuum may be a stretch. There are training opportunities; they teach skills for performing practical tasks. These opportunities do not necessarily offer an educational experience designed to stimulate curious minds. The performance of practical tasks is not a learning experience that results generally in deeper thought on contemporary subjects, nor does this training lead to a thirst for further investigation through reading and research.

I applaud the author of the paper for starting the conversation. But while the All Corps Soldier Training Continuum does prepare individuals with appropriate-to-rank training in communication, leadership and decision making skills, we must not perpetuate the idea that the current Continuum meets our education needs.  If not addressed, this may result in a larger gap to bridge into the future as Army attempts to influence the soldier education paradigm.

I think it is important to remember that the question of educating soldiers is not new, and that until the mid-2000s, Army did mandate educational courses for progression through the ranks from corporal to warrant officer. These courses provided an educational experience not just focused on basic numeracy, literacy and service writing, but also building upon foundational communication skills. They also developed a shared understanding of common language and culture and an awareness of an individual’s educational strengths and weaknesses.

I agree that the five trends of the future operating environment are a worthy consideration in deciding the intellectual requirements of our soldiers into the future. Again, to leave the education of soldiers as a voluntary endeavour could be flawed. Additionally, given the complexity of the English language coupled with Army’s desire for a more diverse organisation, is it sufficiently preparing soldiers with English as a second language? Is it a reasonable consideration that while Army aims to increase the intellect for our soldiers, a gap in basic language skills could be growing?  Do our soldiers have the basic foundational literacy skills upon which to build their understanding of the nuances of our language, let alone test it while on operations?

While Army continues to utilise technology to advance all areas of soldiering, it must question the appropriateness of current educational entry standards. Are they enough to cope with the outputs / outcomes of the five operating environment trends? Will soldiers be able to cope with increased information? I would question whether such an abundance of data being collected through the many sensors available will deliver information in a format that is usable by soldiers on the battlefield.  It needs to be delivered in such a way that does not overwhelm soldiers making them less able to sort and categorise information to support the performance of tasks.

If we are unable to influence community education standards, I would suggest that educational programs be offered that complement the All Corps Soldier Training Continuum. Developing our soldier’s foundational literacy skills while building emerging skills such as digital literacy, enhances their ability to communicate one-on-one with empathy and will begin to expose soldiers to a greater awareness of contemporary issues that will support their thinking and decision making.

 


About the author:

Ken Bullman is the Command Sergeant Major Training and Doctrine at Forces Command within the Australian Army.  Prior to his appointment, he held a series of senior training establishment positions including Regimental Sergent Major of the Royal Military College – Duntroon, as well as the Regimental Sergent Major of the Royal Military College – Australia.  His background is in the Royal Australian Corps of Military Police. His twitter profile is available at @CSMTrgArmy

5 thoughts on “Article – A Response To ‘Does Army Need Better Educated Soldiers?’

  1. Sir, I agree with the points you make.

    As a Medical Technician, I strongly encourage all my subordinates and peers to engage in further education. I would estimate that about 50% of them are. Unfortunately, our unit tempo makes it quite difficult for those members to have the time to engage with their learning. Thankfully most tertiary institutions are understanding and afford my members consideration regard exam timings and assignment submissions.

    On a personal note, I am currently undertaking my second Bachelors degree and I believe that completing this and my previous degree have improved my overall communication skills. Additionally, they have given me the opportunity to critically examine the way my unit does business allowing me to identify and correct inefficiency.

  2. We recruit from society, and with the NAPLAN results of today indicate, the education level is falling in the areas of reading and writing. Our Soldiers can pass intent through verbal delivery, however they have difficulty writing that same intent. I am a product of the Subject 3 SGT and WO courses and I found them to be of great value both professionally and personally. There is a place for this type of education to be reintroduced into our ACSTC. This will also prepare our soldiers for any further education and remove/reduce the fear of failure of attempting the courses available.

  3. Be better with the tone we spend training, don’t try add more.

    I.e. change our system to meet 2017 best practice education. Best of both worlds.

    I suspect Wayne Weeks’ intended to teach us all how to do this through the combat shooting course concept.

  4. Agree 100%. In 1990, I was one of the guinea pigs for a NZ Army programme to demonstrate that soldiers at all levels (I was an infantry private in a regular rifle company at the time) could ‘survive’ tertiary level education. I had only gone to the Education Section to enrol in a course to complete my Certificate in Electrical Engineering, only to find myself enrolled in something entirely different – and with little choice in the matter! Over four years I successfully completed the requirements for a post-grad Diploma in Defence Studies and entered a Masters programme as a Lance-Corporal.

    It was a great growth experience, not just in terms of the study itself, but in having to socialise and intellectually hold my own with, my military superiors from 2Lt to LTCOL (it certainly made remembering names easy, Sir or Ma’am). Many relationships later in my career grew from those roots. The study (topics included the NZ Wars, Ethics, International Relations, Military History and two directed studies, one on Intel in the Gulf War and the other on Future War) certainly taught me a lot and broadened my horizons and my grasp of how the world works, especially during my sojourn through the intel world, and later (post-commissioning) in the doctrine and joint operations realms, and on into delivering content back into the tertiary field after moving onto the RNZAF.

    The lion share of the study and research was conducted in my own time, less periodic group seasons lead by the camp education officer, residential seminars, and battlefield tours (for the NZ Wars paper). My first essay was handwritten in the back of a truck in Malaysia, largely at night with a torch held in my mouth.(B+). Being further down the food chain and perhaps more attuned to delivery on time, on target, I was probably more motivated than some of the other students for whom some of the papers were simply compliance stepping stones. Even though it wasn’t the course of study of my choice, I felt compelled to do the best I could. While I was less than impressed initially, I enjoyed the study once I got over myself. I learned a lot and formed some great relationships that stood me in good stead personally and professionally over the next two and a half decades of my service. It made me a less average soldier and a better officer.

    Today tertiary study is widely available to for enlisted and commissioned personnel in the NZDF; less specialist topics like combat medicine, I’m not sure if this is open to privates or their equivalents but certainly it is not only available to JNCOs and above but encouraged. Should it be? Yes, absolutely. I think that more combat arms soldiers should be encouraged to take up study, especially in military studies e.g. military history, international relations, military technology, etc and in the contemporary environment of the strategic corporal.Thinking soldiers are not a liability, gone are the days of the unthinking military automaton…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *


Disclaimer
The Cove is a professional development site for the Australian Profession of Arms. The views expressed within individual blog posts and videos are those of the author, and do not reflect any official position or that of the author's employers' - see more here. Any concerns regarding this blog post, video or resource should be directed in the first instance to hello@cove.org.au.