Posted on Dec 25, 2014
Structured Self Development (SSD): Does it meet the intent it was designed for OR is it another form of "death by powerpoint"?
17K
81
40
5
5
0
I'm curious as to what the opinion from the "field" is on Structure Self Development (SSD). The Army message was put out reminding all SGT(P)s (all Sergeants who are promotable) that they have until 8 January 2015 to complete SSD-2. As of 9 January, all SGT(P)s who have failed to complete SSD-2 will be removed from the promotion standing list. They'll have to complete SSD-2 and then reappear before the promotion board again. The Army is synchronizing the SSD with NCOES; this is the next step in the synch process. What are your views/opinions on the SSDs?
Posted in these groups: 
Military Education
Career Advice
Military Education Career Advice
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 26
0
0
0
It becomes a check the block course when the presentation is wrought with errors and the presenter is dull and monotone.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
to be honest, some of it was very redundant but informative. It was a good refresher and I learned many things that helped me prosper in WLC.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Reading through the descriptions, it appears to be very "similar" to the USMC's Marine Corps Institute (MCI) Correspondence Course Learning Program.
That said, there is definitely a "check the box" aspect, which I'll address in a second, however there can also be a "universal standard of learning" as well.
Depending on MOS, portions are going to be repetitive or "refresher" however, there is going to be a lot of really good information if you actually do the coursework.
That brings you to the "check the box" aspect. Checking a box, isn't a bad thing. You want to check boxes. It makes you competitive among your peers. Check them fast, check them early. If there are two people, and one of you checks the box first, that's the one who gets the school, the board, the slot, or whatever.
Speaking from experience, I knocked out every correspondence course that was available early. Because once you do, people just leave you alone about it, and it eliminates one more excuse about why they can't send you to X school or on Y TDY.
That said, there is definitely a "check the box" aspect, which I'll address in a second, however there can also be a "universal standard of learning" as well.
Depending on MOS, portions are going to be repetitive or "refresher" however, there is going to be a lot of really good information if you actually do the coursework.
That brings you to the "check the box" aspect. Checking a box, isn't a bad thing. You want to check boxes. It makes you competitive among your peers. Check them fast, check them early. If there are two people, and one of you checks the box first, that's the one who gets the school, the board, the slot, or whatever.
Speaking from experience, I knocked out every correspondence course that was available early. Because once you do, people just leave you alone about it, and it eliminates one more excuse about why they can't send you to X school or on Y TDY.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
That really depends on you. The information is there; whether you learn it or not is your decision.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I see it as just a requirement. The SSDs do contain good info, especially SSD4 that contains info that will benefit a junior NCO serving in a joint environment.
When I was a SGT chasing points I took the advice of a SFC, "Do all the SSDs before the Army controls them to limit promotion rates." Funny thing I have been in rank for a year and thanks to finishing my SSDs as a SGT I was able to attend SLC and graduate.
When I was a SGT chasing points I took the advice of a SFC, "Do all the SSDs before the Army controls them to limit promotion rates." Funny thing I have been in rank for a year and thanks to finishing my SSDs as a SGT I was able to attend SLC and graduate.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I do not agree with the SSD. It is only just a hurdle that most people just click through the slides in order to get complete. Just as with most of the online distance learning education that the military offers, it is just a check the block in order to progress. In all effect, it does not replace the mandatory schooling needed in order to progress, such as WLC, ALC, and SLC. From my experience completing it faster does not even help with getting a school date for these, as it is all based on the willingness of your unit to send you.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Apparently you don't understand how the new SSDs and school slotting works.
Soldiers cannot attend WLC until SSD1 is completed
Soldiers cannot attend ALC until SSD2 is completed
Soldiers cannot attend SLC until SSD3 is completed
Soldiers cannot attend SMA until SSD4 is completed
Each SSD completion is the key event that enables HRC to put you into a school slot. Units don't decide who goes to what NCOES anymore; HRC does based on SSD completion. So if your unit is using NCOES attendance as a threat, then they are lying to you.
Soldiers cannot attend WLC until SSD1 is completed
Soldiers cannot attend ALC until SSD2 is completed
Soldiers cannot attend SLC until SSD3 is completed
Soldiers cannot attend SMA until SSD4 is completed
Each SSD completion is the key event that enables HRC to put you into a school slot. Units don't decide who goes to what NCOES anymore; HRC does based on SSD completion. So if your unit is using NCOES attendance as a threat, then they are lying to you.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
The point remains that it has become a check the block requirement and is treated by most as such.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Grate question and topic.
I believe that SSDs is the way for big Army to make sure that soldiers on all levels get the education that sometimes lacking from their leaderships. And a way to unify across the board
I believe that SSDs is the way for big Army to make sure that soldiers on all levels get the education that sometimes lacking from their leaderships. And a way to unify across the board
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As an NCO that has completed SSD 1 and 2 and now working on SSD 3 I think the SSDs are taking away one very important aspect of resident military training; peer to peer think-tanks. I don't think SSDs are all bad, but I do think there needs to be a greater emphasis on resident training to allow for more face to face interactions. All the Army is doing by allowing more digital interactions is creating a force that will eventually be unable to work together face to face.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I agree with SSD to a certain extent. While the classes do serve the purpose of reminding the NCOs of their responsability to Lead and Train, it is full of redundancy. It is full to the brim of EO and SHARP classes, things that the entire mass learn on a yearly, if not quarterly, basis.
If SSD was more geared towards things like TLPs and such, I would think it would be much better, but I digress.
If SSD was more geared towards things like TLPs and such, I would think it would be much better, but I digress.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG Houde,
The question is why is there so much training geared at EO and SHARP? These programs represent our values like trust and personal courage. I would argue we still not getting it, so the more we do something better we become at it to the point it becomes muscle memory. Tell me do you trust the Soldier next to you? Do you trust your leadership? We all believe in the Warrior Ethos from the Soldier’s Creed “I would never leave a fallen comrade.” The question is at what limit? For example, when you are out at a club or in the barracks, and you see a Soldier who obviously had too much to drink. You see someone taking the Soldier out of the club or barracks, and you know something is not right about this but you say or do nothing. Why because this Soldier doesn’t qualify a fallen comrade in your mind? I would have trusted that you would have the personal courage to say or do something because that Soldier qualifies a fallen Soldier to me. Until we do better continue to expect more training in EO and SHARP.
The question is why is there so much training geared at EO and SHARP? These programs represent our values like trust and personal courage. I would argue we still not getting it, so the more we do something better we become at it to the point it becomes muscle memory. Tell me do you trust the Soldier next to you? Do you trust your leadership? We all believe in the Warrior Ethos from the Soldier’s Creed “I would never leave a fallen comrade.” The question is at what limit? For example, when you are out at a club or in the barracks, and you see a Soldier who obviously had too much to drink. You see someone taking the Soldier out of the club or barracks, and you know something is not right about this but you say or do nothing. Why because this Soldier doesn’t qualify a fallen comrade in your mind? I would have trusted that you would have the personal courage to say or do something because that Soldier qualifies a fallen Soldier to me. Until we do better continue to expect more training in EO and SHARP.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
It is very obvious that, the military en masse, is not getting the point. Rape is still happening, even through the higher levels which is horrible.
However, is the answer really more traiing? There is SHARP Self Study, SHARP Leader Led, SHARP for NCOES schools, SHARP in NCOES schools, Quarterly Unit Training and between all that there will be more classes based on when the next SHARP incident occurs. Same thing applies with EO.
I understand that there is always going to be the need for training in the POSH/SHARP/EO realm. But if 4-6 times a year aren't getting it done, is upping the dosage 8-10 times a year really the answer?
However, is the answer really more traiing? There is SHARP Self Study, SHARP Leader Led, SHARP for NCOES schools, SHARP in NCOES schools, Quarterly Unit Training and between all that there will be more classes based on when the next SHARP incident occurs. Same thing applies with EO.
I understand that there is always going to be the need for training in the POSH/SHARP/EO realm. But if 4-6 times a year aren't getting it done, is upping the dosage 8-10 times a year really the answer?
(0)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
During the 2-week SHARP course I attended back in 2011, I could see this was going to happen...the program is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The whole premise (and reality) is that incidents have been happening long before SHARP, SAPR, POSH, etc...most of those incidents went unreported. SHARP promotes I AM Strong (Intervene, Act, Motivate) along with increased victim reporting. The I AM Strong portion hasn't seemed to work in preventing assaults, but reporting has increased...the problem isn't going away but we have succeeded in making us look worse in the process.
I fully support the SHARP program; until we can reach 100% reporting, there can be no accurate assessment of whether incidents are happening more or less than before.
I fully support the SHARP program; until we can reach 100% reporting, there can be no accurate assessment of whether incidents are happening more or less than before.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I am not arguing against the SHARP program. I am arguing against the frequency with which we are subjected to the course.
The course is great for what it is, but after the 3rd time being subjected to it, it doesn't hold any weight any more. People aren't paying attention, they are playing Candy Crush under the table.
However, we are starting to get off the original topic. I am not trying to argue against SHARP, I am trying to argue for SSD 2 being centered more on Leadership and essential NCO duties.
The course is great for what it is, but after the 3rd time being subjected to it, it doesn't hold any weight any more. People aren't paying attention, they are playing Candy Crush under the table.
However, we are starting to get off the original topic. I am not trying to argue against SHARP, I am trying to argue for SSD 2 being centered more on Leadership and essential NCO duties.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google