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