Military Review English Edition March-April 2014 | Page 54
Implementation of the Army leader development model (see fi gure) supports the ALDS.4
The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
(TRADOC) was still developing the Army Learning Concept in 2010. TRADOC Pam 525-8-2, The
U.S. Army Learning Concept for 2015, was published in January 2011.5 TRADOC subsequently
published a directive in March 2011 to implement
the concept as the Army learning model.6 The
objective of the Army learning model is the
same as originally described in the 2010 Military
Review article: “the creation of a learning continuum that blurs the lines between the operating
and generating forces by more closely integrating
self-development, institutional instruction, and
operational experience.”7
Adapting to an ever changing environment
Leader
Development
Education
Experience
Training
Experience
Education
Training
Experience
Education
Army Capstone Concept
Self-Development Domain
Experience
Education
Training
Adapting to an ever changing environment
Institutional Domain
Operational Domain
Training
Adapting to an ever changing environment
Peer and Developmental
Relationships
Adapting to an ever changing environment
The Army leader development model
2010 CCC Study Update
In February 2010, the U.S. Army Combined Arms
Center commander created a team to examine the
CCCs and assess if they were developing officers
consistent with the requirements of Army Regulation 350-1, which states that the CCC “provides
captains with the tactical, technical and leader
knowledge and skills needed to lead company-sized
units and serve on battalion and brigade staffs.”8
The team assessed five interrelated focus areas for
each CCC: curriculum, facilities, governance, staff
and faculty, and students. Finally, the timing of the
52
study provided an opportunity to examine the 2009
common core redesign soon after implementation.9
The CCC study, published in June 2010, provided
a picture of the state of the Army’s CCCs.
The study presented 47 findings and 71 recommendations across the five focus areas.10 It highlighted five key findings. First, there is no substitute
for a high-quality small-group leader. Second, the
curriculum must be current, relevant, and rigorous.
Third, there is a need for increased oversight of rigor
in CCC governance, especially for a formal process
to reconcile common core and branch curriculums.
March-April 2014
MILITARY REVIEW