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

1. Directorate for Joint Force Development (J-7), The Joint Staff Student to Faculty Ratio Study 8 February 2012 (Draft Briefing) 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. US News And World Report Formula for Ranking US Colleges and Universities

5. 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)

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) Available faculty resources: Total faculty Authorized = D (Based on OPMEP Guidance) - X (new faculty @ half load) - Y (academic leadership @ Part-time load) FTE Adjusted = E @ full load: (X+Y) @ part-time load Can Maximum FTEs Available meet Faculty Required? Is OPMEP S/F Ratio acceptable

7. Senior Level College Assessment What it is? AY 10-12 *UnadjustedSTFR includes assigned teaching faculty and excludes adjuncts, part-time, non-teaching faculty. **AdjustedSTFR 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) 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 NOTES: Ranged from 1375 to 1439 Varies by trimester: Either 10-12 or 14-16 for core courses 3. Ranges between 344-368 ***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC

10. Intermediate Level College Assessment Cont’d What it should be? AY 13-15 NOTES: Ranges between1375 to 1439 Varies by trimester: Either 10-12 or 14-16 for core courses 3. Ranges between 344-368 ***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 Phase I Phase II Phase III 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.

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 1987-88, 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. 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 US News And World Report Formula for Ranking US Colleges and Universities

20. External View Cont’d PME vs US Graduate School Faculty Considerations

21. External View Cont’d PME vs US Graduate School Student Considerations

22. External View Cont’d PME vs US Graduate School Administration Considerations

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), 253-265. doi: 10.1016/m.econedurev.2006.08.007 • Brehman, G. E., Jr. (1978). A Study of Faculty Workload in Pennsylvania State-owned Institutions of Higher Education, 1975-77 (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 http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/04/26/liberal-arts-colleges-with-lowest-student-faculty-ratios • 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), 1061-1079. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9957.2010.02208.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), 455-467. • 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. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED470577 • 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. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED375269 • Imel, S. (1999). Using Groups in Adult Learning: Theory and Practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 19(1), 54-61.

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), 701-723. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9179-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), 221-233. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.011 • McKeachie, W. J. (1980). Class Size, Large Classes, and Multiple Sections. Academe, 66(1), 24-27. • 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), 93.108. doi: 10.1002/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), 41-53. doi: 10.1002/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 15-16 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

29. JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d

30. JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d

31. JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d

32. JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d

33. JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey

34. JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d

35. JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d

36. JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d

37. JPME Senior Level Colleges

38. JPME Senior Level Colleges

39. JPME Senior Level Colleges

40. JPME In-Residence Student Faculty Model (Senior Level Colleges)

41. JPME In-Residence Student Faculty Model (Intermediate Level Colleges) *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 ViewSteady 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) Available faculty resources: Total faculty Authorized = D (Based on OPMEP Guidance) - X (new faculty @ half load) - Y (academic leadership @ Part-time load) FTE Adjusted = E @ full load: (X+Y) @ part-time load Can Maximum FTEs Available meet Faculty Required? Is OPMEP S/F Ratio acceptable

44. Faculty Workload (Typical)

46. National War CollegeFaculty 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 221 students @ 13/seminar = 17 seminars/core course •  6 core courses x 17 seminars = 102 faculty seminar leads (FSL)/yr • 23 Field Studies (FS) @ 2 faculty/FS = 46 FSL/yr • TOTAL FSL REQUIRED/YR = 148 • Faculty resources available @ 3.5:1  Total faculty required for 221 students = 64 = 192 FSL/yr (@ std teaching load)  Adjusted for faculty @ half load: ≈ 16 new faculty/yr (average) - 24 FSL/yr 13 faculty in academic leadership - 20 FSL/yr • TOTAL FSL AVAILABLE/YR @ 3.5:1 = 148 (meets requirement, best case)

47. National War CollegeSteady State STFR Justification Seminar-based Instruction (6 sequential core courses taught in 17 seminars + 23 Field Studies seminars + 4 electives) 64 Faculty 35 @ full load 29 @ half load 221 Students 13 students/seminar 1 faculty/seminar STFR 3.45:1 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)

49. USAWC Steady State Student-Faculty Ratio (AY12)

50. ACSC Steady State STFRS Justification Justification provided based on evidence of steady-state conditions satisfied based on case study.