Posted on Feb 15, 2014
Structured Self Development - Vital training vs. "Check the block"
11.6K
44
20
I am just asking the opinions of all of my brothers and sisters in arms about their takes on SSD. I personally see it more as a check the block type training myself, but my bias is based on having been grandfathered into SSD 4. I had already graduated MSLC prior to SSD going into effect, so levels 1 through 3 were no longer required on my part. Based on feedback from my subordinates and peers, much of the information covered in the earlier SSD levels is still covered in WLC and ALC Common Core. Many fellow Sergeants First Class that I know are merely rushing through SSD 3 in order to be eligible to attend MSLC or SLC, and rushing through SSD 4 in order to be more competitive for the E-8 board, while not gleaning much from the actual training. Thus I pose the question to you, Rally Point members: vital training or "Check the block?" There are no wrong answers here.
Training
Cyber
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
This is a duplicate discussion. Click below to see more on this topic.
Seems unfair since all you really have to do is go to Wiki Answers and get the answers. The website seems like it is non-user friendly as well.
Responses: 10
My honest opinion, I think it is a waste of real training, while we are advancing in the so-called digital age, we are moving farther away from the true brick and mortar training that is what most Soldiers need, the digital training doesn't give the real hands on and true experience and knowledge that is garnered from senior NCOs and other SGLs that teach or have taught at BNCOC/ANCOC/ALC/SLC. This is part of the problem with many of the NCOs that we have serving today as they are not receiving proper training, instruction or mentoring to be able to take over for their predecessors that are retiring or getting out.
SFC Jeremy Boyd
SFC Baber, I concur with your statement. I feel blessed to have conducted all of my three levels of NCOES thus far on site at actual NCO Academies, and not been subject to the condensed GWOT versions of those courses. I for one have never been a big proponent of online training, because it is too easy to become distracted or just plain cheat your way through without learning anything.
SFC Boyd, the short answer is not that easy. I believe it is vital training, but most are treating it as a check the block. The current design of the SSD program does not really get after what the concept is, continual learning by enlisted Soldiers. I have personally completed all levels of the SSD so I know what it entails and the issues the junior Soldiers are having with it. It was mentioned by one individual as not very useful because he already knew the content, but SSD 1 for example, is designed to be completed by Soldiers that are not preparing for the Sergeant promotion board, but the more junior Soldiers.
Where the program misses is the fact that you can complete any of the levels in a weekend if you wanted to. I personally do not see how this produces a continuous education. It does provide a sort of bridge between the institutional training Soldiers receive though. Having completed all levels, there were some topics I learned at the Sergeants Major Course, I wish I knew earlier, or was at least exposed to earlier in my career, and the SSD program does that in levels 3 and 4. There are four main modules in each level (at least when I completed them), so maybe the answer is a to stagger the ability to complete different modules after certain amount of time has passed. Just a thought.
In general though, I think the program is a step in the right direction in educating our enlisted force.
SFC Jeremy Boyd
CSM Hopkins, thank you for your input. An issue I see with your potential recommendation, however, is that even if the modules were staggered and required a minimum wait period to move to the next one, that Soldiers and NCOs might still rush through the modules to complete them without taking the time to absorb the information or take any educational value from them. I think perhaps if the final exams were proctored, that might aleviate the issue and force Soldiers and NCOs to treat the training seriously and trully learn the material.
CSM David Hopkins
SFC Boyd, you are absolutely correct with what could happen. As CSM Holland talks about, the army is putting a program in place that addresses the issues, as best possible, and at the same time giving the Soldiers a way to have continuous learning as professional development. You don't want to make it so difficult that it becomes unobtainable, but at the same time, you don't want it so easy that Soldiers speed through it, as you said. The SSD is only a portion of the education that soldiers should receive, institutional. The rest comes from their operational assignments and professional development from their leaders.
It's become a check the block. Do they gain something out of SSD? Maybe. Right now, andyone we can find with SSD1, passing APFT, passing HT/WT....is being sent to WLC because we have slots.
I think that this should be a 1SG run program within every Company. It should be part of NCODP, and it should be able to address the needs of the NCO or SPC that is being considered for the next level of development.
I would present that SSD should be a guideline and a bit of a checklist for NCODP and the 1SG to identify those who should be sent to the next level of NCOES. It should be a hands-on developmental program within each Company where those that are sent to NCOES are developed for their growth and accurately accessed.
CPT (Join to see)
Agreed. It also does not permit for leadership to really assess or develop those Soldiers, by way of it being a tool. It allows Soldiers to bipass those who can really help them by allowing them to check a box which is a line to their next promotion and NCOES.
Afterall, we are sending ANYONE with SSD1 to WLC, despite the fact that those who are really ready to be developed for the next level not having completed SSD1. We are trying to push SSD1 on these Soldiers, but we run into some technical issues which prevent some highly motivated future leaders.
SSD aside, I think this also gives weaker SNCOs a way out of developing junior leaders. They can base things around NCOES and SSD as opposed to taking the real time to get in the trenches with these Soldiers. I have no idea where I would have ended up if I would not have had some NCOs take the time to develop me as a SPC.
SFC Jeremy Boyd
Agreed sir, and I for one do not believe that a PFC or very junior SPC needs to attend WLC so quickly as they are sent these days. When I attended PLDC in 2001, you had to at least be a SPC(P) or SGT to attend. I find that WLC is not treated these days as the first rung of the NCOES ladder as it should, and many of these junior Soldiers are attending the course without even knowing basic Soldiering skills or being competent in their MOS. The only true way to nurture Soldiers and prepare them for advanced leadership roles is through requisite hands on training, coupled with performance and developmental counseling.
MAJ (Join to see)
Great comments and insight from SGM Holland. Command Teams at the company level must ensure that the Soldiers being considered for promotion have the potential and characteristics of future leaders.
SFC Aaron Calmes
CSM Holland, I think that the removal of the self registration was a huge improvement. I have the high speed PFCs and SPCs that when SSD came out self registered for and completed SSD 1, 3, and 4. While I am sure they did learn something, the possibility a PFC understanding say the ARFORGEN cycle with their experience level is slim.
Definitely agree with the adjustments you said they are making to the course. When I completed SSD 4 when it came out, I couldn't believe almost one whole module out of four was about retirement ceremonies.
Definitely agree with the adjustments you said they are making to the course. When I completed SSD 4 when it came out, I couldn't believe almost one whole module out of four was about retirement ceremonies.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google