Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2
1. Introduction. ............................................................................................................................ 9
1.1. Study Purpose. . ............................................................................................................... 9
1.2. Background. . .................................................................................................................. 9
1.3. Study Directive. . ............................................................................................................. 9
1.4. Study Questions. . .............................................................................................................. 9
1.5. Study Group Composition. . .............................................................................................. 9
2. Methodology. ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Goals/Objectives. . ............................................................................................................ 11
2.2 Measures of Effectiveness. . ............................................................................................. 11
2.3. Measures/Metrics. . .......................................................................................................... 12
2.4. Value Functions. . ............................................................................................................ 12
2.5. Data Sources, Methods, and Instruments. . ...................................................................... 14
2.7 Assumptions....................................................................................................................... 15
3. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. . ................................................................... 16
3.1. Goal 1. . ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.2. Goal 2. ............................................................................................................................. 18
3.3. Goal 3. . ............................................................................................................................ 19
3.4. Goal 4. ............................................................................................................................. 22
3.5. Goal 5. ............................................................................................................................. 25
3.6. Goal 6. ............................................................................................................................. 27
3.7. Goal 7. . ............................................................................................................................ 28
3.8 Reorganization Week. ........................................................................................................ 29
3.9 Graduation Week. .............................................................................................................. 30
3.10 Resource Facts. ................................................................................................................ 30
4. Summary of Results. . ............................................................................................................ 31
5. Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 32
Appendices
Appendix A: Definition of MOE
Appendix B: Summary of MOE and Indicator Results
Appendix C: Indicator Definitions
Appendix D: Department AIAD Representative Survey and Results
Appendix E: Tactical Officer Survey and Results
Appendix F: CLDT Trainer Survey and Results
Appendix G: Faculty Survey and Results
Appendix H: Cadet Summer Training Survey and Results
Appendix I: ROTC Cadet Survey and Results
Appendix J: PMS Survey and Results
Appendix K: Cadet Focus Group Results
Appendix L: Value Functions
Appendix M: AMS Database Query and SME Query Data
Appendix N: Sensitivity Analysis
1
Executive Summary
Study Purpose. This report provides an initial assessment to the Superintendent of the United
States Military Academy of the extent to which the goals/objectives of the recent change in the
summer scheduling paradigm have been achieved to date. The assessment is categorized as
initial because some of the desired data elements are not yet collectable as well as the fact that
the results/impacts from these changes may take time longer than 6 months (i.e. a full academic
year) to surface. The intent of this study is to highlight the “goodness” and “badness” resulting
from the change to summer scheduling.
Study Questions. Given the purpose and intent of this study, the study group identified one
primary and two supplemental study questions.
 To what extent have the goals of the expanded summer/change in summer scheduling
paradigm been achieved? (Primary)
 What are the 2nd and 3rd order effects of the change? (Supplemental)
 Could the same goals have been achieved in 11 or 10 weeks? (Supplemental)
Overview of Methodology. The intent of this study is to gather and present quantitative and
qualitative information to assess the impacts of the change in summer training paradigm. The
study group employed the following fundamental steps to answer the primary study question:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Identify Goals or Objectives of the Decision Maker
Develop supporting Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)
Identify measures/metrics that reflect MOE performance
Develop and validate value functions for each measure/metric in order to compare
results on a common scale
5. Gather appropriate data
6. Score measures, MOE, and goals
7. Interpret results
The same data sources were utilized to develop and support findings for Study Question 2 (2nd
and 3rd order impacts). Analysis of Study Question 2 was primarily focused on examination of
Reorganization Week, Graduation Week, and Resources. Unlike Study Question 1, value
functions were not used and scoring was not conducted. Instead, comments, feedback, and
appropriate data were analyzed and directly translated into additional findings, where
appropriate. Study Question 3 is essentially overcome by events (OBE). First, the summer that
was assessed in this study was 11 weeks in length and the goals were achieved, at the levels
discussed later in the study. Second, the BOD has decided to maintain an 11 week summer.
Finally, an analytical answer to whether the goals could be accomplished with a 10 week
summer first necessitates a feasibility analysis- requiring a detailed, bottoms- up summer training
requirements analysis.
2
Summary of Results. A summary of goal and MOE achievement is depicted in the color coded
value hierarchy graphic shown in Figure 1 below. The goals and MOE are color coded in
accordance with the scale presented in Table 1. Green equates to positive achievement, amber
reflects neutral to positive achievement, orange represents neutral to negative achievement, and
rd indicates negative achievement. This color coding is utilized throughout the study and depicts
the assessment of the goals, MOE, and measures based upon analysis of the collected data
utilizing the methodology described earlier.
Score
Green
75-100
Amber
50-75
Orange
25-50
Red
0-25
Positive
Positive-Neutral
Neutral-Negative
Negative
Gray
Insufficient
Data
Table 1. Goal, MOE, and Measure Scoring Scale
Figure 1. Value Hierarchy for Primary Study Question.
Key Findings and Conclusions. A summary of the major findings and conclusions, by goal, is
presented below.
The change to summer scheduling paradigm did enhance cadet development by allowing
tailoring of training and educational opportunities.
 There was an increase in the number of cadets participating in IADs this summer
and 3rd Class cadets participated in these developmental opportunities at
unprecedented rates.
3



There may be particular opportunities for which the 3rd Class lack the maturity,
technical skills, and experience to meaningfully participate.
The change to a three block summer increased opportunities available and aided
TACs in tailoring experiences for cadet personal needs.
Cadets were able to complete more graduation requirements earlier.
The change to the length of summer training and scheduling paradigm did create
additional STAP opportunities. However, there was not a commensurate increase in
percentage of cadets that became “healthy” after STAP or reduction in the percentage of
STAP attendees with subsequent course failures.
 Overall VSTAP participation and the number of special demographic VSTAP
participants increased.
 Since ’06, there has been a steady decrease in the percentage of APSC deficient
and deficient athletes that become “healthy” after STAP.
 There was an increase in the percentage of cadets that attended STAP and failed a
course the following term.
 There was not an increase in the number of cadets that participated in multiple
STAPs.
 Too early to determine whether, in the long term, increased STAP opportunities
decrease the number of course failures.
CLDT did provide 1st Class cadets with a common, assessed training event on critical
leader and military skills
 Cadets and trainers noted that CLDT was a high quality, professionally executed
training event.
 TACs and Cadets perceived an improvement in leadership skills after attending
CLDT.
 Cadets perceived an improvement in military skills after attending CLDT.
However, they noted that CFT II provided essential baseline skills that they drew
upon to successfully complete CLDT.
 Cadets received effective and meaningful feedback during CLDT. However, this
feedback did not always “follow” them to the academic year.
 Too early to determine whether there is a change in BOLC II/III feedback.
The compression of the academic year did impact faculty and staff time allocation and
morale. Although difficult to correlate with the change, cadet academic performance
decreased slightly.
 Participation in scholarly research and personal time were most impacted and
faculty morale was negatively impacted by compression of the academic year.
 No impact on program structure, course content, graded requirements, academic
expectations of cadets, or perceived quality of instruction. However, cadet
preparation (particularly for the first two lessons) and reflection time appear to
have been impacted.
 Cadet performance in 09-1, as reflected in the GPA of the bottom 10% of cadets
and course failures, when compared to 08-1, decreased slightly.
4


Results were mixed regarding impact on cadet participation in academic
enrichment activities. There has been a noticeable decrease in Honors program
participation, acknowledging however, that this is a lagging indicator.
Trends in sponsorship, PME2, and OR participation run counter to the faculty
survey results. It is very likely that a change in staff/faculty participation in cadet
development activities would take some time (more than a few months) to
manifest itself.
The change to summer scheduling paradigm did provide a more predictive summer
timeline with a slight improvement in scheduling efficiency. This came at the cost of a
perceived decrease in flexibility.
 Establishing a 3 block summer schedule did help to discipline scheduling and
slightly improve scheduling efficiency. However, nearly 1/3 of all IADs violated
block constraints, 36% of order amendments are still cut within 10 days or after
the training event start date.
 TACs and AIAD reps equate blocks with additional imposed constraints (reduced
flexibility) and increased complexity of their scheduling responsibilities.
 Schedulers anticipate flexibility to decrease once additional CLDT block is
introduced.
 The change in scheduling paradigm did not increase the number of multiple
STAPs taken or the number of cadets that participated in multiple IADs during
the summer.
The change to the length of summer training and new scheduling paradigm did not
improve ROTC participation in USMA CFT or USMA participation in ROTC training.
 ROTC participation in CFT during the summer ’08 decreased slightly.
 ROTC cadets and their PMS did report that CFT was a positive, high quality
training experience.
 USMA participation in ROTC military training did not meet the goal or threshold
established.
Not all upper class cadets took two weeks leave during the summer.
 13% of cadets surveyed took less than 2 weeks of leave. The majority of these
cadets requested to take less than 2 weeks in order to participate in a
developmental opportunity.
 Opportunities available did not match summer training “white space.” 31% of
cadets surveyed reported taking more than 4 weeks (28 days) of leave. ’11 cadets
reported the highest incidence of taking more than 4 weeks (28 days) of leave.
Cadets, Faculty, TACs, and summer trainers noted several negative impacts of a shortened
Reorg week.
 Cadets, Faculty, TACs, CLDT Trainers all noted a less than smooth transition
from the summer to academic year and an inability to complete required tasks.
Consequently, several tasks migrated to the academic year. Organizational
efforts, team building, and class preparation suffered.
 3rd and 4th Class cadets and summer trainers were most impacted by the change.
5
The reduction in Graduation week had minimal impact on cadets and staff/faculty.
 Far fewer negative comments were made with regard to the length of Graduation
Week. Cadets who had to prepare for training or an IAD were most affected.
 Numerous negative comments regarding the inefficiency of mini-Buckner.
Resource Facts. A listing of recommendations, by goal, is presented below.
 Lack of detailed data available to determine if there was a change in size or
duration of task force requirements to support CST.
 Two hundred and fifty more faculty man days were required to support CST
2008.
 Seven half days were required to train faculty for CLDT. This will double in
2009.
 The costs associated with billeting the task force increased by $105K over last
year. Current funding and space does not support more trailers than provided in
FY08.
 Mess hall costs increased from FY2007 to FY08 by $24,937.
 New this summer were the costs incurred as a result of billeting twenty 2LTs.
Billeting expense was $41,336.
 Costs attributed to travel and per diem for cadets decreased by over $400,000 as a
result of using buses for transportation.
 AIAD costs (all sources of funding) for ‘08 were $4.2M compared to
 The cost for civilian staff to work on Columbus and Veterans Days was
$4,214.87.
 116 additional faculty man days (~5 faculty x 24 days) to support STAP this year
compared to previous year.
 DOL reported the overall costs from FY07 to FY08 show an increase for DPW
maintenance facilities and range repair however, a comprehensive study would
need to be conducted to assess how much of this cost is attributed to CST changes
as opposed to inflation or other range users.
 Starting in FY09, DOL will incur approximately $8,800 in annual costs to dispose
fired 75MM and 105MM cartridge casings generated during CST. If participation
increases (ROTC cadets and support personnel) so will the costs for munitions
disposal.
Recommendations. A listing of recommendations, by goal, is presented below.

Goal 1. Enhance cadet development by allowing tailoring of training/educational
opportunities.
 Consider limiting specific MDS opportunities for 3rd class or implement
additional screening prior to participation.
 Do not send 3rd class to CTLT/DCLT. (Implemented)
 Enhance screening and pre-training programs for MIADs
particularly for the 3rd Class before CFT. (Implemented)
6





Goal 2. Create opportunities for multiple STAP “to reduce failures.”
 O/Dean examine why there has been a steady decrease in the percentage
of APSC deficient and deficient athletes that become “healthy” after
STAP and an increase in STAP follow-on failures.
 OPA conduct a semi-annual failure analysis to identify and analyze
potential trends. (In Progress)
Goal 3. Provide the First Class a common, assessed training event on critical
leader and military skills (CLDT).
 Develop and implement a strategic communication or positive publicity
program for CLDT.
 Examine whether CLDT cadets have the requisite skills, without CFT II,
to successfully complete CLDT.
 Provide structured time during the AY for cadets to reflect on and discuss
CLDT feedback.
 Relook the use of 2LTs during CLDT or examine other value added roles.
(Implemented- LTs will only be used in admin/log positions next
summer)
 Limit the number of company level leadership positions during CLDT.
(Implemented- company level leadership positions will only be used in
mission sets where there is value added)
Goal 4. Minimize the impact on the Academic Year and Staff and Faculty quality
of life.
 Develop and analyze COAs to restore “white space” to the academic year.
(Implemented)
 OPA conduct semi-annual failures study to determine if there are any long
term impacts and/or trends. (In Progress)
Goal 5. Provide more predictive summer timelines with more flexibility in
summer scheduling.
 Continue to improve event and block alignment.
 LDB examine amendments to identify the root cause and factors
influencing the frequency and timeliness of amendments. (In ProgressScheduling now being done one month earlier than previous years)
 Decide whether multiple IADs are desirable and to what extent. Consider
policy that outlines primacy of IADs and general guidance regarding
multiple IADs.
 Develop and implement an “8TAP system” for scheduling, forecasting,
and management of summer training and development experiences. (In
Progress)
Goal 6. Expand ROTC participation in summer training at USMA.
 Establish way ahead to increase ROTC participation in CFT and USMA
cadet participation in LDAC. (In Progress- USMA cadets will be given
CLDT and MIAD credit for LDAC and we will send more cadets this
summer. 50 more slots for ROTC at USMA Air Assault; more ROTC
slots at CFT)
 Adequately inform and manage expectations of incoming ROTC cadets
regarding leadership opportunities. (In Progress)
7


Goal 7. Two weeks of leave for every cadet.
 Continue to screen and enforce less than 2 weeks leave as an exception.
 Conduct an analysis, by Class, to determine whether opportunities equal or
exceed “white space.”
Other.
 Reexamine the viability of mini-Buckner. Assess whether the objectives
are appropriate, feasible, and being met.
 Increase fall semester Reorganization week from 3 days to 5.
(Implemented)
8
1. Introduction.
1.1.
Study Purpose. This report provides an initial assessment to the Superintendent
of the United States Military Academy of the extent to which the goals/objectives of the change
in summer scheduling paradigm have been achieved to date. The assessment is categorized as
initial because some of the desired data elements are not yet collectable as well as the fact that
the results/impacts from these changes may take time longer than 6 months (i.e. a full academic
year) to surface. The intent of this study is to highlight the “goodness” and “badness” resulting
from the change to summer scheduling.
1.2.
Background. A major recommendation of the Superintendent’s Football Study
Group and the Military Tiger Team, which included members of the Dean’s Team, ODIA,
USCC Staff, BTD, and cadets, was to optimize each cadet’s individual development through
expanding summer opportunities in all three pillars – military, academic, and physical. Of
particular concern was the timing and focus of Cadet Field Training (CFT). Cadets do not retain
proficiency in tasks trained nor do they graduate with a common experience beyond their
Yearling year. Additionally, Army resources available to support CFT are restricted due to the
current War on Terror. As a result, it was recommended that the summer training program
should consist of three 28-day modules and the addition of a common, assessed training event on
critical leader and military skills (CLDT). The transition from a ten week summer training
program to a twelve week program transition began with an eleven week summer training
program in 2008. The plan was to culminate with the twelve week summer training program in
2009. However, after the study began, the BOD decided upon a 24-28-24, 11 week summer
training program for 2009.
1.3.
Study Directive. The Superintendent, USMA tasked the Office of Policy,
Planning, and Assessment, with assessing the impacts of the changes implemented in the
summer of 2008. While some impacts have yet to be realized, the following report will outline
the majority of key issues that have, and the level at which the goals of the new summer training
program have been achieved.
1.4.
Study Questions. Given the purpose and intent of this study, the study group
identified one primary and two supplemental study questions.
 To what extent have the goals of the expanded summer/change in summer
scheduling paradigm been achieved? (Primary)
 What are the 2nd and 3rd order effects of the change? (Supplemental)
 Could the same goals have been achieved in 11 or 10 weeks? (Supplemental)
1.5.
Study Group Composition. The study group formed for this study was a cross
functional group representing key stakeholders across the Academy (USCC, Dean, DMI, ODIA).
The study team was led by OPPA with technical oversight provided by the Department Head,
9
Systems Engineering. The team met as necessary to collaborate and coordinate the tasks
associated with the study. Table 2 lists the study group members who represented the position
of their MADs or organizations.
Representative
Organization
COL Trainor
Department of Systems Engineering
Mr. Lesinski
OPPA
Ms. Wolff
OPPA
Dr. Kelly
OPPA
Mr. Metro
DMI
Dr. Wunderlich
USCC
LTC Messitt
USCC
MAJ Patterson
Dean
MAJ Kingston
ODIA
Table 2. Study Group Composition
2. Methodology. The intent of this study is to gather and present quantitative and qualitative
information to assess the impacts of the change in summer scheduling methodology. A slightly
different methodology was used to answer each study question. The study group employed the
following fundamental steps to answer the primary study question:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Identify Goals or Objectives of the Decision Maker
Develop supporting Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)
Identify measures/metrics that reflect MOE performance
Develop and validate value functions for each measure/metric in order to compare
results on a common scale
5. Gather appropriate data
6. Score measures, MOE, and goals
7. Interpret results
The same data sources were utilized to develop and support findings for Study Question 2 (2nd
and 3rd order impacts). Analysis of Study Question 2 was primarily focused on examination of
Reorganization Week, Graduation Week, and Resources. Unlike Study Question 1, value
functions were not used and scoring was not conducted. Instead, comments, feedback, and
appropriate data were analyzed and directly translated into additional findings, where
appropriate. Study Question 3 is essentially overcome by events (OBE). First, the summer that
was assessed in this study was 11 weeks in length and the goals were achieved, at the levels
discussed later in the study. Second, the BOD has decided to maintain an 11 week summer.
Finally, an analytical answer to whether the goals could be accomplished with a 10 week
summer first necessitates a feasibility analysis- requiring a detailed, bottoms- up summer training
requirements analysis.
10
2.1
Goals/Objectives. Assessment begins with the decision maker’s
goals/objectives. In this case, the Superintendent identified seven (7) goals associated with the
change to summer training and they are listed in Table 3. In accordance with assessment best
practice, goals were not assigned weights for the purposes of this study because an aggregated
score of all goals will not be presented. Instead, an assessment of each individual goal is
presented.
Goal
Goal 1
Goal Description
Enhance cadet development by allowing tailoring of training/educational
opportunities
Goal 2
Create opportunities for multiple STAP “to reduce failures”
Goal 3
Provide the First Class a common, assessed training event on critical leader and
military skills (CLDT)
Goal 4
Minimize the impact on the Academic Year and Staff and Faculty quality of life
Goal 5
Provide more predictive summer timelines with more flexibility in summer
scheduling
Goal 6
Expand ROTC participation in summer training at USMA
Goal 7
Two weeks of leave for every cadet
Table 3. Goals of the Change in Summer Scheduling
2.2
Measures of Effectiveness. Measures of effectiveness (MOE) that support each
stated goal were generated by the study group. In accordance with assessment best practice,
MOE were limited 3-4 for each goal. Where possible, the study group developed MOE to
capture both the quantity and quality aspects of the supported goal. The MOE were briefed to
and vetted with key stakeholders. A complete listing, including definitions, of the MOE utilized
in this study are included at Appendix A. MOEs are numbered for reference. For example,
MOE 1.1 (Increased IAD Participation), the first digit indicates the associated goal and the
second digit indicates that it is the first, of several, MOE for this goal. The hierarchical
organization of the goals and MOE are reflected in the value hierarchy in Figure 2. MOE were
not assigned weights for the purposes of this study. This equates to assigning all MOE within a
goal the same weight. A sensitivity analysis of the MOE weights is included at Appendix N.
The analysis revealed that adjustments in the MOE weights (+/- .2) did not have a significant
impact on goal scoring.
11
Figure 2. Value Hierarchy for Primary Study Question.
2.3.
Measures/Metrics. The study group generated measures/metrics to support the
measurement/assessment of each MOE. The preceding two years of data were used as a baseline
if historical data for the measure existed. However, there were several cases where the specific
data elements were not historically collected or archived; requiring analysis without the benefit
of a baseline. There were also cases where measures developed in support of MOE could not be
supported with available data (M 3.2.3, M 3.3.1, M 6.1.3, M 4.3.1). There was one MOE and
indicator that could not yet be assessed (MOE 3.5: Improved BOLC II Performance and M
3.5.1). Many of the measures associated with Goal 4 (Impact on Academic Year) could not be
determined until the end of the semester. As a note of caution, some measures (mostly those
related to academic performance) may not be reasonably expected to change in only six months
and would be considered lagging indicators. Measures that could be considered lagging
indicators include: M 2.3.1 (First Term Course Failures), M 2.3.2 (Athlete First Term Failures),
M 4.2.2.a (GPA of the Bottom 10% of each Class), M 4.3.2 (Faculty Sponsorship Participation),
and M 5.1.3 (Late Graduates). A complete listing of the measures/metrics associated with this
study are included in Appendix C.
2.4.
Value Functions. Measures/metrics typically have varying units of measure.
Value functions are a technique used to take these disparate measures and information (i.e.
VSTAP attendance, % cadets with less than 2 weeks leave, etc.) and convert them into a
common, standard unit. A value function converts raw measures/metrics into a unit less value
from 0 to 100, allowing common mathematical manipulation of the value scores (addition,
subtraction, etc.) and compare results on a common scale. Draft value functions were developed
for each measure/metric utilized in this study. The draft value functions were then calibrated or
12
validated by appropriate subject matter experts. For example, value functions related to STAP
were calibrated or validated by subject matter experts within ORD. Figure 3 below is the value
function for Measure 2.2.3: The percentage of athlete STAP attendees that became NCAA
eligible after STAP. This value function was developed using historical athlete STAP
performance as a baseline. In the summer of ‘06, 75% of athletes that attended STAP were
academically proficient after STAP and in the summer of ’07 the percentage was 65%. A value
of 100 is assigned if performance equals or exceeds that of last year. A value of 80 is assigned if
5% fewer athletes than last year become proficient after STAP. A value of 50 is assigned if 10%
fewer athletes than last year become proficient after STAP. The raw data for the current year is
then indexed with the value function to determine the measure’s value. For example, in the
summer of ’08, 52% of athletes that attended STAP were academically proficient after STAP.
Utilizing the value function developed for this measure, the value of the measure is 44. A
complete listing of the value functions utilized in this study is included in Appendix L.
Score
Value
65
60
55
40
30
100
80
50
20
0
Raw
Value
Score
44
52.00
Figure 3. Value Function for Measure 2.2.3.
13
2.5.
Data Sources, Methods, and Instruments. All efforts were made to base the
findings and conclusions of this study upon data and factual evidence vice anecdotal information.
Several data sources were utilized which include: Cadets, CLDT Trainers, Staff/Faculty, Tactical
Officers, Department AIAD representatives, ROTC cadets, PMS of ROTC Cadets, AMS
Database, and Subject Matter Experts (SME). The data collection methods include surveys,
focus groups, and data queries. When possible, existing instruments (i.e. CST surveys) were
modified to gather new data requirements. However, numerous new instruments were
developed specifically for this study to include: CLDT Trainer survey, Tactical Officer Survey,
Faculty Survey, Department AIAD Representative Survey, ROTC Cadet Survey, and PMS
Survey. In addition to these new instruments, the annual CST surveys were augmented with
appropriate questions to gain additional cadet perspective and insight regarding the study
questions. Table 4 below highlights the mapping of sources and instruments to MOE and
indicators. Note that a majority of the indicator data came from AMS database or SME data
queries.
Source
Cadets
CLDT Trainers
Faculty
Tactical Officers
AIAD
Representatives
ROTC Cadets
PMS
AMS Database
SME Data
Instrument
MOEs Supported
Indicators Supported
Augmented Annual
CST Survey
(See Appendix H)
& Focus Group
CLDT Trainer
Survey (See
Appendix F)
Faculty Survey
(See Appendix G)
Tactical Officer
Survey (See
Appendix E)
Department AIAD
Representative
Survey
(See Appendix D)
ROTC Cadet
Survey (See
Appendix I)
PMS Survey (See
Appendix J)
Data Query (See
Appendix M)
Data Query (See
Appendix M)
1.2,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,4.
2, 5.2,7.1
1.2.1.c, 1.2.2.b,3.1.1,3.2.2,3.3.2,
3.4.2,4.2.1.a,4.2.1.b,4.2.1.c,5.2.2,
7.1.1,7.1.2
3.1,3.4
3.1.2,3.4.1,
4.1
4.1.1,4.1.2,4.1.3,4.1.4,4.1.5,
1.2,3.2,3.3,3.4,5.2
1.2.1.a,
1.2.2.a,3.2.1,3.3.1,3.4.3,5.2.1,5.2.3,
1.2,5.2
1.2.1.d, 1.2.3.a,5.2.3,
6.2
6.2.1
6.2
6.2.2
1.3,2.2,2.3,4.2,5.1,
5.2
1.1,1.2,2.1,4.2,4.3,
5.1,5.2,6.1,6.3
1.3.1,2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3,2.3.1,2.3.2,
4.2.2.a, 4.2.2.b,5.1.3,5.2.4,
1.1.1,1.1.2,1.1.3, 1.2.1.b,
1.2.3.b,2.1.1, 2.1.2,4.2.3.a,4.2.3.b,
4.3.1,4.3.2,5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.4,5.2.5,
6.1.2,6.3.1
Table 4. Summer Training Assessment Data Sources, Methods, and Instruments
14
2.6.
Scoring of Goals, MOE, and Measures. After data was collected utilizing the
various sources and instruments listed above, each measure was scored via the appropriate value
function. The scored measures were aggregated to create the MOE assessment/score. MOE
scores within each goal were aggregated to create a goal assessment/score. Figure 4 below
illustrates how the measures supporting MOE 3.1 (Quality CLDT Training Event) were
aggregated to develop an assessment/score for MOE 3.1. The numbers in the measure blocks (M
3.1.1 and M 3.1.2) are the measure’s value after the raw data was scored utilizing the appropriate
value function. Since all measures were weighted equally this equates to the average of all
measures. Also, because MOE were weighted equally, goal scores are equivalent to the average
of the supporting MOE scores.
MOE Scoring
Goal Scoring
Figure 4. MOE and Goal Scoring.
2.7
Assumptions.
The current summer schedule (11 week - 3 equal blocks) not the projected one (12 week or
24-28-24) is analyzed.
MOE 1.2: (Effectiveness of training and education opportunities) was primarily focused on
3rd class cadets since they were the primary beneficiaries of new opportunities created by the
new scheduling paradigm.
There was no point of decreasing returns on IAD participation (more is strictly better).
CTLT/DCLT, Summer Leader Detail, one IAD (MIAD, PIAD, or AIAD), CBT, and CFT
are the graduation requirements used for this study.
An IAD (MIAD, PIAD, or AIAD) that crossed into another block more than 2 days was
considered a block violation.
Multiple IADs (AIAD-AIAD, MIAD-MIAD, or AIAD-MIAD) are a good thing (more is
strictly better).
All survey responses are representative of the larger population from which the sample was
drawn.
15
Self reported leave numbers (n=1583) are representative of the actual leave taken by the
upper three classes.
All MOE were of equal value (i.e. no weighting).
All supporting measures are of equal value (i.e. no weighting).
Civil & Mechanical Engineering cadet lesson prep time data is typical of the larger
population (i.e., the Corps).
3. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. In the following section we present the
graphical depiction of the value hierarchy for each goal. Within the value hierarchy diagram, the
goal, MOE, and measures are color coded, in accordance with the scale presented in Table 5
below. Green equates to positive achievement, amber reflects neutral to positive achievement,
orange represents neutral to negative achievement, and rd indicates negative achievement. The
color coding depicts the assessment of the goals, MOE, and measures based upon analysis of the
collected data utilizing the methodology described earlier.
Score
Green
75-100
Amber
50-75
Orange
25-50
Red
0-25
Positive
Positive-Neutral
Neutral-Negative
Negative
Gray
Insufficient
Data
Table 5. Goal, MOE, and Measure Scoring Scale
Following the value hierarchy graphic, we present a table that outlines the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations related to each goal. Findings associated with MOE and measures that are
not “green” are in bold text.
3.1. Goal 1. Enhance cadet development by allowing tailoring of training/educational
opportunities.
Figure 5. Value Hierarchy of Goal 1
16
Table 6. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Goal 1.
Goal 1: Enhance Cadet Development By Allowing Tailoring of Training/Education
Opportunities
PIAD participation increased by 120% in ’08 (406) compared to ’07 (183).
AIAD participation increased by 49% in ’08 (1153) compared to ’07 (775).
MIAD participation increased by 50% in ’08 (1544) compared to ’07
(1035).
There was an increase in IAD participation. 3rd class cadets participated
Conclusions
in these developmental opportunities at unprecedented rates.
Recommendations None
Findings
TACs did not agree that 3rd class cadets possess the requisite maturity
and/or experience to attend all MIADs offered. Additionally, they
stated that 3rd class cadets that participated in MIADs before CFT
were less prepared than those who attended after CFT.
The number and percentage of MIAD failures was less in ’08 (69/4.3%)
compared to ’07 (76/7.9%). However, of the 34 Air Assault 1 failures, 3rd
class represented the largest proportion (74%).
3rd class cadets reported that they felt mentally and physically
prepared for CTLT and DCLT but indicated that they felt less
prepared for MDS.
Department AIAD planners reported that 3rd class cadets were adequately
prepared for the AIADs they participated in.
There may be particular opportunities that 3rd class cadets lack the
Conclusions
maturity, technical skills, and experience in which to meaningfully
participate.
Recommendations Consider limiting specific MDS opportunities for 3rd class or implement
additional screening prior to participation.
Enhance screening and pre-training programs for MIADs particularly for
the 3rd Class before CFT. (Implemented)
Findings
The majority of TACs reported that the change to a three block summer
increased the number of opportunities they could offer their cadets and
facilitated tailoring experiences to cadet personal needs.
Cadets did not agree that the three block summer was better for
tailoring experiences to cadet personal needs.
The change to a three block summer increased opportunities available and
Conclusions
aided TACs in tailoring experiences for cadet personal needs.
Recommendations None
Findings
17
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendation
Seventeen 3rd class cadets participated in CTLT and 208 in DCLT. LDB
anecdotal feedback indicates that 3rd class cadets did not have the
skills or maturity to participate in CTLT/DCLT as the program has
intended.
Department AIAD planners reported that there are particular AIADs that
3rd class cadets are not prepared for due to their lack of technical skills and
curricular base.
There may be particular opportunities that 3rd class cadets lack the
maturity, technical skills, and experience to meaningfully participate.
Do not send 3rd class cadets to CTLT/DCLT. (Implemented) Relook the
template for 3rd class summer scheduling. Continue screening 3rd Class
prior to AIADs and MIADs.
Under the previous summer scheduling paradigm, 3rd class cadets would
have only completed 2 graduation requirements (CBT,CFT) by the end of
the summer. This summer, 84% of 3rd class cadets were able to complete 3
graduation requirements and 3% completed 4 requirements.
Cadets were able to complete more graduation requirements earlier.
Conclusions
Recommendations None
Findings
3.2. Goal 2. Create opportunities for multiple STAP to reduce failures.
Figure 6. Value Hierarchy of Goal 2
18
Table 7. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Goal 2.
Goal 2: Create Opportunities for Multiple STAP to Reduce Failures
There was a 76% increase in VSTAP participation for ’08 (97) compared
Findings
to ’07 (55).
Although the numbers of special demographic (scholarship candidates,
emerging leaders, and engineering majors) increased from 30 in ’07 to 50
in ’08, there was a slight decrease in the percent of special demographic
participation.
Overall VSTAP participation increased as well as the number of special
Conclusions
demographic VSTAP participants.
O/Dean further examine this trend to identify potential root cause.
Recommendations
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
The % of APSC deficient cadets in STAP remained unchanged from ’07
(8%).
There has been a steady decrease in the % of APSC deficient cadets
that become proficient after STAP (‘06=62%, ‘07=54%, ‘08=51%)
There has been a dramatic decrease in the % of deficient athletes
that become proficient after STAP (‘06=75%, ‘07=65%, ‘08=52%).
Looking back to STAP 06 there has been a steady decrease in the % of
APSC deficient and deficient athletes that become “healthy” after STAP.
O/Dean further examine this trend to identify potential root cause.
The percentage of first term athlete failures, 09-1, decreased by 10%
(28%) compared to 08-1 (38%) and was also lower than 07-1 (33%).
10% of 08-3 STAP attendees failed a course the following semester
compared to 07-3 STAP attendees failed a course the following
semester. (7%).
3rd Class cadets had the highest increase percentage of STAP attendee
follow-on failures compared to the previous year.
First term athlete failures decreased while STAP attendee follow-on
failures. Difficult to correlate either to change in summer paradigm and
compression of academic year.
OPA conduct semi-annual failures study to determine if there are any
long term impacts and/or trends. (In Progress)
3.3. Goal 3. Provide the First Class a common, assessed training event on critical leader
and military skills (CLDT).
19
Figure 7. Value Hierarchy of Goal 3
Table 8. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Goal 3.
Goal 3: Provide the First Class a common, assessed training event on critical leader and
military skills (CLDT).
85% of cadets stated that CLDT was conducted professionally. 68%
agreed that CLDT was a high quality (well resourced, planned, and
executed) training experience.
CLDT trainers overwhelmingly agreed (97%) that CLDT was a high
quality (well resourced, planned, and executed) training experience.
The cadet quality rating is possibly a function of synchronization issues
Conclusions
and “growing pains” of this new event in addition to cadets not “liking”
what is good for them.
Recommendations Strategic communication or positive publicity program for CLDT.
Continue to improve synchronization of this valuable, complex event.
Findings
85% of TACs stated that CLDT appeared to improve the leadership skills
of those that attended.
TACs overwhelmingly stated that they would encourage rising Firsties to
attend CLDT next year.
Cadets agreed (8:1) that CLDT was useful for their leadership
development, improved their leadership skills, and helped them be a better
leader as a PL after graduation.
TACs and Cadets perceived an improvement in leadership skills after
Conclusions
attending CLDT.
Recommendations None.
Findings
20
Cadets agreed (10:1) that CLDT improved their ability to solve a tactical
problem, apply appropriate doctrinal principles, communicate a plan, and
to lead a unit during planning and execution of a mission.
TACs did not feel they were able to make a judgment regarding
improvement of individual military skills of their CLDT cadets.
Cadets that participated in CLDT stated that CFT II provided
baseline knowledge and skills that reduced the slope of the learning
curve and increased the value of CLDT. They questioned their ability to
successfully complete CLDT without these baseline skills and knowledge.
Cadets perceived an improvement in military skills after attending CLDT.
Conclusions
CFT II provided baseline skills that CLDT cadets drew upon to
successfully complete CLDT.
Recommendations Examine whether CLDT cadets have the requisite baseline skills, without
CFT II, to successfully complete CLDT.
Findings
90% of CLDT trainers stated that they were able to give effective and
meaningful feedback on cadet leadership and tactical abilities and that
cadets improved throughout CLDT as a result of the feedback they
received.
73% of CLDT trainers reported providing feedback to TACs on
CLDT cadet performance.
12% of CLDT trainers reported they did not provide TACs cadet
performance feedback.
Cadets agreed (12:1) that they received effective and meaningful feedback
on their performance during CLDT.
In general, TACs did not report using the CLDT feedback to make
changes to cadet development plans or requiring CLDT cadets to
reflect/discuss their feedback during COMs time.
Cadets received effective and meaningful feedback during CLDT.
Conclusions
However, this feedback did not always “follow” them to the academic
year.
Recommendations Provide structured time during the Academic Year (MX400, COM time)
for cadets to reflect on their CLDT feedback.
Findings
Findings
CLDT trainers noted that cadets were weakest in developing and
communicating a plan in a timely manner.
CLDT trainers noted that 2LTs did not necessarily add value to the CLDT
training experience in the roles performed.
CLDT trainers stated that company level leadership positions had little
value in developing leader skills.
2LTs could be used more effectively.
Squad and Platoon level positions were most effective for achieving
desired CLDT outcomes.
Recommendations Relook the use of 2LTs during CLDT or examine other value added roles.
(Implemented- LTs will only be used in admin/log positions next
summer)
Conclusions
21
Limit the number of company level leadership positions during CLDT.
(Implemented- company level leadership positions will only be used in
mission sets where there is value added)
3.4. Goal 4. Minimize the impact on the Academic Year and Staff and Faculty quality
of life.
Figure 8. Value Hierarchy for Goal 4.
Table 9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Goal 4.
Goal 4: Minimize the impact on the Academic Year and Staff and Faculty quality of life.
Findings
69% of faculty surveyed reported that they spent less time on personal
activities compared to previous semesters. There was a 2.3:1 ratio
between those that reported spending less/much less to those reporting
no change.
53% of faculty surveyed reported that they spent less time on research
activities compared to previous semesters. There was a 1.2:1 ratio
between those that reported spending less/much less to those reporting
no change.
18% of faculty surveyed reported that they spent less time on teaching
related activities compared to previous semesters. There was a 1:3 ratio
between those that reported spending less/much less to those reporting no
change.
27% of faculty surveyed reported that they spent less time on cadet
development activities compared to previous semesters. There was a
22
Conclusion
Recommendation
1:2 ratio between those that reported spending less/much less to those
reporting no change.
26% of faculty surveyed reported that they spent less time on service
activities compared to previous semesters. There was a 1:2.5 ratio
between those that reported spending less/much less to those reporting
no change.
There is a statistically significant decrease in the faculty reported
morale and effectiveness within their departments compared to the
results from the MAR 08 Command Climate Survey.
There is a statistically significant increase in the faculty reporting
disagreement with whether that they had sufficient time to do their
jobs increased from 28% (reported in Mar 08 Command Climate
Survey) to 39%.
Based upon faculty feedback , participation in scholarly research and
personal time were the most impacted by the compression of the academic
year
Faculty morale was negatively impacted by compression of academic year.
Explore options to restore “white space” to the academic year.
(Implemented)
The end of course survey (09-1) revealed that 74% of cadets agreed or
strongly agreed that their personal schedule allowed them enough time to
reflect on the material learned in class.
90 % of CME cadets surveyed via the end of course survey (09-1) stated
that their instructor always had a structure or plan for every lesson's
learning activities. This is up from 85% as reported in the 08-1 end of
course survey.
The end of course survey (09-1) revealed that 71% of cadets agreed or
strongly agreed that their personal schedule allowed them enough time
to adequately prepare for optimum academic performance.
CME has collected cadet lesson prep time data since ’04. CME cadet
prep time data from 9 courses, including a large enrollment, nonmajors course, showed that cadet prep time decreased (not statistically
significant) in 5 of 9 courses.
Faculty reported a noticeable difference in preparation for the first 2
lessons compared to previous semesters.
Faculty did not report changes to the course content, number of lesson
objectives covered, or number of course requirements due to the
compressed academic year.
Compression of the academic year did not result in changes to the course
Conclusions
content, number of lesson objectives covered, or number of course
requirements. However, cadet preparation (particularly for the first two
lessons) and reflection time appear to have been impacted.
Recommendations Explore options to restore “white space” to the academic year.
(Implemented)
Findings
23
Findings
The Grade point average of the bottom 10% of Yearlings (1.953) and
Firsties (2.141) was lower in 09-1 compared to 08-1 (1.995 and 2.177
respectively). The decrease in Firstie GPA was statistically significant
(alpha=.05).
The Grade point average of the bottom 10% of Cows was slightly higher in
09-1 (2.094) compared to 08-1 (2.081).
There was a 24% increase in the number of first term failures in 09-1
(191) compared to 08-1 (154). Most of this increase is attributed to an
increase Plebe failures compared to 08-1. However, first term failures
in 09-1 (191) were less than 07-1 (255).
Cadet performance in 09-1, as reflected in the GPA of the bottom 10% of
Conclusions
cadets and course failures, when compared to 08-1, appears to have
slightly decreased. It is problematic, at this point, to attempt to link the
decrease in performance to the academic year compression.
Recommendations OPA conduct a semi-annual failures study to identify potential long term
trends and characteristics of at risk cadets. (In Progress)
Findings
Cadet participation the Honors program has decreased over the last
several years. Participation rates by Class: ’07=16%, ‘08=15.7%,
’09=8%,’10=6.7%, ‘11=5.4%
The number of first semester academic trip sections in ’08 (236) increased
compared to “07 (206) and ’06 (189). Additionally, the total number of
cadets increased in conjunction with increased number of trips.
Mixed results regarding impact on cadet participation in academic
Conclusions
enrichment activities. However, there has been a noticeable decrease in
Honors program participation
Recommendations O/Dean further examine this trend to identify potential root cause.
USCC reports no historical information available regarding Club OIC
participation.
Participation in the Officer Representative (OR) program increased 7% in
’08 (209 staff/faculty) compared to the previous year (195).
There was a 5% increase in the number of staff/faculty that participated in
the sponsor program in ‘08 (315 staff/faculty) compared to ’07 (300).
Staff and Faculty participation in the PME2 program in ’08 (300
staff/faculty) was 25% less than in the previous year (407).
The trends in sponsorship and officer representative (OR) participation run
Conclusions
counter to the faculty survey results stating that 27% of faculty reported
spending less time on cadet development activities compared to previous
semesters. It is very likely that a change in staff/faculty participation in
cadet development activities would take some time (more than a few
months) to manifest itself.
Recommendations Continue to monitor staff/faculty participation in cadet development
programs to ensure satisfactory levels.
Findings
24
3.5. Goal 5. More predictive summer timelines with more flexibility in summer scheduling.
Figure 9. Value Hierarchy for Goal 5.
Table 10. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Goal 5.
Goal 5: More predictive summer timelines with more flexibility in summer scheduling.
The number of order amendments cut in ’08 (908) was greater than ’07
(775). However, there were 3329 MIAD opportunities this year compared
to 1927 last year. The percentage of amendments to total orders cut
this year (27%) was less than last year (40%).
There were 1156 total IAD(s) block violations. Overall, 27% of IADs
violated a block constraint (MIAD: 29%, AIAD: 20%, PIAD: 37%).
The change to the summer schedule happened late in the year, many
of the IADs were scheduled prior to the establishment of the blocks.
TACs and AIAD reps noted that all LTP programs also violated block
constraints, reducing their scheduling flexibility.
Establishing 3 blocks for scheduling did help to discipline scheduling and
Conclusions
improve scheduling efficiency. However, nearly 1/3 of all IADs violated
block constraints.
Recommendations Continue to improve event and block alignment. Institute an 8TAP type
system for summer training. (In Progress)
Findings
25
There were fewer late graduates (Aug/Dec) in ’08 (12) than in ’07 (15)
(49%).
There were 3329 MIAD opportunities this year compared to 1927 last
year. The percentage of amendments cut within 10 days or after the
training event start date was lower this year (36%) compared to last
year
Must wait to see if there is a long term impact of adding a new graduation
Conclusions
requirement (CLDT) closer to graduation.
Establishing 3 blocks did improve scheduling efficiency. However, a large
portion of amendments are still cut within 10 days or after the training
event.
Recommendations LDB examine amendments to identify the root cause and factors
influencing the frequency and timeliness of amendments. (In ProgressScheduling now being done one month earlier than previous years)
Findings
Findings
TACs disagreed (3 to 1) that the three block summer provided them
more scheduling flexibility.
Seventy-three percent of cadets agreed/strongly agreed that the three block
summer provided them more scheduling flexibility.
AIAD reps (n=33) stated that the three block summer provided more
predictability but did not agree that there was more scheduling
flexibility.
PIAD planners (n=2) stated that the three block summer provided more
predictability but did not agree that there was more scheduling flexibility.
TACs and AIAD reps equate blocks with additional imposed constraints
Conclusions
(reduced flexibility) and increased complexity of their scheduling
responsibilities.
Schedulers anticipate flexibility to decrease once additional CLDT block is
created.
Recommendations None
‘07 was the first year to offer multiple STAP opportunities. The number
of multiple STAPs in ’08 (23) was less than in ’07 (29)
The change in scheduling paradigm did not increase the number of
Conclusions
multiple STAPs.
Recommendations O/Dean investigate what prevented cadets from participating in multiple
STAPs.
Findings
There were 74 cadets that participated in multiple IADs (AIAD-AIAD,
MIAD-MIAD) this summer compared to 81 last summer.
No major change in multiple IADs.
Conclusions
Recommendations Decide whether multiple IADs are desirable and to what extent. Consider
policy that outlines primacy of IADs and general guidance regarding
multiple IADs.
Findings
26
3.6. Goal 6. Expand ROTC participation in summer training at USMA
Figure 10. Value Hierarchy for Goal 6.
Table 11. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Goal 6.
Goal 6: Expand ROTC participation in summer training at USMA.
ROTC cadet participation in USMA Air Assault was roughly the same in
’08 compared to ’07 (approximately 30 cadets).
There was a slight decrease (6%) in the number of ROTC cadets that
participated in CFT in ’08 (120) compared to ’07 (128)
Due to several constraints, ROTC cadets are not yet participating in CLDT.
ROTC participation in CFT decreased slightly and MIAD participation
Conclusions
remained roughly the same.
Recommendations Establish way ahead to increase ROTC participation in CFT and USMA
cadet participation in LDAC. (In Progress- USMA cadets will be given
CLDT and MIAD credit for LDAC and we will send more cadets this
summer. 50 more slots for ROTC at USMA Air Assault; more ROTC
slots at CFT)
Findings
27
ROTC cadets reported that CFT met their expectations for a quality
Summer training experience and were satisfied with the quality of training
received.
ROTC cadets most common negative feedback items were they were
not allowed to participate in leadership positions and the West Point
cadets did not necessarily treat them like “one of their own.”
Eighty-five percent of PMS stated that CFT appeared to improve the
leadership skills of those that attended and 95% saw an improvement in
their cadet’s military skills.
Ninety-four percent of PMS stated that CFT for their cadets was a positive
experience and would recommend cadets attend CFT next year.
ROTC cadets and their PMS reported that CFT was a positive and quality
Conclusions
training experience.
ROTC cadets expressed the desire to perform leadership roles during CFT
Recommendations Adequately inform and manage expectations of incoming ROTC cadets
regarding limited leadership opportunities. (In Progress)
Findings
Findings
Although 20 USMA cadets were projected to participate in LDAC this
summer only 5 did participate and 1 failed. Zero USMA cadets
participated in LDAC in ’07 and ’06.
USMA cadets did not participate in LDAC at the rate desired.
Conclusions
Recommendations Establish way ahead to increase ROTC participation in CFT and USMA
cadet participation in LDAC. (In Progress- USMA cadets will be given
CLDT and MIAD credit for LDAC and we will send more cadets this
summer. 50 more slots for ROTC at USMA Air Assault; more ROTC
slots at CFT)
3.7. Goal 7. Two weeks of leave taken by every cadet.
Figure 11. Value Hierarchy for Goal 7.
28
Table 12. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Goal 7.
Goal 7: Two weeks of leave taken by every cadet.
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
Of the 1583 CST cadet survey respondents, 13% reported taking less
than 2 weeks of leave. ’10 cadets reported the highest percentage
taking less than 2 weeks of leave compared to ’09 and ’11.
TACs reported that a total of approximately 250 cadets requested to take
less than two weeks leave.
Not all cadets took 2 weeks of leave (13%). However, the majority of
these cadets requested to take less than 2 weeks (56%) in order to
participate in a developmental opportunity.
Continue to scrutinize individual requests to take less than 2 weeks leave.
Of the 1583 CST cadet survey respondents, 31% reported taking
more than 4 weeks (28 days) of leave. ’11 cadets reported the highest
percentage taking more than 4 weeks of leave compared to ’09 and
’10.
Opportunities did not always match white space, therefore the only option
was leave.
Match number of opportunities available with white space in summer
schedule.
Cadet CST survey respondents agreed (7:1) that there was sufficient
personal leave available for use during CST.
Cadets are satisfied with the amount of summer leave they are getting
None
3.8 Reorganization Week.
Table 13. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Reorganization Week
Findings
Almost 50% of cadets disagreed that the transition from CST to the
academic year was efficient and effective.
Eighty-three percent of the Classes of 2009 and 2010 stated that they did
not have adequate time to conduct the activities associated with the
transition from CST to the academic year.
Overall cadets did not agree they had enough time to conduct the
activities they needed to prior to the start of the academic year.
Cadet focus groups indicated that 3rd and 4th Class were most impacted by
the shortened Reorgy week.
Nearly three-quarters of the CLDT Trainers stated that there was not
enough time at the end of the summer training to prepare and get ready for
the first day of academics.
Faculty reported that cadets were noticeably less prepared for the first two
29
Conclusions
Recommendations
lessons compared to previous semesters.
Ninety-four percent of TACs stated that the impacting of changing Reorgy
week from five to three days was negative with 64% of TACs stating they
were unable to completed required tasks during Reorgy week.
TACs noted that the most common things not completed were:
inspections, counseling, company meetings or briefings, and only
prescribed weigh-ins, taping, or urinalysis tests.
Cadets, Faculty, TACs, CLDT Trainers all noted a less than smooth
transition from the summer to academic year and an inability to complete
required tasks. Consequently, several tasks migrated to the academic
year. Organizational efforts, team building, and class preparation
suffered.
Increase Reorgy week from 3 days to 5 days. (Implemented)
3.9 Graduation Week.
Table 14. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Graduation Week
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
Most (70%) of 3rd Class agreed or strongly agreed that the transition from
grad week to Cadet Summer Training was efficient and effective.
However only 20% of the upper two classes agreed or strongly agreed that
the transition from grad week to Cadet Summer Training was efficient and
effective.
Cadet focus groups revealed no major impacts to the shortened Grad
week.
There were 416 cadets participating in training or educational
opportunities during Grad week.
Cadet focus groups noted that mini-Buckner was very inefficient with
many key leaders absent.
Far fewer negative comments were made with regard to the length of
Graduation Week. Cadets who had to prepare for training or an IAD
were most affected.
Reexamine the viability of mini-Buckner. Assess whether the objectives
are appropriate, feasible, and being met.
3.10 Resource Facts.



Lack of detailed data available to determine if there was a change in size or
duration of task force requirements to support CST.
Two hundred and fifty more faculty man days were required to support CST
2008.
Seven half days were required to train faculty for CLDT. This will double in
2009.
30









The costs associated with billeting the task force increased by $105K over last
year. Current funding and space does not support more trailers than provided in
FY08.
Mess hall costs increased from FY2007 to FY08 by $24,937.
New this summer were the costs incurred as a result of billeting twenty 2LTs.
Billeting expense was $41,336.
Costs attributed to travel and per diem for cadets decreased by over $400,000 as a
result of using buses for transportation.
AIAD costs (all sources of funding) for ‘08 were $4.2M compared to
The cost for civilian staff to work on Columbus and Veterans Days was
$4,214.87.
116 additional faculty man days (~5 faculty x 24 days) to support STAP this year
compared to previous year.
DOL reported the overall costs from FY07 to FY08 show an increase for DPW
maintenance facilities and range repair however, a comprehensive study would
need to be conducted to assess how much of this cost is attributed to CST changes
as opposed to inflation or other range users.
Starting in FY09, DOL will incur approximately $8,800 in annual costs to dispose
fired 75MM and 105MM cartridge casings generated during CST. If participation
increases (ROTC cadets and support personnel) so will the costs for munitions
disposal.
4. Summary of Results. Figure 12 below represents the graphical depiction of the value
hierarchy for each goal. Within the value hierarchy diagram, the goal and MOE are color coded,
in accordance with the scale presented earlier. The color coding depicts the assessment of the
goals and MOE based upon analysis of the collected data utilizing the methodology described
earlier.
31
Figure 12. Summary of Results Value Hierarchy
The change to summer scheduling paradigm did enhance cadet development by allowing
tailoring of training and educational opportunities.
 There was an increase in the number of cadets participating in IADs this summer
and 3rd Class cadets participated in these developmental opportunities at
unprecedented rates.
 There may be particular opportunities for which the 3rd Class lack the maturity,
technical skills, and experience to meaningfully participate.
 The change to a three block summer increased opportunities available and aided
TACs in tailoring experiences for cadet personal needs.
 Cadets were able to complete more graduation requirements earlier.
The change to the length of summer training and scheduling paradigm did create
additional STAP opportunities. However, there was not a commensurate increase in
percentage of cadets that became “healthy” after STAP or reduction in the percentage of
STAP attendees with subsequent course failures.
 Overall VSTAP participation and the number of special demographic VSTAP
participants increased.
 Since ’06, there has been a steady decrease in the percentage of APSC deficient
and deficient athletes that become “healthy” after STAP.
 There was an increase in the percentage of cadets that attended STAP and failed a
course the following term.
 There was not an increase in the number of cadets that participated in multiple
STAPs.
32

Too early to determine whether, in the long term, increased STAP opportunities
decrease the number of course failures.
CLDT did provide 1st Class cadets with a common, assessed training event on critical
leader and military skills
 Cadets and trainers noted that CLDT was a high quality, professionally executed
training event.
 TACs and Cadets perceived an improvement in leadership skills after attending
CLDT.
 Cadets perceived an improvement in military skills after attending CLDT.
However, they noted that CFT II provided essential baseline skills that they drew
upon to successfully complete CLDT.
 Cadets received effective and meaningful feedback during CLDT. However, this
feedback did not always “follow” them to the academic year.
 Too early to determine whether there is a change in BOLC II/III feedback.
The compression of the academic year did impact faculty and staff time allocation and
morale. Although difficult to correlate with the change, cadet academic performance
decreased slightly.
 Participation in scholarly research and personal time were most impacted and
faculty morale was negatively impacted by compression of the academic year.
 No impact on program structure, course content, graded requirements, academic
expectations of cadets, or perceived quality of instruction. However, cadet
preparation (particularly for the first two lessons) and reflection time appear to
have been impacted.
 Cadet performance in 09-1, as reflected in the GPA of the bottom 10% of cadets
and course failures, when compared to 08-1, decreased slightly.
 Results were mixed regarding impact on cadet participation in academic
enrichment activities. There has been a noticeable decrease in Honors program
participation, acknowledging however, that this is a lagging indicator.
 Trends in sponsorship, PME2, and OR participation run counter to the faculty
survey results. It is very likely that a change in staff/faculty participation in cadet
development activities would take some time (more than a few months) to
manifest itself.
The change to summer scheduling paradigm did provide a more predictive summer
timeline with a slight improvement in scheduling efficiency. This came at the cost of a
perceived decrease in flexibility.
 Establishing a 3 block summer schedule did help to discipline scheduling and
slightly improve scheduling efficiency. However, nearly 1/3 of all IADs violated
block constraints, 36% of order amendments are still cut within 10 days or after
the training event start date.
 TACs and AIAD reps equate blocks with additional imposed constraints (reduced
flexibility) and increased complexity of their scheduling responsibilities.
 Schedulers anticipate flexibility to decrease once additional CLDT block is
introduced.
33

The change in scheduling paradigm did not increase the number of multiple
STAPs taken or the number of cadets that participated in multiple IADs during
the summer.
The change to the length of summer training and new scheduling paradigm did not
improve ROTC participation in USMA CFT or USMA participation in ROTC training.
 ROTC participation in CFT during the summer ’08 actually decreased.
 ROTC cadets and their PMS did report that CFT was a positive, high quality
training experience.
 USMA participation in ROTC military training did not meet the goal or threshold
established.
Not all upper class cadets took two weeks leave during the summer.
 13% of cadets surveyed took less than 2 weeks of leave. The majority of these
cadets requested to take less than 2 weeks in order to participate in a
developmental opportunity.
 Opportunities available did not match summer training “white space.” 31% of
cadets surveyed reported taking more than 4 weeks (28 days) of leave. ’11 cadets
reported the highest incidence of taking more than 4 weeks (28 days) of leave.
Cadets, Faculty, TACs, and summer trainers noted several negative impacts of a shortened
Reorgy week.
 Cadets, Faculty, TACs, CLDT Trainers all noted a less than smooth transition
from the summer to academic year and an inability to complete required tasks.
Consequently, several tasks migrated to the academic year. Organizational
efforts, team building, and class preparation suffered.
 3rd and 4th Class cadets and summer trainers were most impacted by the change.
The reduction in Graduation week had minimal impact on cadets and staff/faculty.
 Far fewer negative comments were made with regard to the length of Graduation
Week. Cadets who had to prepare for training or an IAD were most affected.
5. Recommendations


Goal 1. Enhance cadet development by allowing tailoring of training/educational
opportunities.
 Consider limiting specific MDS opportunities for 3rd class or implement
additional screening prior to participation.
 Do not send 3rd class to CTLT/DCLT. (Implemented)
 Enhance screening and pre-training programs for MIADs
particularly for the 3rd Class before CFT. (Implemented)
Goal 2. Create opportunities for multiple STAP “to reduce failures.”
 O/Dean examine why there has been a steady decrease in the percentage
of APSC deficient and deficient athletes that become “healthy” after
STAP and an increase in STAP follow-on failures.
34






OPA conduct a semi-annual failure analysis to identify and analyze
potential trends. (In Progress)
Goal 3. Provide the First Class a common, assessed training event on critical
leader and military skills (CLDT).
 Develop and implement a strategic communication or positive publicity
program for CLDT.
 Examine whether CLDT cadets have the requisite skills, without CFT II,
to successfully complete CLDT.
 Provide structured time during the AY for cadets to reflect on and discuss
CLDT feedback.
 Relook the use of 2LTs during CLDT or examine other value added roles.
(Implemented- LTs will only be used in admin/log positions next
summer)
 Limit the number of company level leadership positions during CLDT.
(Implemented- company level leadership positions will only be used in
mission sets where there is value added)
Goal 4. Minimize the impact on the Academic Year and Staff and Faculty quality
of life.
 Develop and analyze COAs to restore “white space” to the academic year.
(Implemented)
 OPA conduct semi-annual failures study to determine if there are any long
term impacts and/or trends. (In Progress)
Goal 5. Provide more predictive summer timelines with more flexibility in
summer scheduling.
 Continue to improve event and block alignment.
 LDB examine amendments to identify the root cause and factors
influencing the frequency and timeliness of amendments. (In ProgressScheduling now being done one month earlier than previous years)
 Decide whether multiple IADs are desirable and to what extent. Consider
policy that outlines primacy of IADs and general guidance regarding
multiple IADs.
 Develop and implement an “8TAP system” for scheduling, forecasting,
and management of summer training and development experiences. (In
Progress)
Goal 6. Expand ROTC participation in summer training at USMA.
 Establish way ahead to increase ROTC participation in CFT and USMA
cadet participation in LDAC. (In Progress- USMA cadets will be given
CLDT and MIAD credit for LDAC and we will send more cadets this
summer. 50 more slots for ROTC at USMA Air Assault; more ROTC
slots at CFT)
 Adequately inform and manage expectations of incoming ROTC cadets
regarding leadership opportunities. (In Progress)
Goal 7. Two weeks of leave for every cadet.
 Continue to screen and enforce less than 2 weeks leave as an exception.
 Conduct an analysis, by Class, to determine whether opportunities equal or
exceed “white space.”
35

Other.
 Reexamine the viability of mini-Buckner. Assess whether the objectives
are appropriate, feasible, and being met.
 Increase fall semester Reorganization week from 3 days to 5.
(Implemented)
36
References
Academic Program, Curriculum and Course Descriptions, October 17, 2007, The Red Book.
AMS Database.
CST 2008 After Action Review, Aug 08.
Dean’s Policy and Operating Memorandum (DPOM) 2-24, “Summer Training Academic
Program,” 23 March 1999.
DMI Proposal USMA Summer 2009, 9 Sep 08.
Memo dated 23 Jun 08, SUBJECT: Class of 2012 Graduation Requirements.
Military Program, Academic Year 2007-2008, The Green Book.
Military Training Tiger Team Report, Cadet Summer Training, 7 Dec 06.
Notes from Discussion of Academic Program Impacts. Date Unknown.
Potential Metrics for Assessment of 11/12 Week Summer. Stanton, Sobiesk, Blair. Date
Unknown.
37
38
39
Appendix A. Measures of Effectiveness
Goal
Goal 1. Enhance
cadet development
by allowing tailoring
of training &
educational
opportunities
Measure of Effectiveness
MOE 1.1: Increased IAD
participation
MOE 1.2: Effectiveness of
training and educational
opportunities
MOE 1.3: Increase in typical
graduation requirement
completion
Key Question/Definition/Description
Are more cadets participating in
IADs since the scheduling change?
The increase/decrease in the number of
cadets participating in AIADs, PIADs,
and MIADs in the summer ’08
compared to the summers of ’06 and
‘07. This MOE focuses on the quantity
versus quality of IADs.
Did cadets participate in appropriate
training or educational activities?
The change to the structure of the
summer training schedule created the
potential for increased opportunities.
This MOE focuses on the 3rd class and
the effectiveness of these opportunities.
Effectiveness is a function of cadet
preparedness, individual tailoring of
developmental experiences, and
satisfaction of program intent. This
MOE focuses on the quality versus
quantity of IADs.
Were more cadets able to fulfill more
graduation requirements earlier?
The proportion of cadets by class that
were able to complete graduation
requirements earlier than in ‘07.
Completing more graduation
requirements earlier allows cadets more
future developmental opportunities.
Goal 2. Create
Opportunities for
Multiple STAP to
Reduce Failures
MOE 2.1: VSTAP
participation
Are more cadets participating in
VSTAP? Increase/decrease in the
number of cadets participating in
1
MOE 2.2: APSC Deficient
Cadets and Athlete
Improvement
MOE 2.3: First Term
Academic Failures
VSTAP in ’08 compared to ’07.
Increase in the percentage of special
demographics participating in VSTAP.
Were more cadets who need to, able
to participate in STAP and improve
their academic standing?
Increase/decrease in the percentage of
athlete and APSC deficient cadets that
become proficient by attending STAP in
’08 compared to ’07.
Has there been a decline in the
number of first term academic
failures? Increase/decrease in the
number of post STAP cadets and
athletes that failed a course in the first
term in 08 compared to 07 and 06.
Goal 3. Provide 1st
Class a common,
assessed training
event on critical
leader and military
skills (CLDT).
MOE 3.1: Quality of training
event
MOE 3.2: Improved cadet
leadership skills
MOE 3.3: Improved cadet
military skills
MOE 3.4: Effective
feedback
MOE 3.5: LT performance
2
Was CLDT a quality training event?
The proportion of positive qualitative
feedback regarding CLDT from cadets
and CLDT trainers.
Did the training received at CLDT
enhance/improve the leadership skills
of those cadets who participated?
Cadet and TAC perceived improvement
in leadership skills post CLDT
participation.
Did the training received at CLDT
enhance/improve the military skills of
those cadets who participated? Cadet
and TAC perceived improvement in
military skills attributed to CLDT
participation.
Were cadets who attended CLDT
given effective and timely feedback to
improve their personal leadership
and military skills? CLDT trainer,
cadet, and TAC perceived quantity,
quality, and effectiveness of CLDT
feedback.
Has the overall performance of
at BOLC II and III
USMA LTs at BOLC II and II
improved since establishment of
CLDT? Not possible to assess this
MOE at this time
MOE 4.1: Use of faculty
time
Has the change to the academic
schedule and support of summer
training had an impact on the staff
and faculty teaching and professional
time? Increase/decrease in non-first
year staff/faculty reported time
allocation to teaching activities,
scholarly research, service, cadet
development, and personal time in ‘08
compared to ‘07.
Has the compression of the academic
year had an impact on the quality of
the cadet academic experience?
Increase/decrease in cadet preparation
time, reflection time, academic
performance, perceived instructor
preparation, and cadet participating in
academic enrichment activities.
H as the compression of the academic
year had an impact on faculty
participation in cadet development
activities outside the classroom?
Increase/decrease in the number of
faculty participating in OR, PME2, and
sponsorship activities in ‘08 compared
to ‘07.
Goal 4. Minimize
impact on AY and
Staff & Faculty
quality of life
MOE 4.2: Quality of cadet
academic experience
MOE 4.3: Faculty
participation in cadet
development activities
Goal 5. More
predictive summer
timelines with more
flexibility in summer
scheduling
MOE 5.1: Effectiveness of
scheduling change
3
Was the change to a 3 block summer
more effective in scheduling cadet
summer training? Increase/decrease
in the percentage and timing of
amendments to summer training orders
and degree of adherence to scheduling
within the designated blocks.
MOE 5.2: Flexibility of
scheduling change
Did the change to a 3 block summer
increase the number/combinations of
opportunities available to cadets and
increase scheduling flexibility? TAC,
planner, and Cadet perceived
increase/decrease in scheduling
flexibility. Increase/decrease in
multiple STAP and IAD participation.
MOE 6.1: ROTC cadets
participating in USMA
summer training
Was there an increase in the number
of ROTC cadets who participated in
military training at USMA? Increase
in the number of ROTC cadets
participating in CFT, USMA MADs,
and CLDT in the summer ’08 compared
to the summers of ’06 and ‘07. This
MOE focuses on the quantity versus
quality of ROTC cadet experiences at
USMA.
Maximize positive qualitative feedback
from ROTC cadets and their PMS who
participated in CFT, USMA MADs, and
CLDT. This MOE focuses on the
quality versus quantity of ROTC cadet
experiences at USMA.
Was there an increase in the number
of USMA cadets who participated in
ROTC military training?
Increase/decrease in the number of
USMA cadets participating in ROTC
summer training in the summer ’08
compared to the summers of ’06 and
‘07. This MOE focuses on the quantity
versus quality of USMA cadet
experiences.
Goal 6. Expand
ROTC participation
in summer training
at USMA
MOE 6.2: Quality of ROTC
cadet experiences
MOE 6.3: USMA cadet
participation in ROTC
summer training
7.0. Two weeks of
leave taken by every
cadet
MOE 7.1: Leave Taken
4
Are cadets taking at least 2 weeks
leave? Are there cases of cadets
taking more than 4 weeks leave?
Number of days leave during the
summer ’08.
Appendix B. MOE and Indicator Results Summary
1
M.O.E. 1.1. IAD Participation
Indicator 1.1.3. AIAD Participation, 2006, 2007, & 2008
(A)IAD Participation
Percent
100
1153 Opportunities
775 Opportunities
503 Opportunities
80
386
502
60
526
40
426
238
20
101
201
35
16
0
Summer 2008
1st Class
Summer 2007
2nd Class
Summer 2006
3rd Class
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Database, OPPA (IRAB), USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities.
Indicator 1.2.1.a. TAC Officer Evaluations
Third Class cadets possess the requisite maturity and/or
experience to attend all of the MIAD opportunities
offered this year (excluding Sapper and pre-Ranger).
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
TAC Officers
Strongly Agree/Agree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Leader Development Branch, USCC, USMA
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
2
3
4
5
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities
Indicator 1.2.1.d. Cadets adequately prepared for opportunities - AIADs
Based on their previous training, the Third Class cadets who
attended an AIAD this summer were adequately prepared for
the experience.
Percent
N = 32
100
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities
Indicator 1.2.1.d. Cadets adequately prepared for opportunities - AIADs
Third Class cadets possess the requisite maturity and/or
experience to attend “ALL” of the AIAD opportunities
offered this year.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
6
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities
Indicator 1.2.1.d. Cadets adequately prepared for opportunities - AIADs
Are there particular types of AIAD opportunities that you
feel Third Class cadets do not have the maturity or requisite
skills to participate?
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Yes
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
7
No
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities
Indicator 1.2.1.d. Cadets adequately prepared for opportunities – (A)IADs
This past summer’s cadet (A)IAD assignments were more
effective/appropriate than those in previous summers.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities
Indicator 1.2.1.d. Cadets adequately prepared for opportunities – (M)IADs
Based on their previous training, the Third Class cadets
who attended a MIAD this past summer, BEFORE CFT,
were prepared to attend the training.
100
80
60
40
20
0
N = 32
Percent
Based on their previous training, the Third Class cadets
who attended a MIAD this past summer, AFTER CFT,
were prepared to attend the training.
100
80
60
40
20
0
TAC Officers
TAC Officers
Strongly Agree/Agree
N = 32
Percent
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Tactical Officer Summer Training Survey, USMA
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
8
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities
Indicator 1.2.1.d. Cadets adequately prepared for opportunities – (M)IADs
Third Class cadets possess the requisite maturity and/or
experience to attend all of the MIAD opportunities offered
this year (excluding Sapper and pre-Ranger).
Percent
N = 32
100
80
60
40
20
0
TAC Officers
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Tactical Officer Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities
Indicator 1.2.1.d. Cadets adequately prepared for opportunities – (M)IADs
This year’s assignments were more
effective/appropriate than those in previous summers.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
TAC Officers
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Tactical Officer Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
9
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities.
Indicator 1.2.2.b. Cadet Survey Feedback
With the additional week(s) summer training program, cadets are
allowed improved tailoring of training and education, thereby
enhancing their development opportunities.
100
N = 1659
Percent
80
60
40
20
0
Class of 2009
Class of 2010
Strongly Agree/Agree
Class of 2011
Total
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Summer Training Surveys 2008
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities.
Indicator 1.2.3.a. Met program outcomes/intent-Sponsor Feedback - (A)IADs
The amount of positive vs. negative feedback from (A)IAD
sponsors was the same as last year.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
10
M.O.E. 1.2. Effectiveness of training and educational opportunities.
Indicator 1.2.3.a. Met program outcomes/intent-Sponsor Feedback - (A)IADs
Cadets participating in our (A)IADs met the goals and objectives of the
(A)IAD program (to provide a venue for educational experiences that
would not be possible within the usual framework of academic, military,
and physical programs that comprise the 47-month USMA experience).
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
11
M.O.E. 2.2. APSC Deficient Cadets & Athlete Improvement
Indicator 2.2.2. APSC Deficient Cadets Participating in STAP that became proficient.
Percent
APSC Deficient Cadets Who Became
Proficient After STAP Attendance
100
80
60
40
20
0
Summer 2008
2nd Class
Summer 2007
3rd Class
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Database, OPPA (IRAB), USMA
4th Class
Summer 2006
Overall
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
12
M.O.E. 2.2. APSC Deficient Cadets & Athlete Improvement
Indicator 2.2.3. Athletes Who Attended STAP Who Became NCAA Eligible
APSC Deficient Athletes Who Became NCAA
Eligible After STAP Attendance
120
Percent
100
80
60
40
20
0
Summer 2008
2nd Class
Summer 2007
3rd Class
4th Class
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Database, OPPA (IRAB), USMA
Summer 2006
Overall
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
13
M.O.E. 2.3. Post-STAP Academic Failures (1st Term)
Indicator 2.3.1. Academic Failures by Class Year
First Term Academic Failures by Class Year
AY 06/07, 07/08, & 08/09
25
20
15
10
5
0
Percent
21.6
508 STAP Cadets
523 STAP Cadets
12.2 12.6
380 STAP Cadets
12.4
10.3
6.3
3.8
5.4
2.4
0
0
AY 08/09 1st
Term
AY 07/08 1st
Term
1st Class
2nd Class
0
AY 06/07 1st
Term
3rd Class
4th Class
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Database, OPPA (IRAB), USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 2.3. Academic Failures by Term
Indicator 2.3.2. Academic Failures by Athlete vs Non-athlete
Academic Failures by Athlete vs Non-athlete
AY 06/07 & 07/08
12
1st Term 08/09
Percent
40
10
69
8
6
4
31
24
13
2
4
8
2
0
Class of 2009
Class of 2010
Non-Athlete
Class of 2011
1st Term 07/08
Percent
Class of 2012
Athlete
1st Term 06/07
Percent
43
50
92
24
47
39
19
10
6
27
11
8
12
2
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Database, OPPA (IRAB), USMA
18
1
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
14
15
16
17
18
19
M.O.E. 3.1. Quality of Training Event
Indicator 3.1.2. Trainer CLDT Survey Feedback (Written Comments)
Which, if any, LEADER TASKS had little value in developing leader skills?
Highlights
“Too many planning and rehearsal days – these leader tasks were difficult to evaluate
due to a lack of stressful events. Reduce planning and rehearsal days. Simulate real
world scenarios by receiving the mission, planning, and executing all in the same day.”
“Too much planning not enough execution.”
“I thought all of the tasks were extremely useful.”
“There were lessons to be learned from just about everything we did.”
“I think the overall AAR comment I heard most prolifically was that the time for planning
might be shortened. I think the cadets gain A LOT by seeing the deliberate planning
process (plan, rehearse, execute); however, some of the planning timelines could be
shortened.”
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: CLDT Trainer Survey 08, OPPA (IRAB), USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
20
21
22
23
24
25
M.O.E. 4.1. Use of Faculty Time
Indicator 4.1.1. % of week in teaching related activities
In my department/directorate/organization:
I have sufficient time to do my job.
Percent
100
N = 209
N = 584
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty (Oct 08)
Staff & Faculty (Mar 08)
S&F Summer Assessment Survey
Strongly Agree/Agree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
Command Climate Survey
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
26
M.O.E. 4.1. Use of Faculty Time
Indicator 4.1.1. % of week in teaching related activities
Since the schedule change, I have spent ________ time engaged in
this activity:
Teaching related activities (preparing for class, grading papers).
100
Percent
N = 210
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Much Less/Less
Equal
Much More/More
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 4.1. Use of Faculty Time
Indicator 4.1.2. % of week in Scholarship Activities
Since the schedule change, I have spent ________ time engaged in
this activity:
Scholarship activities (personal research in discipline).
100
Percent
N = 210
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Much Less/Less
Equal
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
Much More/More
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
27
M.O.E. 4.1. Use of Faculty Time
Indicator 4.1.1. % of week in Scholarship Activities
In my department/directorate/organization:
I have sufficient time to conduct scholarly research.
100
Percent
N = 209
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 4.1. Use of Faculty Time
Indicator 4.1.1. % of week in Scholarship Activities
In my department/directorate/organization:
I have sufficient time to conduct scholarly research.
100
Percent
Percent
N = 209
N = 584
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty (Oct 08)
Staff & Faculty (Mar 08)
S&F Summer Assessment Survey
Command Climate Survey
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
28
M.O.E. 4.1. Use of Faculty Time
Indicator 4.1.3. % of week in Cadet Development Activities
Since the schedule change, I have spent ________ time engaged in
this activity:
Cadet Development Activities (conducting, AI, ORs of sports,
club/sport OICs).
100
Percent
N = 210
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Much Less/Less
Equal
Much More/More
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 4.1. Use of Faculty Time
Indicator 4.1.5. % of week in Personal/Family Time
Since the schedule change, I have spent ________ time engaged in this
activity:
Personal/family time (time spent with family or relaxing/non-work time).
100
Percent
N = 210
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Much Less/Less
Equal
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
Much More/More
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
29
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1. Quality of Teaching
In my department/directorate/organization:
The effectiveness of my organization is:
100
Percent
N = 209
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Excellent
Poor
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1. Quality of Teaching
In my department/directorate/organization:
The morale of my organization is:
100
Percent
N = 209
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Excellent
Poor
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
30
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1. Quality of Teaching
In my department/directorate/organization:
The effectiveness of my organization is:
100
Percent
N = 209
N = 584
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty (Oct 08)
Staff & Faculty (Mar 08)
S&F Summer Assessment Survey
Excellent
Command Climate Survey
Poor
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1. Quality of Teaching
The effectiveness of my organization is:
100
Percent
N = 209
N = 584
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty (Oct 08)
S&F Summer Assessment Survey
Staff & Faculty (Mar 08)
Command Climate Survey
Excellent
Poor
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
31
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1. Quality of Teaching
In my department/directorate/organization:
The morale of my organization is:
100
Percent
N = 209
N = 584
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty (Oct 08)
Staff & Faculty (Mar 08)
S&F Summer Assessment Survey
Excellent
Command Climate Survey
Poor
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1. Quality of Teaching
In my department/directorate/organization:
Reducing the academic year has lowered academic quality.
100
Percent
N = 209
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
32
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1. Quality of Teaching
In my department/directorate/organization:
The reduction in the academic year has had a negative effect on course
design and schedules (# of course objectives, number of lessons,
more/less drops).
Percent
N = 209
100
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1. Quality of Teaching
In my department/directorate/organization:
Reducing the academic year has lowered expectations of cadets.
100
Percent
N = 209
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
33
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1. Quality of Teaching
In my department/directorate/organization:
Reducing the academic year has had a negative effect on “at
risk” cadet performance.
Percent
100
N = 209
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1. Quality of Teaching
In my department/directorate/organization:
Cadets were less prepared for the first two lessons compared
to previous semesters.
100
Percent
N = 209
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Staff & Faculty Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
34
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1.a. Cadet Reflection Time Rating
My personal schedule allows me enough time to reflect on
the material I have learned in class.
Percent
N = 19,706
100
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), January 2009
Source: End of Course Surveys, CTE, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1.b. Cadet Prep Time Rating
My personal schedule allows me enough time to adequately
prepare for my optimum academic performance.
Percent
N = 19,706
100
80
60
40
20
0
Staff & Faculty
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), January 2009
Source: End of Course Surveys, CTE, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
35
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Cadet Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.1.c. Cadet Instructor Preparedness Rating
My instructor had a structure or plan for every lesson’s
learning activities.
100
80
60
40
20
0
Percent
N = 1007
Staff & Faculty
Always/Frequently
Rarely/Never
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), January 2009
Source: End of Course Surveys, Dept. of C&ME, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.2.a. Grades
Bottom 10%
Cadet Mean Academic Performance Score
by AY, Class, & Term
AY
AY
AY
2008/2009
2007/2008
2006/2007
Class
1st
Term
Class
1st
Term
Class
1st Term
2009
2010
2011
2012
2.141
2.094
1.953
1.605
2008
2009
2010
2011
2.177
2.081
1.995
1.628
2007
2008
2009
2010
2.203
2.089
1.923
1.553
Corps
2.945
Corps
2.939
Corps
2.926
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Database, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
36
M.O.E. 4.2. Quality of Academic Experience
Indicator 4.2.2.b. # of Failures
Cadet Course Failures by AY, Class, & Term
AY
AY
2008/2009
2007/2008
Class
1st
Term
Class
Failures
1
2 3+
2009
2010
2011
2012
10 4
23 2
32 5
83 14
Total
148 25 18
1
3
2
12
1st
Term
Failures
1
2 3+
2008
2009
2010
2011
11 0
21 2
30 2
54 18
1
2
3
10
116 22 16
AY
2nd
2006/2007
Term Class 1st Term 2nd Term
Failures
1
2 3+
8
21
29
81
1
3
4
16
0
2
1
9
139 24 12
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Database, USMA
1
2007
2008
2009
2010
Failures
2 3+
10
25
53
104
2
2
11
24
1
2
7
14
192 39 24
1
Failures
2 3+
7
12
29
98
0
3
5
15
1
0
1
13
146 23 15
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
37
M.O.E. 4.3. Faculty Participation in Cadet Development Activities.
Indicator 4.3.1. Club/Sport OICs/ORs
215
Number
Officer Representative
Participation
210
205
200
195
190
185
AY 08/09
AY 07/08
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: ODIA, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
38
39
40
41
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Scheduling Change
Indicator 5.2.1. Tactical Officer Feedback
The change to the three-block summer training schedule was
helpful to you in providing your cadets a training schedule
tailored to meet their personal needs.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
TAC Officers
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Tactical Officer Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Scheduling Change
Indicator 5.2.1. Tactical Officer Feedback
The three-block training schedule increased the
choices/combinations of opportunities I could offer my cadets.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
TAC Officers
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Tactical Officer Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
42
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Scheduling Change
Indicator 5.2.1. Tactical Officer Feedback
The change to the three-block summer schedule provided
TACs more scheduling flexibility.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
TAC Officers
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Tactical Officer Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Schedule Change
Indicator 5.2.2. Cadet Feedback
The change to a three-block summer training schedule was
helpful in providing a training program tailored to meet my
personal development/needs.
100
N = 1666
Percent
80
60
40
20
0
Class of 2009
Class of 2010
Strongly Agree/Agree
Class of 2011
Total
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Summer Training Surveys, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
43
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Schedule Change
Indicator 5.2.2. Cadet Feedback
The change to a three-block summer training schedule was
helpful in providing an increase in the combinations of
opportunities available.
N = 1656
100
80
60
40
20
0
Class of 2009
Class of 2010
Strongly Agree/Agree
Class of 2011
Total
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Summer Training Surveys, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
44
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Schedule Change
Indicator 5.2.2. Cadet Feedback
What was the primary personal benefit of a
three-block summer?
100
Percent
N = 1658
80
60
40
20
0
Class of 2009
Class of 2010
Class of 2011
To "light load"
Prior Course Failure
Maximize military training/experience
Other
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Summer Training Surveys, USMA
Total
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Scheduling Change
Indicator 5.2.3. Scheduler Feedback - (A)IADs
The change to the three-block summer training schedule was
helpful to you in providing cadets a training/educational
schedule tailored to meet their personal needs.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
45
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Scheduling Change
Indicator 5.2.3. Scheduler Feedback - (A)IADs
The three-block summer training schedule increased the
choices/combinations of opportunities you could offer to cadets.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Scheduling Change
Indicator 5.2.3. Scheduler Feedback - (A)IADs
The change to the three-block summer schedule provides
(A)IAD Reps more scheduling flexibility.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
46
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Scheduling Change
Indicator 5.2.3. Scheduler Feedback - (A)IADs
The change to the three-block summer schedule provides more
predictability with respect to cadet availability for (A)IADS.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Scheduling Change
Indicator 5.2.3. Scheduler Feedback - (A)IADs
The time required to plan and manage (A)IADs compared to
previous years was ____________.
100
Percent
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
AIAD Reps
Significantly More/More
Significantly Less/Less
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: AIAD Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
47
M.O.E. 5.2. Flexibility of Scheduling Change
Indicator 5.2.4. Number of Multiple STAPs
# of Multiple STAPs
600
500
Number
N=494
N=475
400
N=380
300
200
100
N=23
N=29
Summer 2008
Summer 2007
0
1 STAP
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Database, OPPA (IRAB), USMA
Summer 2006
2+ STAPs
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
48
49
50
51
M.O.E. 6.3. Number of USMA participants in ROTC military training
Indicator 6.3.1. Number of USMA MIAD participants
The number of USMA cadets who participated in
Leader Development & Assessment Course (LDAC)
There were only 5 USMA participants at LDAC for the summer of 2008
There were no participants in the summers of 2006 and 2007
Of the 5 USMA participants, one failed
When cadet focus group members were asked why USMA cadets failed to participate in
this Army training they replied that it was similar to Cadet Field Training at USMA and
therefore redundant.
One focus group member who attended LDAC reported there was a lot of time wasted
sitting around.
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Cadet Focus Groups, 20 November 2008, OPPA (IRAB), USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
52
M.O.E. 7.1. Leave Taken by Class Year
Indicator 7.1.1. # of Cadets with less than 2 weeks of leave.
There was sufficient personal leave
available for use during CST.
100
Percent
N = 1663
80
60
40
20
0
Class of 2009
Class of 2010
Strongly Agree/Agree
Class of 2011
Total
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Summer Training Surveys 2008
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
53
M.O.E. 7.1. Leave Taken by Class Year
Indicator 7.1.2. # of Cadets with more than 4 weeks of leave.
2008
Cadets who took 28 days or more leave.
Percent
31% of upperclass
cadets, took 4 or
more weeks of leave.
14%
10%
7%
Average # of days of
leave taken = 23.4
Range of days of
leave taken = 0 to 42
Number of respondents in the Classes of 2009, 2010, & 2011
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Summer Training Surveys 2008
N = 1583
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
54
55
56
M.O.E. A.1. Impact on CST Resources
Indicator A.1.c.3. 2LT Requirements -Trainer CLDT Survey Feedback (Written Comments)
What roles could 2LTs be used in to add value to the training (for
example: role players, Company XOs, Company Operations Officers)?
Highlights
“Quite frankly I think there was as much development occurring on the 2LTs as there was
for the cadets.”
“Anything OTHER THAN positions where they would be directly evaluating a cadet.”
“2LTs’ role was to serve as SL observers. If we had the ability to have more TG NCOs to
cover down on the SL observer, that would be ideal. Since that was not the case this year
the 2LTs did a great job. Moreover, the new 2LTs had a valuable learning experience
themselves.”
“The cadets didn’t understand their value as having experience with peer leadership until
almost the very end. They were helpful in handling our logistics (vehicles, radios, duty
drivers, etc.). They gave good feedback to the cadets, but I’m not sure they received the
respect they should have.”
“2LTs can be used to support “white cell” operations but should not be used as
evaluators.”
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: CLDT Trainer Survey 08, OPPA (IRAB), USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
CLDT was the only USMA training
which required faculty training.
Summer 2008
Summer 2009
Trainer Academy
1 week of ½ days
Trainer Academy
4 whole days
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: DMI, USCC, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
57
The transition from CST to the academic
year was efficient and effective.
100
Percent
N = 1665
80
60
40
20
0
Class of 2009
Class of 2010
Strongly Agree/Agree
Class of 2011
Total
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Summer Training Surveys, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
58
M.O.E. A.2. Impact on Re-Orgy Week
Indicator A.2.a.b.c.d. Cadet Issue, Leader, Academic, & USCC Prep Activities
I had adequate time to conduct the activities associated
with the transition from CST to the academic year.
100
Percent
N = 1665
80
60
40
20
0
Class of 2009
Class of 2010
Strongly Agree/Agree
Class of 2011
Total
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Summer Training Surveys, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
59
60
M.O.E. A.2. Impact on Re-Orgy Week
Indicator A.2.d. USCC Prep Activities
I was able to complete the following tasks
during Re-Orgy Week.
Percent
100
N = 32
80
60
40
20
0
TAC Officers
Inspections
Counseling
Co. Meetings/Briefings
Height/Weight/Taping/Urinalysis
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: Tactical Officer Summer Training Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
61
M.O.E. A.3. Impact on Graduation Week
Indicator A.3.a.b.c. Graduation, Leader Prep & Training Prep Activities
The transition from grad week to CST
was efficient and effective.
Percent
N = 1665
100
80
60
40
20
0
Class of 2009
Class of 2011
Class of 2010
Strongly Agree/Agree
Total
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), October 2008
Source: Cadet Summer Training Surveys, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
M.O.E. A.3. Impact on Graduation Week
Indicator A.3.c. Training Prep Activities
The five day leader prep prior to CLDT was effective in
preparing you for your CLDT Trainer duties.
Percent
N = 29
100
80
60
40
20
0
CLDT Trainers
Strongly Agree/Agree
Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Prepared By: USMA, OPPA (IRAB), November 2008
Source: CLDT Trainer Survey, USMA
(SummerTrnyAssessReportSlides.ppt/jw)
62
Appendix C. Measures and Metrics
MOE
MOE 1.1: Increased
IAD participation
Measure
Definition/Description
M 1.1.1: # Cadets
participating in MIADs
M 1.1.2: # Cadets
participating in PIADs
M 1.1.3: # Cadets
participating in AIADs
The number of cadets participating in
MIADs in ’08. Baseline is the number
of cadets participating in MIADs in ’06
and ’07.
The number of cadets participating in
PIADs in ’08. Baseline is the number of
cadets participating in PIADs in ’06 and
’07.
The number of cadets participating in
AIADs in ’08. Baseline is the number
of cadets participating in AIADs in ’06
and ’07.
MOE 1.2:
Effectiveness of
training and
educational
opportunities
1.2.1.a: TAC officer 3rd class Average ratio of % Agree/Strongly
preparedness rating
Agree to % Disagree/Strongly Disagree
to question 2a,2b,2c on TAC Survey.
No baseline
1.2.1.b: # MIAD failures
The number of MIAD failures in ’08.
Baseline is the number of cadet MIAD
failures in ’06 and ’07.
rd
1.2.1.c: 3 Class
Average % Agree/Strongly Agree to
preparedness rating
mental preparedness question on CTLT,
DCLT, and MDS surveys. No baseline
1.2.1.d: AIAD rep 3rd class
Ratio of % Agree/Strongly Agree to %
preparedness rating
Disagree/Strongly Disagree to question
1a on AIAD rep Survey. No baseline
1.2.2.a: TAC officer
Ratio of % Agree/Strongly Agree to %
tailoring rating
Disagree/Strongly Disagree to question
3b on TAC Survey. No baseline
1.2.2.b: Cadet tailoring
Average % Agree/Strongly Agree to
rating
question 6 and 7 on CST survey.
Average % Disagree/Strongly Disagree
to question 6 and 7 on CST survey. No
baseline
63
1.2.3.a: AIAD rep program
intent rating
1.2.3.b: CTLT/DCLT
program Intent rating
Ratio of % Agree/Strongly Agree to %
Disagree/Strongly Disagree to question
4a & 4b on AIAD rep Survey. No
baseline
Anecdotal feedback from LDB
regarding 3rd class preparedness for
CTLT/DCLT
MOE 1.3: Increase in
typical graduation
requirement
completion
M 1.3.1: % yearlings ahead
of requirements
% of yearlings that completed 3 or
more graduation requirements by the
end of summer ’08. Baseline is % of
yearlings that completed 3 or more
graduation requirements by the end of
summer’07
M 2.1.1: # cadets
participating in VSTAP
The number of cadets participating in
VSTAP in ’08. Baseline is the number
cadets participating in VSTAP in ’06
and ’07.
The % of special demographic cadets
(emerging leaders, scholarship
candidates, engineers) participating in
VSTAP in ’08. Baseline is the % of
special demographic cadets
participating in VSTAP in’07.
MOE 2.1: VSTAP
participation
M 2.1.2: % special
demographic STAP
participation
MOE 2.2: APSC
Deficient Cadets and
Athlete Improvement
M 2.2.1: % STAP that is
APSC deficient cadets
M 2.2.2: % non-athletes
STAP attendees became
academically proficient
M 2.2.3: % athlete STAP
attendees became
academically proficient
64
The % of APSC deficient cadets
participating in VSTAP in ’08. Baseline
is % of APSC deficient cadets
participating in VSTAP in’06 and ’07.
The % non-athletes STAP attendees that
became academically proficient in ’08.
Baseline is % non-athletes STAP
attendees became academically
proficient in’06 and ’07.
The % athlete STAP attendees that
became academically proficient in ’08.
Baseline is % athlete STAP attendees
became academically proficient in’06
and ’07.
MOE 2.3: Academic
Failures
M 2.3.1: STAP attendee
first term failures
The number of STAP attendees (08-3)
that failed a course in the following
term (09-1). Baseline is the number of
STAP attendee first term course failures
in ’06 and ’07. Potentially lagging
indicator.
M 2.3.2: % first term failures The % first term failures that are
that are athletes
athletes in ’08. Baseline is the % first
term failures that are athletes in ’06 and
’07. Potentially lagging indicator.
MOE 3.1: Quality of
training event
M 3.1.1: Cadet quality rating
M 3.1.2: Trainer CLDT
quality rating
Average % Agree/Strongly Agree to
question 8,9 and 10 on CLDT survey.
Average % Disagree/Strongly Disagree
to question 8,9 and 10 on CLDT survey.
No baseline
% Agree/Strongly Agree to question 2a
on CLDT trainer survey. No baseline
MOE 3.2: Improved
cadet leadership skills
M 3.2.1: TAC improved
leader rating
M 3.2.2: Cadet improved
leader rating
% Agree/Strongly Agree to question 10
on TAC survey. No baseline
Average % Agree/Strongly Agree to
question 3,4,5,6 on CLDT survey.
Average % Disagree/Strongly Disagree
to question 3,4,5,6 on CLDT survey. No
baseline
M 3.3.2: TAC improved
military rating
M 3.3.3: Cadet improved
military rating
N/A
M 3.4.1: Trainer feedback
rating
Average % Agree/Strongly Agree to
question 3a & 3b on CLDT trainer
survey. Average % Disagree/Strongly
Disagree to question 3a & 3b on CLDT
MOE 3.3: Improved
cadet military skills
Average % Agree/Strongly Agree to
question 3a-3f on CLDT survey.
Average % Disagree/Strongly Disagree
to question 3a-3f on CLDT survey. No
baseline
MOE 3.4: Effective
feedback
65
M 3.4.2: Cadet feedback
rating
M 3.4.3: TAC and CLDT
trainer feedback utilized
rating
trainer survey. No baseline
Average % Agree/Strongly Agree to
questions 1& 2 on CLDT survey.
Average % Disagree/Strongly Disagree
to questions 1& 2 on CLDT survey. No
baseline
% Agree/Strongly Agree to question
3c,3d,3e on CLDT trainer survey. Ratio
of % Agree/Strongly Agree to %
Disagree/Strongly Disagree to question
6a &6b on TAC survey. No baseline
MOE 3.5: LT
performance at BOLC
II and III
M 3.5.1: Increased
performance at BOLC
BOLC II & III feedback regarding
USMA grad performance related to
CLDT skills
M 4.1.1: Faculty time
devoted to teaching activities
Ratio of % No Change to % Less/Much
Less to question regarding the amount
of time devoted to teaching activities
compared to previous semesters on
Faculty Survey. No baseline
Ratio of % No Change to % Less/Much
Less to question regarding the amount
of time devoted to scholarship activities
compared to previous semesters on
Faculty Survey. No baseline
Ratio of % No Change to % Less/Much
Less to question regarding the amount
of time devoted to cadet development
activities compared to previous
semesters on Faculty Survey. No
baseline
Ratio of % No Change to % Less/Much
Less to question regarding the amount
of time devoted to service activities
compared to previous semesters on
Faculty Survey. No baseline
Ratio of % No Change to % Less/Much
Less to question regarding the amount
of time devoted to personal activities
compared to previous semesters on
Faculty Survey. No baseline
MOE 4.1: Use of
faculty time
M 4.1.2: Faculty time
devoted to scholarship
activities
M 4.1.3: Faculty time
devoted to cadet
development activities
M 4.1.4: Faculty time
devoted to service activities
M 4.1.5: Faculty time
devoted to personal activities
MOE 4.2: Quality of
66
cadet academic
experience
M 4.2.1.a: Cadet reflection
time rating
M 4.2.1.b: Cadet prep time
rating
M 4.2.1.c: Cadet instruction
feedback
M 4.2.2.a: Bottom 10%
grades
M 4.2.2.b: # First term
course failures
M 4.2.3.a: % Honors Cadets
67
% Agree/Strongly Agree to question
“My personal schedule allows me
enough time to reflect on the material I
have learned in class” on end of course
survey. % Disagree/Strongly Disagree
to question “My personal schedule
allows me enough time to reflect on the
material I have learned in class” on end
of course survey. No baseline
% Agree/Strongly Agree to question
“My personal schedule allows me
enough time to adequately prepare for
my optimum academic performance “on
end of course survey. %
Disagree/Strongly Disagree to question
“My personal schedule allows me
enough time to adequately prepare for
my optimum academic performance “on
end of course survey. No baseline.
Percentage of nine CME courses that
cadets reported spending less time per
lesson preparing for class. Baseline is
prep time data for same courses in’06
and ’07.
% of CME cadets that responded
“always” to question “My instructor
had a structure or plan for every lesson's
learning activities” on end of course
survey. Baseline is response to same
questions in’07 first term end of course
surveys.
Average GPA of bottom 10% of each
class (yearling, cow, firstie) at the end
of first term ’08. Baseline is average
GPA of the yearling, cow, firstie class
at the end of first term ’06 and ’07.
Potentially lagging indicator.
Number of first term course failures in
’08. Baseline is first term course
failures in ’06 and ’07. Potentially
lagging indicator.
The % of a class that chose to
participate in the honors program for
the class of ’09,’10. Baseline is % of a
M 4.2.3.b: # Academic Trip
Sections
class of ’07 and ’08 that chose to
participate in the honors. Potentially
lagging indicator.
The number of academic trip sections
first semester ’08. Baseline is number
of academic trip sections first semester
’06 and ’07.
MOE 4.3: Faculty
participation in cadet
development activities
M 4.3.1: # ORs
M 4.3.2: # Sponsors &
PME2
# staff and faculty serving ORs in ’08.
Baseline is # staff and faculty serving as
ORs in ’06 and ’07. Potentially lagging
indicator.
# staff and faculty participating in the
sponsorship & PME2 program in ’08.
Baseline is # staff and faculty
participating in the sponsorship and
PME2 program in ’07. Potentially
lagging indicator.
MOE 5.1:
Effectiveness of
scheduling change
M 5.1.1: % order
amendments
M 5.1.2: % scheduling block
violations
M 5.1.3: # late graduates
M 5.1.4: % of amendments
w/in 10 days of event
The % of order amendments cut to total
orders generated for summer ’08.
Baseline is the % of order amendments
cut to total orders generated for summer
’06 and ‘07.
The total percent of MADs, PIADs, and
AIADs that violated block boundaries
by more than 2 days in ’08. No
baseline.
The number of August and December
grads in ’08. Baseline is number of
August and December grads in ’06 and
’07. Lagging indicator.
The % of order amendments cut within
10 days or after the event for summer
’08. Baseline is the % of order
amendments cut within 10 days or after
the event for summer’06 and ‘07.
MOE 5.2: Flexibility
of scheduling change
M 5.2.1: TAC flexibility
rating
68
Ratio of % Agree/Strongly Agree to %
Disagree/Strongly Disagree to question
3d on TAC Survey. No baseline
M 5.2.2: Cadet flexibility
rating
M 5.2.3: Scheduler
flexibility rating
M 5.2.4: # multiple STAP
M 5.2.5: # multiple IADs
% Agree/Strongly Agree to question
7&8 on CST survey. %
Disagree/Strongly Disagree to questions
7&8 on CST survey. No baseline
Average ratio of % Agree/Strongly
Agree to % Disagree/Strongly Disagree
to flexibility AIAD rep and PIAD
planner survey. No baseline
The number of cadets that participated
in multiple STAPs in the summer ’08.
Baseline is number of cadets that
participated in multiple STAPs in the
summer ’07.
The number of cadets that participated
in multiple IADs (AIAD-AIAD,
MIAD-MIAD, or MIAD-AIAD) in the
summer ’08. Baseline is number of
cadets that participated in multiple
IADs (AIAD-AIAD, MIAD-MIAD, or
MIAD-AIAD) in the summer ’07.
MOE 6.1: ROTC
cadets participating in
USMA summer
training
M 6.1.1: # ROTC cadets
participating in USMA
MIADs
M 6.1.2: # ROTC cadets
participating in USMA CFT
M 6.1.3: # ROTC cadets
participating in USMA
CLDT
The number of ROTC cadets that
participated in USMA sponsored MADs
(i.e. Air Assault) in summer ‘08.
Baseline is the number of ROTC cadets
that participated in USMA sponsored
MADs (i.e. Air Assault) in summer ’07.
The number of ROTC cadets that
participated in USMA CFT in summer
‘08. Baseline is number of ROTC
cadets that participated in USMA CFT
in summer ‘07.
The number of ROTC cadets that
participated in USMA CLDT in
summer ‘08. No baseline
MOE 6.2: Quality of
ROTC cadet
experiences
M 6.2.1: ROTC cadet
feedback
Average ratio of % Agree/Strongly
Agree to % Disagree/Strongly Disagree
on question 1,2, and 3 regarding quality
of experience on the ROTC cadet
survey. No baseline
69
M 6.2.2: PMS feedback
Average % Agree/Strongly Agree to
questions 1f,1g,2,3 on PMS survey.
Average % Disagree/Strongly Disagree
to questions 1f,1g,2,3 on PMS survey.
No baseline
M 6.3.1: # USMA cadet
participating in ROTC
military training
Number of USMA cadets participating
in ROTC LDAC in summer ’08.
Baseline is the goal for USMA cadet
participating in ROTC LDAC for the
summer of ’08.
M 7.1.1: % cadets with less
than 2 weeks leave
% of upperclass cadets that responded
to the CST survey (n=1587) that
reported taking less than 2 weeks leave
in summer ‘08. No baseline
% of upperclass cadets that responded
to the CST survey (n=1587) that
reported taking more than 4 weeks
leave in summer ‘08. No baseline.
MOE 6.3: USMA
cadet participation in
ROTC summer
training
7.0. Two weeks of
leave taken by every
cadet
M 7.1.2: % cadets with more
than 4 weeks leave
70
Appendix D. Department AIAD Representative Survey and Results
1
2
AIAD Rep Feeback
Summer Training Study 2008
Frequency Table
q1a Third Class (A)IAD Opportunities: a. Based on their previous training, the Third Class cadets who
attended an (A)IAD this past summer, were adequately prepared for the experience.
Valid
Frequency
1
Percent
3.1
Valid Percent
3.1
Cumulative
Percent
3.1
2 Disagree
3
9.4
9.4
12.5
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
9
28.1
28.1
40.6
15
46.9
46.9
87.5
4
12.5
12.5
100.0
32
100.0
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
Total
q1b Third Class (A)IAD Opportunities: b. Third Class cadets possess the requisite maturity and/or
experience to attend *all* of the (A)IAD opportunities offered this year.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 Strongly disagree
4
12.5
12.5
12.5
2 Disagree
8
25.0
25.0
37.5
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
8
25.0
25.0
62.5
4 Agree
7
21.9
21.9
84.4
100.0
5 Strongly agree
Total
5
15.6
15.6
32
100.0
100.0
q2 Are there particular types of (A)IAD opportunities that you feel a Third Class cadets do not have the
maturity or requisite skills to participate? Response
Valid
Frequency
15
Percent
46.9
Valid Percent
46.9
Cumulative
Percent
46.9
2 No
17
53.1
53.1
100.0
Total
32
100.0
100.0
1 Yes
3
q3a 3-Block Summer: a. This past summer’s cadet (A)IAD assignments were more effective/appropriate
than those in previous summers.
Valid
Frequency
1
Percent
3.1
Valid Percent
3.1
Cumulative
Percent
3.1
3
9.4
9.4
12.5
15
46.9
46.9
59.4
4 Agree
8
25.0
25.0
84.4
5 Strongly agree
5
15.6
15.6
100.0
32
100.0
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
Total
q3b 3-Block Summer: b. The change to a three-block summer training schedule was helpful to you in
providing cadets a training/educational schedule tailored to meet their personal needs.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 Strongly disagree
2
6.3
6.3
6.3
2 Disagree
7
21.9
21.9
28.1
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
8
25.0
25.0
53.1
14
43.8
43.8
96.9
1
3.1
3.1
100.0
32
100.0
100.0
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
Total
q3c 3-Block Summer: c. The three-block summer training schedule increased the choices/combinations of
opportunities you could offer to cadets.
Valid
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
Frequency
3
Percent
9.4
Valid Percent
9.4
Cumulative
Percent
9.4
7
21.9
21.9
31.3
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
10
31.3
31.3
62.5
4 Agree
11
34.4
34.4
96.9
100.0
5 Strongly agree
Total
1
3.1
3.1
32
100.0
100.0
4
q3d 3-Block Summer: d. The change to the three-block summer schedule provides (A)IAD reps more
scheduling flexibility.
Valid
Frequency
4
Percent
12.5
Valid Percent
12.5
Cumulative
Percent
12.5
2 Disagree
7
21.9
21.9
34.4
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
9
28.1
28.1
62.5
4 Agree
12
37.5
37.5
100.0
Total
32
100.0
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
q3e 3-Block Summer: e. The change to a three-block summer schedule provides more predictability with
respect to cadet availability for (A)IADs.
Valid
Frequency
2
Percent
6.3
Valid Percent
6.3
Cumulative
Percent
6.3
2 Disagree
5
15.6
15.6
21.9
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
6
18.8
18.8
40.6
13
40.6
40.6
81.3
6
18.8
18.8
100.0
32
100.0
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
Total
q4a Miscellaneous: a. The amount of positive vs. negative feedback from (A)IAD sponsors was the same as
last year.
Frequency
Valid
2 Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
18
56.3
56.3
59.4
4 Agree
12
37.5
37.5
96.9
1
3.1
3.1
100.0
32
100.0
100.0
5 Strongly agree
Total
5
q4b Miscellaneous: b. Cadets participating in our (A)IADs met the goals and objectives of the (A)IAD
program (to provide a venue for educational experiences that would not be possible within the usual
framework of academic, military, and physical programs t
Frequency
Valid
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
7
21.9
21.9
21.9
4 Agree
11
34.4
34.4
56.3
5 Strongly agree
14
43.8
43.8
100.0
Total
32
100.0
100.0
q5 The time required to plan and manage (A)IADs compared to previous years was ____________ .
Valid
1 Significanly more
2 More
Valid Percent
35.5
Cumulative
Percent
35.5
5
15.6
16.1
51.6
40.6
41.9
93.5
4 Less
1
3.1
3.2
96.8
5 Significantly less
1
3.1
3.2
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
34.4
13
3 About the same
Missing
Frequency
11
System
6
Appendix E. Tactical Officer Survey and Results
1
2
Tactical officer Survey
Summer Training Assessment 2008
Frequency Table
p1_q1 How many summers have you been a Tactical Officer (1-4)?
Valid
1
Frequency
3
Percent
9.4
Valid Percent
9.4
Cumulative
Percent
9.4
2
19
59.4
59.4
68.8
3
9
28.1
28.1
96.9
100.0
6
Total
1
3.1
3.1
32
100.0
100.0
p1_q2a Third Class MIAD Opportunities: a. Based on their previous training, the Third Class cadets who
attended a MIAD this past summer, before CFT, were prepared to attend the training.
Frequency
Valid
2 Disagree
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
9
28.1
29.0
29.0
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
10
31.3
32.3
61.3
4 Agree
11
34.4
35.5
96.8
1
3.1
3.2
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Total
p1_q2b Third Class MIAD Opportunities: b. Based on their previous training, the Third Class cadets who
attended a MIAD this past summer, after CFT, were prepared to attend the training.
Valid
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
Total
System
Frequency
3
Percent
9.4
Valid Percent
9.7
Cumulative
Percent
9.7
5
15.6
16.1
25.8
19
59.4
61.3
87.1
4
12.5
12.9
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
3
p1_q2c Third Class MIAD Opportunities: c. Third Class cadets possess the requisite maturity and/or
experience to attend all of the MIAD opportunities offered this year (excluding Sapper and pre-Ranger).
Valid
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
System
Total
Frequency
1
Percent
3.1
Valid Percent
3.2
Cumulative
Percent
3.2
12
37.5
38.7
41.9
6
18.8
19.4
61.3
11
34.4
35.5
96.8
1
3.1
3.2
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
p1_q3a 3-Block Summer: a. This year’s assignments were more effective/appropriate than those in previous
summers.
Valid
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
Percent
3.1
Valid Percent
3.2
Cumulative
Percent
3.2
6
18.8
19.4
22.6
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
12
37.5
38.7
61.3
4 Agree
11
34.4
35.5
96.8
1
3.1
3.2
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
Frequency
1
System
Total
1
3.1
32
100.0
p1_q3b 3-Block Summer: b. The change to a three-block summer training schedule was helpful in providing
your cadets a training schedule tailored to meet their personal needs.
Valid
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
Valid Percent
9.7
Cumulative
Percent
9.7
2
6.3
6.5
16.1
11
34.4
35.5
51.6
4 Agree
14
43.8
45.2
96.8
1
3.1
3.2
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
9.4
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
5 Strongly agree
Missing
Frequency
3
System
4
p1_q3c 3-Block Summer: c. The three-block training schedule increased the choices/combinations of
opportunities I could offer my cadets.
Valid
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
Percent
6.3
Valid Percent
6.5
Cumulative
Percent
6.5
4
12.5
12.9
19.4
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
12
37.5
38.7
58.1
4 Agree
10
31.3
32.3
90.3
3
9.4
9.7
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
Frequency
2
System
Total
p1_q3d 3-Block Summer: d. The change to the three-block summer schedule provided TACs more
scheduling flexibility.
Valid
Frequency
6
Percent
18.8
Valid Percent
19.4
Cumulative
Percent
19.4
6
18.8
19.4
38.7
11
34.4
35.5
74.2
4 Agree
7
21.9
22.6
96.8
5 Strongly agree
1
3.1
3.2
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
Total
Missing
System
Total
1
3.1
32
100.0
p1_q4a Re-Orgy Week: a. The overall impact of changing Re-orgy Week from five to three days was positive.
Valid
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
4 Agree
Total
Missing
Total
System
Cumulative
Percent
41.9
Frequency
13
Percent
40.6
Valid Percent
41.9
16
50.0
51.6
93.5
2
6.3
6.5
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
5
p1_q4b Re-Orgy Week: b. I was able to complete required tasks during Re-orgy Week.
Valid
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
Percent
12.5
Valid Percent
12.9
Cumulative
Percent
12.9
16
50.0
51.6
64.5
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
5
15.6
16.1
80.6
4 Agree
6
18.8
19.4
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
Total
Missing
Frequency
4
System
Total
p1_q6a CLDT: a. I used the feedback on leadership performance and military skills of my CLDT cadets to
make changes to their leadership experience.
Valid
Frequency
1
Percent
3.1
Valid Percent
3.2
Cumulative
Percent
3.2
2 Disagree
10
31.3
32.3
35.5
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
13
40.6
41.9
77.4
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
4 Agree
Total
Missing
System
Total
7
21.9
22.6
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
p1_q6b CLDT: b. Cadets have reflected on and/or discussed their CLDT feedback during Commandant’s
time.
Frequency
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
3
9.4
9.7
9.7
2 Disagree
7
21.9
22.6
32.3
10
31.3
32.3
64.5
4 Agree
9
28.1
29.0
93.5
5 Strongly agree
2
6.3
6.5
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
1 Strongly disagree
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
Missing
Percent
System
1
3.1
32
100.0
p1_q6c CLDT: c. I would highly encourage rising Firsties to attend CLDT next year.
6
Frequency
Valid
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
System
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
7
21.9
22.6
22.6
18
56.3
58.1
80.6
6
18.8
19.4
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
p1_q7 How many cadets requested to take less than two weeks of leave? (enter as whole number)
Valid
0
Frequency
1
Percent
3.1
Valid Percent
3.2
Cumulative
Percent
3.2
1
2
6.3
6.5
9.7
2
6
18.8
19.4
29.0
3
2
6.3
6.5
35.5
4
5
15.6
16.1
51.6
5
2
6.3
6.5
58.1
6
2
6.3
6.5
64.5
7
1
3.1
3.2
67.7
8
1
3.1
3.2
71.0
10
2
6.3
6.5
77.4
12
1
3.1
3.2
80.6
14
1
3.1
3.2
83.9
15
1
3.1
3.2
87.1
16
1
3.1
3.2
90.3
29
2
6.3
6.5
96.8
35
1
3.1
3.2
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
Total
Missing
Total
System
1
3.1
32
100.0
7
p1_q8 How many cadets actually took less than two weeks of leave? (enter as whole number)
Valid
0
Frequency
1
Percent
3.1
Valid Percent
3.2
Cumulative
Percent
3.2
2
7
21.9
22.6
25.8
3
4
12.5
12.9
38.7
4
3
9.4
9.7
48.4
5
4
12.5
12.9
61.3
6
1
3.1
3.2
64.5
7
1
3.1
3.2
67.7
10
1
3.1
3.2
71.0
13
2
6.3
6.5
77.4
14
3
9.4
9.7
87.1
15
2
6.3
6.5
93.5
18
1
3.1
3.2
96.8
25
1
3.1
3.2
100.0
31
96.9
100.0
1
3.1
32
100.0
Total
Missing
System
Total
p1_q9 How many cadets took four or more weeks of leave? (enter as whole number)
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0
7
21.9
24.1
24.1
1
3
9.4
10.3
34.5
2
2
6.3
6.9
41.4
4
2
6.3
6.9
48.3
5
5
15.6
17.2
65.5
6
3
9.4
10.3
75.9
10
2
6.3
6.9
82.8
21
2
6.3
6.9
89.7
42
2
6.3
6.9
96.6
43
1
3.1
3.4
100.0
29
90.6
100.0
3
9.4
32
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
8
p1_q10a CLDT improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: a. Problem solving ability and clarity of
thinking
Valid
Missing
Frequency
28
Percent
87.5
Valid Percent
93.3
Cumulative
Percent
93.3
2 No
2
6.3
6.7
100.0
Total
30
93.8
100.0
2
6.3
32
100.0
1 Yes
System
Total
p1_q10b CLDT improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: b. Communication skills
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 Yes
25
78.1
83.3
83.3
2 No
5
15.6
16.7
100.0
Total
30
93.8
100.0
System
Total
2
6.3
32
100.0
p1_q10c CLDT improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: c. Decision making
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 Yes
27
84.4
90.0
90.0
2 No
3
9.4
10.0
100.0
Total
30
93.8
100.0
System
Total
2
6.3
32
100.0
p1_q10d CLDT improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: d. Teamwork
Valid
Missing
Total
1 Yes
Frequency
27
Percent
84.4
Valid Percent
90.0
Cumulative
Percent
90.0
100.0
2 No
3
9.4
10.0
Total
30
93.8
100.0
System
2
6.3
32
100.0
9
p1_q10e CLDT improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: e. Confidence
Valid
Missing
Total
1 Yes
Frequency
27
Percent
84.4
Valid Percent
90.0
Cumulative
Percent
90.0
100.0
2 No
3
9.4
10.0
Total
30
93.8
100.0
2
6.3
32
100.0
System
10
Appendix F. CLDT Trainer Survey and Results
1
2
CLDT Trainer Survey
Cadet Summer Training Assessment 2008
Frequency Table
p1_q1b Training Objectives: b. Teach cadets to solve tactical problems at platoon level. Using a variety of
scenarios, teach cadets to analyze the problem, apply doctrinal principles to solve it, communicate their
plans, and lead the unit in preparing for and
Frequency
Valid
2 Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
4 Agree
13
39.4
39.4
42.4
5 Strongly agree
19
57.6
57.6
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
p1_q1a Training Objectives: a. Develop leadership in cadets. Provide each cadet with multiple
opportunities to serve in leadership roles in tactical scenarios, and provide them with feedback.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
4 Agree
14
42.4
42.4
42.4
5 Strongly agree
19
57.6
57.6
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
p1_q1c Training Objectives: c.Provide cadets with the experience of training in stressful tactical
conditions. Show cadets what “right” looks like.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
2 Disagree
4
12.1
12.1
12.1
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
6
18.2
18.2
30.3
14
42.4
42.4
72.7
100.0
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
Total
9
27.3
27.3
33
100.0
100.0
3
p1_q2a Overall Rating of Training: a. CLDT provided cadets provided cadets with a high quality (well
planned, resourced, and executed training experience in stressful tactical conditions.
Frequency
Valid
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
3.0
3.0
3.0
24
72.7
72.7
75.8
100.0
8
24.2
24.2
33
100.0
100.0
p1_q2b Overall Rating of Training: b. I would highly encourage next year’s rising Firsties to participate in
CLDT.
Valid
Frequency
11
Percent
33.3
Valid Percent
33.3
Cumulative
Percent
33.3
5 Strongly agree
22
66.7
66.7
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
4 Agree
p1_q3a Feedback: a. Cadets improved individually and collectively throughout CLDT as a result of the
feedback they received.
Valid
Frequency
1
Percent
3.0
Valid Percent
3.0
Cumulative
Percent
3.0
4
12.1
12.1
15.2
4 Agree
17
51.5
51.5
66.7
5 Strongly agree
11
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
p1_q3b Feedback: b. I gave effective and meaningful feedback on cadets’ leadership and tactical abilities.
Frequency
Valid
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
3
9.1
9.1
9.1
4 Agree
16
48.5
48.5
57.6
5 Strongly agree
14
42.4
42.4
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
p1_q3c Feedback: c. Over the course of CLDT, cadets improved their personal leadership and military
4
skills as a result of the feedback they received from the trainer teams.
Frequency
Valid
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
5
15.2
15.2
15.2
4 Agree
18
54.5
54.5
69.7
5 Strongly agree
10
30.3
30.3
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
p1_q3d Feedback: d. I provided cadets with written copy/synopsis of the feedback that they could use at a
later date.
Valid
Frequency
3
Percent
9.1
Valid Percent
9.1
Cumulative
Percent
9.1
4
12.1
12.1
21.2
4 Agree
12
36.4
36.4
57.6
5 Strongly agree
14
42.4
42.4
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
p1_q3e Feedback: e. I provided feedback to tactical officers about their cadets’ performance at CLDT.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
2 Disagree
4
12.1
12.1
12.1
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
5
15.2
15.2
27.3
4 Agree
13
39.4
39.4
66.7
5 Strongly agree
11
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
33
100.0
100.0
p2_q1a Training Execution and Resources: a. The trainer teams adjusted the difficulty level of the training.
Valid
Missing
Total
Cumulative
Percent
6.3
Frequency
2
Percent
6.1
Valid Percent
6.3
4 Agree
17
51.5
53.1
59.4
5 Strongly agree
13
39.4
40.6
100.0
Total
32
97.0
100.0
1
3.0
33
100.0
2 Disagree
System
p2_q1b Training Execution and Resources: b. The complexity of the training scenarios diminished their
5
effectiveness
Valid
1 Strongly disagree
Frequency
5
Percent
15.2
Valid Percent
15.6
Cumulative
Percent
15.6
2 Disagree
13
39.4
40.6
56.3
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
2
6.1
6.3
62.5
4 Agree
7
21.2
21.9
84.4
5
15.2
15.6
100.0
32
97.0
100.0
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
System
Total
1
3.0
33
100.0
p2_q1c Training Execution and Resources: c. The 2LTs added value to the CLDT training experience.
Frequency
Valid
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
4
12.1
12.5
12.5
10
30.3
31.3
43.8
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
8
24.2
25.0
68.8
4 Agree
9
27.3
28.1
96.9
100.0
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Total
1
3.0
3.1
32
97.0
100.0
1
3.0
33
100.0
p2_q1d Training Execution and Resources: d. Role players (translators, opposing forces, etc.) were
adequately prepared for the training.
Frequency
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
2
6.1
6.3
6.3
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
1
3.0
3.1
9.4
22
66.7
68.8
78.1
7
21.2
21.9
100.0
32
97.0
100.0
5 Strongly agree
Total
Total
Valid Percent
2 Disagree
4 Agree
Missing
Percent
System
1
3.0
33
100.0
p3_q1a Preparation: a. The five day leader prep prior to CLDT was effective in preparing you for your CLDT
6
Trainer duties.
Valid
Frequency
5
Percent
15.2
Valid Percent
17.2
Cumulative
Percent
17.2
2 Disagree
8
24.2
27.6
44.8
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
8
24.2
27.6
72.4
4 Agree
8
24.2
27.6
100.0
29
87.9
100.0
4
12.1
33
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
Total
Missing
System
Total
p3_q1b Preparation: b. There was enough time for the end of the summer training to prepare and be ready
for the first day of classes.
Valid
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
Percent
33.3
Valid Percent
37.9
Cumulative
Percent
37.9
10
30.3
34.5
72.4
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
2
6.1
6.9
79.3
4 Agree
5
15.2
17.2
96.6
5 Strongly agree
1
3.0
3.4
100.0
29
87.9
100.0
Total
Missing
Frequency
11
System
Total
4
12.1
33
100.0
p3_q2 Preparation: Not counting the scheduled five day leader prep, how much time did you spend prior to
CLDT getting prepared? (enter number of days)
Valid
0
Frequency
6
Percent
18.2
Valid Percent
20.7
Cumulative
Percent
20.7
1
4
12.1
13.8
34.5
2
7
21.2
24.1
58.6
3
3
9.1
10.3
69.0
4
1
3.0
3.4
72.4
5
4
12.1
13.8
86.2
6
1
3.0
3.4
89.7
21
1
3.0
3.4
93.1
60
1
3.0
3.4
96.6
100.0
90
Total
Missing
Total
System
1
3.0
3.4
29
87.9
100.0
4
12.1
33
100.0
p3_q3 Preparation: How much of the time you spent getting prepared for CLDT was during the academic
7
year (prior to Grad week)? (enter number of days)
Valid
0
Frequency
17
Percent
51.5
Valid Percent
60.7
Cumulative
Percent
60.7
1
3
9.1
10.7
71.4
2
3
9.1
10.7
82.1
3
3
9.1
10.7
92.9
30
1
3.0
3.6
96.4
45
1
3.0
3.6
100.0
28
84.8
100.0
5
15.2
33
100.0
Total
Missing
Total
System
8
Appendix G. Faculty Survey and Results
1
2
3
Staff & Faculty Survey 2008
Summer Training Assessment
Frequency Table
p1_q1a Since the schedule change, I have spent _________ time engaged in this activity: a. Teaching
related activities (preparing for class, grading papers).
Frequency
Valid
1 Much less time
2 Less time
3 Equal amount of time
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
8
3.8
3.8
3.8
31
14.6
14.8
18.6
79.5
128
60.1
61.0
4 More time
31
14.6
14.8
94.3
5 Much more time
12
5.6
5.7
100.0
210
98.6
100.0
3
1.4
213
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Total
p1_q1b Since the schedule change, I have spent _________ time engaged in this activity: b. Scholarship
activities (personal research in discipline).
Frequency
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
39
18.3
18.6
18.6
2 Less time
72
33.8
34.3
52.9
3 Equal amount of time
86
40.4
41.0
93.8
4 More time
11
5.2
5.2
99.0
2
.9
1.0
100.0
210
98.6
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
1 Much less time
5 Much more time
Missing
Percent
System
3
1.4
213
100.0
4
p1_q1c Since the schedule change, I have spent _________ time engaged in this activity: c. Cadet
development activities (conducting A.I., ORs of sports, club/sport OICs).
Valid
1 Much less time
2 Less time
3 Equal amount of time
4 More time
5 Much more time
Total
Missing
System
Total
Frequency
15
Percent
7.0
Valid Percent
7.1
Cumulative
Percent
7.1
43
20.2
20.5
27.6
115
54.0
54.8
82.4
30
14.1
14.3
96.7
7
3.3
3.3
100.0
210
98.6
100.0
3
1.4
213
100.0
p1_q1d Since the schedule change, I have spent _________ time engaged in this activity: d. Service
activities (participation in the governance of academic depts., and the Academy outreach activities, and
activities of the professional societies and organizatio
Valid
1 Much less time
2 Less time
3 Equal amount of time
4 More time
5 Much more time
Total
Missing
System
Total
Frequency
12
Percent
5.6
Valid Percent
5.7
Cumulative
Percent
5.7
43
20.2
20.5
26.2
132
62.0
62.9
89.0
19
8.9
9.0
98.1
100.0
4
1.9
1.9
210
98.6
100.0
3
1.4
213
100.0
p1_q1e Since the schedule change, I have spent _________ time engaged in this activity: e. Personal/family
time (time spent with family or relaxing/non-work time).
Valid
1 Much less time
2 Less time
3 Equal amount of time
4 More time
Total
Missing
Total
System
Frequency
41
Percent
19.2
Valid Percent
19.6
Cumulative
Percent
19.6
103
48.4
49.3
68.9
62
29.1
29.7
98.6
3
1.4
1.4
100.0
209
98.1
100.0
4
1.9
213
100.0
5
p1_q2a In my department/directorate/organization: a. I have sufficient time to do my job.
Valid
Frequency
21
Percent
9.9
Valid Percent
10.0
Cumulative
Percent
10.0
2 Disagree
60
28.2
28.7
38.8
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
29
13.6
13.9
52.6
4 Agree
92
43.2
44.0
96.7
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
System
Total
7
3.3
3.3
209
98.1
100.0
4
1.9
213
100.0
p1_q2b In my department/directorate/organization: b. I have sufficient time to conduct scholarly research.
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 Strongly disagree
71
33.3
34.0
34.0
2 Disagree
83
39.0
39.7
73.7
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
24
11.3
11.5
85.2
4 Agree
28
13.1
13.4
98.6
100.0
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Total
3
1.4
1.4
209
98.1
100.0
4
1.9
213
100.0
p1_q3a In my department/directorate/organization: a. The effectiveness of my organization is:
Frequency
Valid
1 Poor
1.9
1.9
Cumulative
Percent
1.9
15
7.0
7.2
9.1
3 ---
29
13.6
13.9
23.0
4 >
84
39.4
40.2
63.2
77
36.2
36.8
100.0
209
98.1
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
2 <
5 Excellent
Missing
4
Percent
System
4
1.9
213
100.0
6
p1_q3b In my department/directorate/organization: b. The morale in my organization is:
Valid
Frequency
6
Percent
2.8
Valid Percent
2.9
Cumulative
Percent
2.9
2 <
23
10.8
11.0
13.8
3 ---
33
15.5
15.7
29.5
4 >
76
35.7
36.2
65.7
72
33.8
34.3
100.0
210
98.6
100.0
1 Poor
5 Excellent
Total
Missing
System
Total
3
1.4
213
100.0
p1_q4a In my department/directorate/organization: a. Reducing the academic year has lowered academic
quality.
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 Strongly disagree
11
5.2
5.2
5.2
2 Disagree
32
15.0
15.2
20.5
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
69
32.4
32.9
53.3
4 Agree
69
32.4
32.9
86.2
5 Strongly agree
29
13.6
13.8
100.0
210
98.6
100.0
3
1.4
213
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Total
p1_q4b In my department/directorate/organization: b. The reduction in the academic year resulted in a
decrease in the quantity and scope of course requirements (exams, projects, graded homework, reading
assignments, etc.).
Valid
Frequency
20
Percent
9.4
Valid Percent
9.5
Cumulative
Percent
9.5
2 Disagree
69
32.4
32.7
42.2
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
76
35.7
36.0
78.2
4 Agree
31
14.6
14.7
92.9
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
5 Strongly agree
Total
Missing
Total
System
15
7.0
7.1
211
99.1
100.0
2
.9
213
100.0
7
p1_q4c In my department/directorate/organization: c. The reduction in the academic year has had a negative
effect on course design and schedules (# of course objectives, number of lessons, more/less drops).
Valid
Frequency
14
Percent
6.6
Valid Percent
6.7
Cumulative
Percent
6.7
2 Disagree
54
25.4
25.7
32.4
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
68
31.9
32.4
64.8
4 Agree
46
21.6
21.9
86.7
5 Strongly agree
28
13.1
13.3
100.0
210
98.6
100.0
3
1.4
213
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
Total
Missing
System
Total
p1_q4d In my department/directorate/organization: d. Reduction in the academic year resulted in lowered
expectations of cadets.
Valid
Frequency
14
Percent
6.6
Valid Percent
6.7
Cumulative
Percent
6.7
2 Disagree
51
23.9
24.3
31.0
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
74
34.7
35.2
66.2
4 Agree
54
25.4
25.7
91.9
5 Strongly agree
17
8.0
8.1
100.0
210
98.6
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
Total
Missing
System
Total
3
1.4
213
100.0
p1_q4e In my department/directorate/organization: e. Reduction in the academic year has had a negative
effect on
Valid
Frequency
6
Percent
2.8
Valid Percent
2.9
Cumulative
Percent
2.9
2 Disagree
27
12.7
12.9
15.8
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
62
29.1
29.7
45.5
4 Agree
75
35.2
35.9
81.3
5 Strongly agree
39
18.3
18.7
100.0
209
98.1
100.0
4
1.9
213
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
Total
Missing
Total
System
8
p1_q4f In my department/directorate/organization: f. Cadets were less prepared for the first two lessons
compared to previous semesters.
Valid
Frequency
4
Percent
1.9
Valid Percent
1.9
Cumulative
Percent
1.9
2 Disagree
22
10.3
10.5
12.4
3 Neither agree nor
disagree
43
20.2
20.5
32.9
4 Agree
68
31.9
32.4
65.2
5 Strongly agree
73
34.3
34.8
100.0
210
98.6
100.0
3
1.4
213
100.0
1 Strongly disagree
Total
Missing
System
Total
dept In what department/directorate/division of the Office of the Dean do you work?
Frequency
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
11
5.2
5.3
5.3
2 D/Chemistry & Life
Sciences
15
7.0
7.2
12.4
3 D/Civil & Mechanical
Engineering.
12
5.6
5.7
18.2
4 D/Electrical Eng &
Computer Sci
17
8.0
8.1
26.3
5 D/English
16
7.5
7.7
34.0
6 D/Foreign Languages
13
6.1
6.2
40.2
7 D/Geography &
Enviromental Eng.
13
6.1
6.2
46.4
8 D/History
16
7.5
7.7
54.1
2
.9
1.0
55.0
10 D/Mathematics
33
15.5
15.8
70.8
11 D/Physics
11
5.2
5.3
76.1
12 D/Social Sciences
15
7.0
7.2
83.3
13 D/Systems
Engineering
15
7.0
7.2
90.4
14 Dean's Staff, NEC
8
3.8
3.8
94.3
16 Center for Enhanced
Performance
2
.9
1.0
95.2
10
4.7
4.8
100.0
209
98.1
100.0
4
1.9
213
100.0
19 DPE
Total
Total
Valid Percent
1 D/Behavioral Sciences
& Leadership
9 D/Law
Missing
Percent
System
9
grade Which category best describes your grade? (Civilians in NSPS answer with closest equivalent.)
Valid
Frequency
68
1 Civ faculty
2 GS9 and above
Valid Percent
32.7
Cumulative
Percent
32.7
33.2
1
.5
.5
5 O1 - O4
88
41.3
42.3
75.5
6 O5 - O6
51
23.9
24.5
100.0
208
97.7
100.0
5
2.3
213
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
31.9
System
Total
affiliation If you are a military officer, which of the following categories represents your current USMA
affiliation?
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 Rotating faculty - 1st
tour
93
43.7
55.0
55.0
2 Rotating faculty 2nd tour
14
6.6
8.3
63.3
3 Academy professor
28
13.1
16.6
79.9
4 Professor, USMA
4
1.9
2.4
82.2
5 staff officer
1
.5
.6
82.8
6 N/A
29
13.6
17.2
100.0
Total
169
79.3
100.0
44
20.7
213
100.0
System
Total
title What is your current academic title?
Frequency
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
58
27.2
28.0
28.0
2 Assist Prof
103
48.4
49.8
77.8
3 Assoc Prof
26
12.2
12.6
90.3
4 Professor
18
8.5
8.7
99.0
2
.9
1.0
100.0
207
97.2
100.0
6
2.8
213
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
1 Insttructor
5
Missing
Percent
System
10
sex What is your sex?
Valid
1 Male
2 Female
Total
Missing
System
Total
Frequency
169
Percent
79.3
Valid Percent
83.7
Cumulative
Percent
83.7
100.0
33
15.5
16.3
202
94.8
100.0
11
5.2
213
100.0
race What is your race/ethnicity?
Valid
1 Asian
Frequency
3
Percent
1.4
Valid Percent
1.5
Cumulative
Percent
1.5
2 Black
7
3.3
3.5
5.0
179
84.0
88.6
93.6
3
1.4
1.5
95.0
100.0
3 Caucasian
4 Hispanic
5 Other
Total
Missing
Total
System
10
4.7
5.0
202
94.8
100.0
11
5.2
213
100.0
11
Appendix H. CST Survey and Results
Cadet Summer Training Survey 2008
Combined Survey Results
Frequency Table
cstq1 1. The length of CST was sufficient for accomplishing the training itself.
Valid
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
Percent
.6
Valid Percent
.7
Cumulative
Percent
.7
56
3.2
3.3
4.0
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
190
11.0
11.4
15.4
4. Agree
880
50.7
52.6
68.0
5. Strongly agree
535
30.9
32.0
100.0
1672
96.4
100.0
Total
Missing
Frequency
11
System
Total
62
3.6
1734
100.0
cstq2 2. The transition from grad week to CST was efficient and effective.
Frequency
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
27
1.6
1.6
1.6
2. Disagree
82
4.7
4.9
6.5
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
423
24.4
25.4
32.0
4. Agree
768
44.3
46.1
78.1
365
21.0
21.9
100.0
1665
96.0
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
1. Strongly disagree
5. Strongly agree
Missing
Percent
System
69
4.0
1734
100.0
1
cstq3 3. The transition from CST to the academic year was efficient and effective.
Valid
Frequency
119
Percent
6.9
Valid Percent
7.1
Cumulative
Percent
7.1
2. Disagree
267
15.4
16.0
23.2
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
324
18.7
19.5
42.6
4. Agree
680
39.2
40.8
83.5
5. Strongly agree
275
15.9
16.5
100.0
1665
96.0
100.0
69
4.0
1734
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
Total
Missing
System
Total
cstq4 4. I had adequate time to conduct the activities associated with the transition from CST to the
academic year.
Valid
Frequency
134
Percent
7.7
Valid Percent
8.0
Cumulative
Percent
8.0
2. Disagree
271
15.6
16.3
24.3
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
312
18.0
18.7
43.1
4. Agree
660
38.1
39.6
82.7
288
16.6
17.3
100.0
1665
96.0
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
5. Strongly agree
Total
Missing
System
Total
69
4.0
1734
100.0
cstq5 5. There was sufficient personal leave available for use during CST.
Frequency
Valid
1. Strongly disagree
Cumulative
Percent
84
4.8
5.1
5.1
152
8.8
9.1
14.2
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
271
15.6
16.3
30.5
4. Agree
795
45.8
47.8
78.3
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
2. Disagree
5. Strongly agree
Missing
Percent
System
361
20.8
21.7
1663
95.9
100.0
71
4.1
1734
100.0
2
cstq6 6. With the additional week(s) summer training program, cadets are allowed improved tailoring of
training and education, thereby enhancing their development opportunities.
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1. Strongly disagree
42
2.4
2.5
2.5
2. Disagree
92
5.3
5.5
8.1
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
359
20.7
21.6
29.7
4. Agree
753
43.4
45.4
75.1
5. Strongly agree
413
23.8
24.9
100.0
1659
95.7
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Total
75
4.3
1734
100.0
cstq7 7. The change to a three-block summer training schedule was helpful in providing a training program
tailored to meet my personal development/needs.
Frequency
Valid
1. Strongly disagree
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
55
3.2
3.3
3.3
2. Disagree
122
7.0
7.3
10.6
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
370
21.3
22.2
32.8
4. Agree
681
39.3
40.9
73.7
100.0
5. Strongly agree
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Total
438
25.3
26.3
1666
96.1
100.0
68
3.9
1734
100.0
cstq8 8. The change to a three-block summer training schedule was helpful in providing an increase in the
combinations of opportunities available.
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1. Strongly disagree
43
2.5
2.6
2.6
2. Disagree
97
5.6
5.9
8.5
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
310
17.9
18.7
27.2
4. Agree
705
40.7
42.6
69.7
5. Strongly agree
501
28.9
30.3
100.0
1656
95.5
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
78
4.5
1734
100.0
3
cstq9 9. What was the primary personal benefit of a three-block summer?
Valid
1 a. To "light load"
Frequency
224
Percent
12.9
Valid Percent
13.5
Cumulative
Percent
13.5
35
2.0
2.1
15.6
1177
67.9
71.0
86.6
222
12.8
13.4
100.0
1658
95.6
100.0
76
4.4
1734
100.0
2 b. To address a prior
course failure
3 c. To maximize military
training/experience
4 d. other:
Total
Missing
System
Total
cstq10 10. I had an opportunity to take 14 days leave this summer.
Valid
1 a. Yes
2 b. No
Total
Missing
Total
System
Frequency
1505
Percent
86.8
Valid Percent
89.9
Cumulative
Percent
89.9
100.0
170
9.8
10.1
1675
96.6
100.0
59
3.4
1734
100.0
4
Appendix I. ROTC Survey and Results
ROTC CFT Survey
USMA is interested in obtaining your feedback on your CFT summer training experience. The
data in this survey will be confidential. No names or other personal identifying information will
be released to anyone. Your participation is voluntary, and you may decline to complete the
survey for any reason. This research is being conducted by Ms. Janet Wolff and Dr. Dennis
Kelly, USMA Office of Institutional Research. They may be reached at 845-938-7377/7384.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
What is your name? ______________________________________________________
What is the name of the college/university are you attending? _____________________
What is you gender? Male Female
What is your Military Science Professor’s name/address? ________________________
Please rate each of the statements below using the following scale:
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
5
4
3
2
1
1. CFT provided relevant training for the 3rd Class cadets (i.e., skills and techniques I
will need as a LT, for example, Cordon & Search, ACP, and Convoy).
2. CFT has increased my desire for a military career.
3. The officers that trained me related to me in a professional manner.
4. The non-commissioned officers and Soldiers that trained me related to me in a
professional manner.
5. My cadet chain of command set a professional command climate.
6. The West Point cadets engaged and interacted with me like I was one of their classmates.
7. CFT was as professional as other military training I have completed
8. I am satisfied with the Quality of training I have received at CFT.
9. CFT has met my expectations for a quality summer training experience.
10. I was adequately prepared for my experience at CFT.
1
11. I would recommend West Point’s summer training to other ROTC cadets.
12. CFT provided an understanding of the basics of the Profession of Arms.
13. CFT allowed me to demonstrate a mastery of the basic military and physical skills
necessary for commissioning.
Please continue to rate each of the statements below using the following scale:
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
5
4
3
2
1
14. CFT provided tough, relevant training.
15. There was enough free-time to “recharge” myself.
16. CFT allowed for the socialization of cadets.
17. CFT training applied and instilled the Warrior Ethos.
2
18. CFT contributed to my professional development (honor instruction, leadership)
Please comment on what you enjoyed/learned/felt positive about Cadet Field Training
Please comment on what you did not enjoyed/learned/felt positive about Cadet Field
Training
May we contact you via email for further information? Yes ___ No ___
Email address: _______________________________________________
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP.
3
ROTC CFT Survey
Summer Training Assessment
Frequency Table
q1. CFT provided relevant training for the 3rd Class cadets (i.e., skills and techniques I will need as a LT, for
example, Cordon & Search, ACP, and Convoy).
Valid
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
Frequency
11
Percent
9.6
Valid Percent
9.6
Cumulative
Percent
9.6
5
4.4
4.4
14.0
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
22
19.3
19.3
33.3
4. Agree
44
38.6
38.6
71.9
5. Strongly agree
32
28.1
28.1
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
Total
q2. CFT has increased my desire for a military career.
Valid
Frequency
6
Percent
5.3
Valid Percent
5.3
Cumulative
Percent
5.3
2. Disagree
10
8.8
8.8
14.0
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
37
32.5
32.5
46.5
4. Agree
37
32.5
32.5
78.9
5. Strongly agree
24
21.1
21.1
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
Total
q3. The officers that trained me related to me in a professional manner.
Frequency
Valid
1. Strongly disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
4
3.5
3.5
3.5
2. Disagree
13
11.4
11.4
14.9
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
10
8.8
8.8
23.7
4. Agree
43
37.7
37.7
61.4
5. Strongly agree
44
38.6
38.6
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
Total
4
q4. The non-commissioned officers and Soldiers that trained me related to me in a professional manner.
Valid
Frequency
5
Percent
4.4
Valid Percent
4.4
Cumulative
Percent
4.4
2. Disagree
13
11.4
11.4
15.8
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
13
11.4
11.4
27.2
4. Agree
41
36.0
36.0
63.2
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
5. Strongly agree
Total
42
36.8
36.8
114
100.0
100.0
q5. My cadet chain of command set a professional command climate.
Valid
Frequency
8
Percent
7.0
Valid Percent
7.0
Cumulative
Percent
7.0
2. Disagree
17
14.9
14.9
21.9
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
28
24.6
24.6
46.5
4. Agree
44
38.6
38.6
85.1
5. Strongly agree
17
14.9
14.9
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
Total
q6. The West Point cadets engaged and interacted with me like I was one of their classmates.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1. Strongly disagree
10
8.8
8.8
8.8
2. Disagree
29
25.4
25.4
34.2
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
14
12.3
12.3
46.5
4. Agree
33
28.9
28.9
75.4
5. Strongly agree
28
24.6
24.6
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
Total
5
q7. CFT was as professional as other military training I have completed
Valid
Frequency
12
Percent
10.5
Valid Percent
10.5
Cumulative
Percent
10.5
2. Disagree
18
15.8
15.8
26.3
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
34
29.8
29.8
56.1
4. Agree
31
27.2
27.2
83.3
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
5. Strongly agree
Total
19
16.7
16.7
114
100.0
100.0
q8. I am satisfied with the Quality of training I have received at CFT.
Valid
Frequency
11
Percent
9.6
Valid Percent
9.6
Cumulative
Percent
9.6
2. Disagree
13
11.4
11.4
21.1
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
16
14.0
14.0
35.1
4. Agree
50
43.9
43.9
78.9
5. Strongly agree
24
21.1
21.1
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
Total
q9. CFT has met my expectations for a quality summer training experience.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1. Strongly disagree
10
8.8
8.8
8.8
2. Disagree
18
15.8
15.8
24.6
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
24
21.1
21.1
45.6
4. Agree
35
30.7
30.7
76.3
5. Strongly agree
27
23.7
23.7
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
Total
q10. I was adequately prepared for my experience at CFT.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1. Strongly disagree
17
14.9
14.9
14.9
2. Disagree
17
14.9
14.9
29.8
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
20
17.5
17.5
47.4
4. Agree
34
29.8
29.8
77.2
5. Strongly agree
26
22.8
22.8
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
Total
6
q11. I would recommend West Point’s summer training to other ROTC cadets.
Valid
Frequency
11
Percent
9.6
Valid Percent
9.6
Cumulative
Percent
9.6
2. Disagree
17
14.9
14.9
24.6
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
18
15.8
15.8
40.4
4. Agree
38
33.3
33.3
73.7
5. Strongly agree
30
26.3
26.3
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
Total
q12. CFT provided an understanding of the basics of the Profession of Arms.
Frequency
Valid
1. Strongly disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
4
3.5
3.5
3.5
2. Disagree
11
9.6
9.6
13.2
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
19
16.7
16.7
29.8
4. Agree
48
42.1
42.1
71.9
100.0
5. Strongly agree
Total
32
28.1
28.1
114
100.0
100.0
q13. CFT allowed me to demonstrate a mastery of the basic military and physical skills necessary for
commissioning.
Valid
Frequency
8
Percent
7.0
Valid Percent
7.0
Cumulative
Percent
7.0
2. Disagree
14
12.3
12.3
19.3
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
27
23.7
23.7
43.0
4. Agree
46
40.4
40.4
83.3
5. Strongly agree
19
16.7
16.7
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
Total
7
q14. CFT provided tough, relevant training.
Valid
Frequency
4
Percent
3.5
Valid Percent
3.5
Cumulative
Percent
3.5
2. Disagree
19
16.7
16.7
20.2
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
24
21.1
21.1
41.2
4. Agree
50
43.9
43.9
85.1
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
5. Strongly agree
Total
17
14.9
14.9
114
100.0
100.0
q15. There was enough free-time to “recharge” myself.
Valid
Frequency
19
Percent
16.7
Valid Percent
16.7
Cumulative
Percent
16.7
2. Disagree
15
13.2
13.2
29.8
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
36
31.6
31.6
61.4
4. Agree
29
25.4
25.4
86.8
5. Strongly agree
15
13.2
13.2
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
Total
q16. CFT allowed for the socialization of cadets.
Frequency
Valid
1. Strongly disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
5
4.4
4.4
4.4
2. Disagree
15
13.2
13.2
17.5
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
16
14.0
14.0
31.6
4. Agree
45
39.5
39.5
71.1
5. Strongly agree
33
28.9
28.9
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
Total
q17. CFT training applied and instilled the Warrior Ethos.
Frequency
Valid
1. Strongly disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
2
1.8
1.8
1.8
2. Disagree
21
18.4
18.4
20.2
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
41
36.0
36.0
56.1
4. Agree
35
30.7
30.7
86.8
5. Strongly agree
15
13.2
13.2
100.0
114
100.0
100.0
Total
8
q18. CFT contributed to my professional development (honor instruction, leadership)
Valid
Frequency
9
Percent
7.9
Valid Percent
8.0
Cumulative
Percent
8.0
2. Disagree
13
11.4
11.5
19.5
3. Neither agree nor
disagree
25
21.9
22.1
41.6
4. Agree
47
41.2
41.6
83.2
5. Strongly agree
19
16.7
16.8
100.0
113
99.1
100.0
1
.9
114
100.0
1. Strongly disagree
Total
Missing
Total
System
9
Appendix J. PMS Survey and Results
1
Professor of Military Science Survey
Summer Training Assessment 2008
Frequency Table
p1_q1a Cadet Field Training at USMA improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: a. Problem
solving ability and clarity of thinking
Frequency
Valid
Missing
1 Yes
Percent
38
84.4
2 No
6
Total
44
1
2.2
45
100.0
System
Total
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
86.4
86.4
13.3
13.6
100.0
97.8
100.0
p1_q1b Cadet Field Training at USMA improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: b.
Communication skills
Valid
Frequency
40
Percent
88.9
Valid Percent
88.9
Cumulative
Percent
88.9
2 No
5
11.1
11.1
100.0
Total
45
100.0
100.0
1 Yes
p1_q1c Cadet Field Training at USMA improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: c. Decision
making
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid Percent
83.7
Cumulative
Percent
83.7
15.6
16.3
100.0
95.6
100.0
Frequency
36
Percent
80.0
2 No
7
Total
43
2
4.4
45
100.0
1 Yes
System
2
p1_q1d Cadet Field Training at USMA improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: d. Teamwork
Valid
Missing
Frequency
40
1 Yes
Percent
88.9
Valid Percent
93.0
Cumulative
Percent
93.0
100.0
2 No
3
6.7
7.0
Total
43
95.6
100.0
2
4.4
45
100.0
System
Total
p1_q1e Cadet Field Training at USMA improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: e. Confidence
Valid
Frequency
42
Percent
93.3
Valid Percent
93.3
Cumulative
Percent
93.3
2 No
3
6.7
6.7
100.0
Total
45
100.0
100.0
1 Yes
p1_q1f Cadet Field Training at USMA improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: f. Leadership
skills
Valid
Frequency
38
Percent
84.4
Valid Percent
84.4
Cumulative
Percent
84.4
2 No
7
15.6
15.6
100.0
Total
45
100.0
100.0
1 Yes
p1_q1g Cadet Field Training at USMA improved your cadets’ ability in the following areas: g. Military skills
Valid
Missing
Frequency
42
Percent
93.3
Valid Percent
95.5
Cumulative
Percent
95.5
2 No
2
4.4
4.5
100.0
Total
44
97.8
100.0
1
2.2
45
100.0
1 Yes
System
Total
p1_q2 To what degree was the experience perceived by your cadets as a positive/negative experience?
Valid
2 Negative
Frequency
1
Percent
2.2
Valid Percent
2.2
Cumulative
Percent
2.2
3 Neutral
2
4.4
4.4
6.7
4 Positive
21
46.7
46.7
53.3
5 Strongly positive
21
46.7
46.7
100.0
Total
45
100.0
100.0
3
p1_q3 I would encourage my ROTC cadets to attend USMA Cadet Field Training next year.
Frequency
Valid
3 Neither agree
nor disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
2.2
2.2
4 Agree
11
24.4
24.4
26.7
5 Strongly agree
33
73.3
73.3
100.0
Total
45
100.0
100.0
4
2.2
Appendix K. Cadet Focus Group Results



Focus Group 1 – Conducted with 7 upper level cadets on 20 Nov 2008
What effect has the recent change in the length and structure of Cadet Summer Training
had on you? How has the change helped/hindered you? What advantages/disadvantages
have occurred as a result of the change.
Cadets were unanimously unhappy with the loss of three-day weekends – especially
Veterans Day. Their professors were also unhappy with the loss of the three-day
weekends.
Pace is anaerobic with no time for recovery, no time to recharge and or catch-up and
carry on.
It affects upper-class doing leadership details, i.e., LTPs. It depends upon what your
summer details were. For some, everything was compressed (e.g., STAP, Buckner,
MDS) or it could have been relaxing (e.g., short MDS and CLDT with two months of
leave).
Reorgy was compressed – there were many tasks/responsibilities, including: getting new
cadets into their rooms, SAMIs, and starting school. This was even harder on the lower
two classes. Suggest compressing the second semester.
How would you interpret the following results (results will be provided) from the recent
Cadet Summer Training Survey?
Leave – Why would cadets take/have less than two weeks leave? Why would cadets
take/have greater than four weeks of leave?
Less than two weeks. Would like to have used early leave, e.g., AASLT – but leave was a
non negotiable. Did not want to be bored. Athletes had mandatory PIADs. Some cadets
wanted to front-load their schedule during their Junior year – over the summer they
would take STAP to make Firstie year lighter. AA LTP – three weeks time – could not
take AASLT – but required to take leave – with 13 days leave.
Cadets were not aware that they could take less than the two weeks if they signed a
“waiver” – most of the cadets took more leave than they wanted.
Two months of leave led to boredom, was denied an AA slot because class was full. The
amount of leave time should not be mandated. Cadets understand their graduation
requirements. Allow cadets to be responsible for their time, and allow them to make
decisions.
Some were forced into leadership details (staff, supply, SGR)
There was a little bitterness that Yearlings were given training they could have had
instead of leave.
Mental Prep for MDS – One third of the 3rd CL responded that they felt mentally
unprepared for their MDS? Can you shed some light on - or help us to understand this
finding ?
Sending more 3rd CL cadets to MDS with limited experience and maturity – screwed
West Point image, especially for DCLT/CTLT . The extra year makes a big difference.
Buckner experience is key – as well as other leadership experiences during the academic
1



year. Instructors at AA commented on the differences between the groups – and they did
not know which class cadets were in.
Upper class cadets lost MDS Slots to Yuks.
Three-block summer not tailored to individual – How do you explain the finding that the
three-block summer is not tailored to meet the personal needs of individual cadets?
People who wanted to have leave could not. People for whom leave was not important
and wanted to excel could not have that option
Some schools and experiences were not valued.
Cadets would like more responsibility for scheduling their training. They would like to
be the one to make choices from what’s available to them.
CLDT training quality – What explains the low rating of the quality of CLDT training?
Is this a reflection of the training itself, or an indication of the disappointment with
receiving/having been assigned to this summer training experience?
Voluntelling. Forced into attending left a bad taste. The quality of the training was good
however, with cadets learning some new things. At least three quarters of cadets will be
“forced” to attend in the future.
Cadets arrived at the training with bad attitudes because they were forced to attend. It
didn’t matter how great the training or what was learned – cadets were not happy to be
there.
Decrease in Honors Cadets – What is contributing to the decline in the number of cadets
who are participating in the Honors program? The numbers have decreased from 16%
to 5%.
Two years ago there was a change in the language requirement (other core class
requirements may also have changed). With the addition of another one year of
language (two semesters) – it has made it more difficult to maintain the 3.0 GPA
requirement. The increased frustration with academics, along with the decreased support
from peers for academic honors is a factor.
It is not widely publicized – some cadets do not know about the Honors Program.
The motivation to attend WP has changed. It now is now more of a military aspect
versus an academic. This is a cultural shift – we have been at war since 2001 – brainiacs
are not as common. There is more of a concern with how to be an officer. English is not
as important.

Grad Week – what were the effects of a shortened Grad Week?

One less parade Everything can be done in 2-3 days. Start the out-processing
requirements earlier. It will reduce the costs of families to visit the area.
LDAC – ROTC leadership – Why are cadets not willing to attend this training?
It was just like Buckner – yet it was inferior to Buckner. Therefore, it was perceived to
be a waste of time after attending Buckner.
There was a lot of sitting around at LDAC – waste of time.
2


Focus Group 2 – Conducted with 8 upper level cadets on 20 Nov 2008
What effect has the recent change in the length and structure of Cadet Summer Training
had on you? How has the change helped/hindered you? What advantages/disadvantages
have occurred as a result of the change.
Academic year military training decreased because summer military training increased.
Need to keep some military training in the academic year
Third Class could not capitalize on “white space.” There were not enough valued
opportunities available
Consider placing Buckner in the first block. Then you would not have the problem of 3rd
Class going to MIADs before CFT.
A positive result of the change was it increased choice, freedom, and options available to
cadets. But cadets are not “really” the ones making the choices.
Loss of 3 day weekends was a negative
Cadets use the 3 day weekends to decompress and catch-up
3 day weekends are the only times when it is possible/reasonable for cadets to fly
home. This most affects the Plebes
The loss of 3 day weekends had a negative impact on morale within the Corps
Combine the fact that there was a reduction of three day weekends and numerous
home football games eliminated almost all decompression and catch up time this
semester.
The only 3 day weekend this semester was on a home football game so we could
not leave until Saturday anyway…so it really was not a 3 day weekend.
How would you interpret the following results (results will be provided) from the recent
Cadet Summer Training Survey?
Leave – Why would cadets take/have less than two weeks leave? Why would cadets
take/have greater than four weeks of leave?
Cadets would rather front load their graduation requirements early in the 4 years so they
can take more leave or do things they would like to do 2nd and 1st Class year.
I took five days leave. I would get bored at home and would rather participate in some
once in a lifetime experiences.
Some AIADs are pretty relaxed and are almost like leave.
The high leave numbers may be a function of transitioning from the old to new system.
I know of some people that had one week only because they had STAP, CFT, then
Airborne.
Mental Prep for MDS – One third of the 3rd CL responded that they felt mentally
unprepared for their MDS? Can you shed some light on - or help us to understand this finding ?
There is no way a new 3rd Class cadet should be sent to CTLT/DCLT.
Cannot see how a brand new 3rd Class could have anything to offer during CTLT/DCLT.
The 3rd Class I know that did a CLTL or DCLT said they were simply “shadows” and
they felt like they had nothing to offer.
CFT helps give 3rd Class more exposure to the military and gives them more of a clue. A
cadet that does CFT before an MAD is more prepared than one that does not.
3



CFT eliminated a lot of quality leader details . Cadets used these details to determine
whether they liked Infantry or other combat arms branches. These leader details were
replaced with things like SGR…not an equal trade.
Three-block summer not tailored to individual – How do you explain the finding that the
three-block summer is not tailored to meet the personal needs of individual cadets?
This really depends on your TAC and whether you were willing to fight for what you
really wanted .
Most TACs looked at the summer not as 12 weeks but 3 things.
Not everything training opportunity was 3 weeks. Those that were 4 weeks broke
system.
Overlaps in events and blocks caused cadets to arrive to LTP late or even depart LTP
early.
The Dean and Com are not synched. I could not get AIADs because LTP went into
another block.
LTP seemed bloated. It was too long and really did little to get me prepared.
CLDT training quality – What explains the low rating of the quality of CLDT training?
Is this a reflection of the training itself, or an indication of the disappointment with
receiving/having been assigned to this summer training experience?
Cadets did not like the fact that they were forced into it. Some were told they could get
their choice of a MIAD for doing it and that never happened.
Because they were forced the cadets went in with a very bad attitude. The fact that it was
very redundant to what they did in CFT II did not help.
Could have grandfathered the classes that already had CFT II and start with the classes
that did not.
Without CFT II in the future there will be no middle step. CFT II was like the crawl
phase for CLDT. Does CLDT now become the crawl phase?
Losing CTLT for CDLT was not a good deal. That is one less opportunity to connect
with the Army.
Reducing CTLT to 3 weeks would not be beneficial. It takes that long to just get in a
groove and feel like you can actually contribute.
Decrease in Honors Cadets – What is contributing to the decline in the number of cadets
who are participating in the Honors program? The numbers have decreased from 16%
to 5%.
Not many cadets are very aware of this program and most cadets wait until 2nd class year
to commit.
There really is no incentive. Everyone is focused on CPS and branch. This can only hurt
unless you weight honors courses like in high school.
Grad Week – what were the effects of a shortened Grad Week?
There was no real negative impact to a shortened Grad week.
Approximately 10-20% of cadets in my company were already gone doing training
during grad week.
Mini-Buckner did not seem very organized or effective. There were key leaders and even
3rd Class missing.
4

Reorgy Week – what were the effects of a shortened Reorgy Week?

As a Platoon Leader, a shortened Reorgy week was doable.
The people most impacted were TLs. They had to get themselves squared away and then
give their Plebes one on one attention. Reorgy week seemed absolutely chaotic.
The people most impacted were plebes and Yearlings.
We were not as prepared for the first week of class as previous semesters.
A shorter Reorgy week really hampered establishing relationships with people in your
squad/platoon, your ability to organize anything and made it impossible to do any team
building.
If you had Add/Drop issues, good luck. It took 1.5 weeks to get my classes straight.
LDAC – ROTC leadership – Why are cadets not willing to attend this training?
There is a bias against ROTC training plus feedback from cadets that went was that it was
like Buckner but very low budget.
Not many cadets even know what it is. What is it?
The only advantage to going to LDAC would be to meet new people. Unless there is an
incentive cadets will probably not choose to go.
5
Appendix L. Value Functions
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1.a
1.2.1.b
1.2.1.c
1
1.2.1.d
1.2.2.a
1.2.2.b
1.2.2.b
N/A
1.2.3.a
1.2.3.b
2
1.3.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
3
2.3.1
2.3.2
3.1.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2.1
4
3.2.2
3.2.2
N/A
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.2
3.4.1
5
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.2
3.4.3
N/A
3.4.3
3.5.1
6
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.2.1.a
7
4.2.1.a
4.2.1.b
4.2.1.b
4.2.1.c
4.2.2.a
4.2.2.b
8
4.2.3.a
4.2.3.b
4.3.1
4.3.2
5.1.1
5.1.2
9
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.2
5.2.3
10
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.2.1
11
6.2.2
6.2.2
6.3.1
7.1.1
7.1.2
12
Appendix M. Database and Data Query Information
1.1.1. Cadet participation in MDS
1
2
1.1.2. Cadets Participating in PIADs
(P)IADS 2008
Count of Class
Sport
BASEBALL
FOOTBALL
GOLF
GYMNASTICS
HOCKEY
M. BASKETBALL
M. Cross Country
M. SOCCER
M. SWIMMING
Sprint Football
TENNIS
VOLLEYBALL
W. Basketball
W. CROSS COUNTRY
W. SOCCER
W. SWIMMING
W. TENNIS
W. TRACK
WRESTLING
Grand Total
Class
2008
2009
6
44
1
1
2010
50
2
4
5
3
1
8
3
8
1
22
19
4
4
3
6
2
4
1
5
113
1
4
1
3
6
1
2011
13
48
2012
4
6
7
4
8
4
41
5
6
6
7
7
1
6
4
112
5
177
(P)IADS 2007
Count of Class
Sport
Football
Gymnastics
HOCKEY
M. Basketball
M. Cross Country
M. Soccer
Sprint Football
Volleyball
W. Basketball
W. Cross Country
W. Soccer
Grand Total
Class
2008
39
1
4
4
7
14
1
4
1
5
80
2009
46
1
2010
2
3
7
5
19
3
5
4
7
100
2
4
1
Grand Total
87
1
1
7
11
12
35
4
9
5
12
184
(P)IADS 2006
3
2
Grand Total
19
143
1
5
9
19
12
19
5
83
5
14
11
13
19
3
10
1
14
405
Count of Class
Column1
Football
M. Basketball
M. Cross Country
M. Soccer
Volleyball
W. Basketball
W. Cross Country
W. Soccer
Grand Total
Class
2007
30
5
6
6
4
4
3
8
66
2008
51
4
5
9
2
5
1
5
82
2009
1
1
2
Grand Total
82
9
11
16
6
9
4
13
150
1.1.3. Cadets Participating in AIADs
(A)IADS 2008
Count of Class
Rep
BART 'WOODY' WOODWORTH
COL MARK TOOLE
COL MIKE PHILLIPS
CPT COOK
CPT NATHAN JACOBS
CPT SHANNON LYERLY
CPT SUSAN KIM
CPT(P) ADAM CZEKANSKI
DANIEL B. SCHULTZ
DANIEL SCHULTZ
DR BROCKHAUS
DR JON MALINOWSKI
DR MEGHAN MURPHY-LEE
DR SISKA
DR. BROCKHAUS
DR. DANIEL SCHULTZ
DR. EAST
DR. ERICKA ROVIRA
DR. FRANK MABRY
DR. FRANK MABRY
DR. JOHN BROCKHAUS
DR. LANDOWNE
DR. MORTEN ENDER
DR. RICHARD WOLFEL
Class
2008 2009 2010 2011 Grand Total
7
4
5
16
6
1
1
8
1
4
4
9
1
6
3
10
4
2
6
16
5
3
24
6
6
3
15
2
4
6
1
1
2
5
4
9
1
1
3
3
6
2
5
3
10
4
2
6
1
1
9
18
2
29
4
4
3
3
3
1
4
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
3
5
8
4
1
5
4
DR. RUTH BEITLER
DR. TED HROMAKDA@USMA.EDU
JEFF BONNER
JIM PHILLIPS
JOSEPH C. SLOOP
JOSEPH SLOOP
LTC BRIAN DETOY
LTC FLEMING
LTC GRANT JACOBY
LTC GREG CONTI
LTC HENDRICKS
LTC IMIOLA
LTC IRVING SMITH
LTC JOE HENDERSON
LTC JOE SLOOP
LTC JOHN GRAHAM
LTC JOHN HYTTEN
LTC JOHN M. INGRAM
LTC JOSEPH FELTER
LTC MARK SMITH
LTC MATT CHAPMAN
LTC MATTHEW D. WHITNEY
LTC MICHAEL HENDRICKS
LTC MICHAEL MCCREA
LTC MIKE BROWNFIELD
LTC RALPH VARGAS
LTC ROBERT RABB
LTC SLOOP
LTC STEVE FLEMING
LTC VARGAS, RALPH
MAJ REDDEN
MAJ AARON KOHLER
MAJ AARON MERRILL
MAJ BEN RING
MAJ BEN WALLEN
MAJ BOB HEFFINGTON
MAJ BRIAN DUNMIRE
MAJ BURRELL
MAJ CARLA JOYNER
MAJ CHRIS HURLBURT
MAJ CLARK
MAJ CUTRIGHT
MAJ CUVIELLO
53
2
14
12
10
4
6
5
3
31
3
2
7
1
10
3
3
2
6
4
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
4
9
1
6
5
9
1
5
5
5
35
2
1
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
1
8
6
1
2
5
14
9
3
1
20
1
9
10
8
13
2
1
5
4
4
2
1
1
1
6
18
1
1
2
1
4
3
10
1
12
3
5
3
3
1
3
7
2
87
2
16
22
3
26
7
4
6
5
7
3
1
2
4
4
21
28
1
10
6
41
3
17
20
16
51
2
3
6
3
7
5
5
3
5
4
1
17
31
2
3
4
MAJ DAVID CHANG
MAJ DAVID WATERS
MAJ DAY
MAJ DILLMAN
MAJ ED WERKHEISER
MAJ ERIC EBERLINE
MAJ GAYLE DAVIS
MAJ GERALD E. HIMES JR.
MAJ GERALD HIMES
MAJ HUNT
MAJ IAN IRMISCHER
MAJ JAMES CHASTAIN
MAJ JASON RIDGEWAY
MAJ JOE SALINAS
MAJ JOE SCROCCA
MAJ JOHN COLWELL
MAJ JOHN MURPHY
MAJ LOLITA BURRELL
MAJ MARC DISTEFANO
MAJ MARY MCLAINE
MAJ MATTHEW DABKOWSKI
MAJ MATTHEW F. DABKOWSKI
MAJ MELANIE CARLSON
MAJ PLATT
MAJ REDDEN
MAJ RICH MEYER
MAJ RING
MAJ ROBERT MEINE
MAJ SHANE BAKER
MAJ STONEY TRENT
MAJ WALLEN
MAJ WILLIAM CLARK
MAJ WOODSIDE
MAJOR BLAIR WILLIAMS
MAJOR ERIC BJORKLUND
MAJOR JAMES CHASTAIN
MAJOR KATHLEEN CAGE
MAJOR REBECCA PATTERSON
MEINE
MELINDA STILL
MR. DAWES STRICKLER
MS JAMIE BENNETT
PROF THOMAS NIMICK
6
1
7
4
21
3
3
2
6
3
2
1
1
1
5
2
19
6
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
8
3
6
22
3
1
5
2
1
44
2
10
5
4
1
37
1
10
1
1
33
3
1
1
5
9
1
1
1
1
1
14
1
11
1
2
1
4
2
15
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
6
4
1
1
2
2
2
4
1
6
4
9
1
1
2
12
6
1
41
9
4
2
15
4
7
3
6
32
18
1
10
3
1
115
3
3
1
1
13
20
13
2
5
2
19
1
3
1
3
3
1
11
10
1
PROF. DAVID FREY
PROF. HAMILTON STAPELL
PROFESSOR HAMILTON STAPELL
RUTH BEITLER
SANDRA A. DUNLAP
(blank)
Grand Total
3
10
1
2
1
4
523
2
1
1
1
3
4
1
427
3
202
3
12
1
5
5
8
1155
(A)IADs 2007
Count of Class
Rep
,
BECKER, PAUL
CHASTAIN, JAMES
COWEN, ANGIE
DOMINICK, DAVID
DOTY, JAMES
DOYLE, BRIAN
EBERLINE, ERIC
ELLOWITZ, NANCY
ERICKSON, JARED
FIELITZ, LYNN
FLEMING, STEVE
FORD, CHRISTOPHER
GAUTHIER, STEPHEN
GREEN, WILLIAM
HENDERSON, JOSEPH
HENDRICKS, MICHAEL
HIMES, GERALD
HOAG, FRANCES
HURLBURT, CHRISTOPHER
JOHNSON, THOMAS
KIMBALL, MINDY
KRAKOWKA, AMY
MALINOWSKI, JON
MARTY, MICHAEL
MERRILL, AARON
MEYER, THOMAS
MINTZ, MICHELLE
MURPHY-LEE, MEGHAN
NESS, JAMES
OLSEN, MARK
Class
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Grand Total
3
3
1
6
7
2
1
3
36
28
64
2
10
5
17
3
3
6
4
1
5
7
10
17
31
7
38
14
14
2
2
4
4
4
10
2
12
1
1
6
1
7
3
4
7
1
1
2
14
3
17
1
1
7
5
12
2
7
7
1
17
8
8
16
2
2
4
4
4
11
1
12
7
17
24
6
1
7
1
37
12
50
3
3
6
1
42
12
2
57
3
2
4
9
7
OLUIC, STEVEN
PEGUERO, MEGAN
RADEMACHER, FRANZ
RADEMACHER, SOOJIN
RADICIC, WILLIAM
RIDGEWAY, JASON
RIOS, LUIS
RODRIGUEZ, LUIS A.
ROWELL, PETER
SCHULTZ, DANIEL
SMITH, MARK
STANKOW-MERCER, NAOMI
STRICKLER, DAWES
VARGAS, RALPH
WALLACE, DAVID
WALLEN, BENJAMIN
WATSON, SAMUEL
WOMACK, SCOTT
(blank)
Grand Total
3
3
9
88
15
1
6
9
6
15
4
10
5
4
7
4
12
4
14
498
1
3
3
19
11
3
1
13
1
6
3
3
5
4
2
2
3
6
12
243
4
6
12
118
26
4
7
22
7
21
7
13
8
8
9
6
15
10
32
782
11
3
6
35
1
(A)IADS 2006
Count of CY
CY
Department Sponsor
BARINOWSKI, ROBERT
BEITLER, RUTH
BOOTH, ERICKA
BROCKHAUS, JOHN
COLWELL, JOHN
DACUNTO, PHILIP
DALTON, JIM
DIETZMAN, BRIAN
DOMINICK, DAVID
EBERLINE, ERIC
ELLOWITZ, NANCY
ERICKSON, JARED
EVANGELISTA, PAUL
FORD, CHRISTOPHER
GILEWITCH, DAN
HALSTEAD, JOHN
HENDRICKS, MICHAEL
Grand
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
1
22
2
40
8
1
5
3
1
8
22
4
1
6
1
9
2
1
20
2
14
4
1
3
1
3
39
12
1
2
1
8
1
24
48
1
5
4
8
27
7
12
22
18
1
3
1
55
3
HURLBURT, CHRISTOPHER
KIMBALL, MINDY
KREDER, MARYELLEN
MARKS, PAUL
MARTY, MICHAEL
MERRILL, AARON
MEYER, THOMAS
MILLER, JOEL
PENDERGAST, JOHN
RADEMACHER, FRANZ
RADICIC, WILLIAM
RIOS, LUIS
RIVA, ANNMARIE
RODRIGUEZ, LUIS A.
ROWELL, PETER
SMITH, MARK
SPISSO, CAROL
STANKOW-MERCER, NAOMI
STOCKING, THOMAS
STURGESS, KEITH
THOMPSON, JENNIFER
TIMMES, TOM
VARGAS, RALPH
WALLACE, DAVID
(blank)
Grand Total
1
1
5
13
3
1
4
11
9
2
2
2
7
12
4
2
3
5
2
28
6
19
7
21
2
4
10
6
381
4
7
1
6
3
7
2
3
1
4
5
1
2
2
2
2
4
3
2
1
3
4
8
102
1
16
1.2.1.b. MIAD Failures
9
1
18
10
1
17
14
9
4
6
6
12
13
6
2
5
5
5
30
10
20
10
24
2
7
14
15
505
MIAD Failure Rates
year
MIAD
total failed
class year
failed by year
2008
ABN 1
1
2008
ABN 2
3
2008
2008
2008
2008
AASLT 1
ABN 3
LDAC
SMM Mount.
34
1
1
1
2008
2008
AASLT 4
ABN 5
15
2
2008
2008
ABN 6
Sapper 2
4
1
2008
2008
ABN 7
SMM2
2
1
2008
AASLT 2
3
2010
Exchange
2010
2011
2010
2009
2011
2010
2009
2010
2009
2010
2010
2009
2009
2010
2009
2009
2010
2009
1
1
2
25
6
3
1
1
1
10
5
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
year
MIAD
total failed
class year
failed by year
2009
2008
2009
2008
2008
2009
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2009
2008
3
1
3
4
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
14
7
2007
ABN 1
4
2007
2007
2007
AASLT 1
ABN 2
AASLT 2
7
1
2
2007
ABN 3
4
2007
2007
ABN 4
ABN 7
5
3
2007
AASLT 3
21
10
22
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
1
2
2
2
17
5
MIAD
total failed
class year
failed by year
2006
ABN 1
4
2006
2006
2006
AASLT 1
ABN 6
ABN 5
12
2
3
2006
ABN 3
5
2006
2006
ABN 4
ABN 7
6
2
2006
AASLT 3
41
2006
ABN 8
4
2006
AASLT 2
29
2006
ABN 2
5
2006
2006
2006
ABN 9
MNT Warfare
SLC 1
3
2
2
2008
2007
2008
2008
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
2007
2008
2008
2008
4
4
8
2
3
3
2
2
4
2
28
13
2
2
9
20
4
1
1
2
2
2
2007
ABN 8
3
2007
AASLT 4
4
2007
AASLT 5
year
1.3.1. % Yearlings with Multiple Graduation requirements Completed
11
2.1.1. VSTAP Participation
2.1.2. Percentage of Special Demographic VSTAP Participation
2.2.1.& 2.2.2. APSC Deficient cadets participating in STAP
12
Summer 2008
Class
2009
2010
2011
Summer 2007
Class
2008
2009
2010
Summer 2006
Class
2007
2008
2009
APSC Before STAP
# Cadets < 1.95
8
# Cadets < 1.90
14
# Cadets < 1.70
35
APSC After STAP
# Cadets > 1.95
1
# Cadets > 1.90
8
# Cadets > 1.70
24
APSC Before STAP
# Cadets < 1.95
6
# Cadets < 1.90
20
# Cadets < 1.70
36
APSC After STAP
# Cadets > 1.95
3
# Cadets > 1.90
8
# Cadets > 1.70
22
APSC Before STAP
# Cadets < 1.95
5
# Cadets < 1.90
12
# Cadets < 1.70
31
APSC After STAP
# Cadets > 1.95
2
# Cadets > 1.90
6
# Cadets > 1.70
22
13
2.2.3. Athletes who attended STAP that became NCAA eligible
Summer 2008
APSC Before STAP
APSC After STAP
Class
# Cadets < 1.90
# Cadets > 1.90
3
0
2009
# Cadets < 1.80
# Cadets > 1.80
4
1
2010
# Cadets < 1.70
# Cadets > 1.70
18
12
2011
Summer 2007
Class
2008
2009
2010
Summer 2006
Class
2007
2008
2009
APSC Before STAP
# Cadets < 1.90
0
# Cadets < 1.80
5
# Cadets < 1.70
12
APSC After STAP
# Cadets > 1.90
0
# Cadets > 1.80
2
# Cadets > 1.70
9
APSC Before STAP
# Cadets < 1.90
2
# Cadets < 1.80
3
# Cadets < 1.70
15
APSC After STAP
# Cadets > 1.90
1
# Cadets > 1.80
3
# Cadets > 1.70
11
14
2.3.1.&2.3.2 Academic failures by athlete vs non-athlete
1st Term
Academic Year 07/08
# of Failures
Class
2008
2009
2010
2011
Academic Year 06/07
Class
2007
2008
2009
2010
Non-Athlete
10
19
27
39
1st Term
# of Failures
Non-Athlete
12
18
47
92
15
2nd Term
# of Failures
NonAthlete
Athlete
Athlete
2
5
4
6
15
11
8
24
10
43
68
38
2nd Term
# of Failures
NonAthlete
Athlete
1
8
11
11
24
21
50
79
Athlete
0
4
14
47
4.2.2.a. Grades
Academic Year 2007/2008
Class
2008
2009
2010
2011
1st Term
Mean APSC
3.025
2.988
2.937
2.806
2nd Term
Means APSC
3.041
3.003
2.980
2.802
1st Term
Mean APSC
3.005
2.973
2.908
2.817
2nd Term
Means APSC
3.026
2.998
2.938
2.822
Academic Year 2006/2007
Class
2007
2008
2009
2010
4.2.2.b. # of failures
1st Term
Academic Year
07/08
Class
2008
2009
2010
2011
1 Failure
11
21
30
54
2nd Term
# of Failures
2 Failures 3+ failures
0
1
2
2
2
3
18
10
1 Failure
8
21
29
81
1st Term
Academic Year
06/07
Class
2007
2008
2009
2010
1 Failure
10
25
53
104
# of Failures
2 Failures 3+ failures
1
0
3
2
4
1
16
9
2nd Term
# of Failures
2 Failures 3+ failures
2
1
2
2
11
7
24
14
16
1 Failure
7
12
29
98
# of Failures
2 Failures 3+ failures
0
1
3
0
5
1
15
13
4.2.3.a. Cadets Enrolled in Honors Program
4.2.3.b. First Term Academic Trip Sections
4.3.1. Club/Sport OIC and Ors
4.3.2. S&F Participating in Sponsor Program
The data you requested about PME2 volunteer facilitators is as follows:
313 – AY06-07
407 – AY07-08
262 – AY08-09
The only thing to note about this year is that we will probably have more volunteers for second
semester and all the other years were taken during the second semester.
Thanks, an update on the Sponsorship data:
For 06/07 no data is available.
For 07/08 there were 299 Sponsors.
For 08/09 there are 315 Sponsors. The increase is thought to be due to a higher level of
emphasis/publicity, as well as a higher number of exceptions granted (we did not grant an
17
exception though to a White Plains prospective Sponsor, for excepting the limit of geographical
boundaries).
5.1.1. Percentage of Amendments to Orders
30 days or
more
summer
2008
summer
2007
summer
2006
10-29
days
0-10
days
after start
date
total
amendments
245
334
194
135
908
200
172
155
228
755
*information does not exist
**number of cadets reaches over 2500, digital list of
names does not exist.
5.1.3.a August Graduates
5.1.3.b December
Graduates
LATE GRADUATES
Academic Year
AY07/08 (2008)
AY06/07 (2007)
# June
Grads
5
13
# August
Grads
5
2
# December
Grads
7 expected
13
AY05/06 (2006)
1
3
10
AY04/05 (2005)
13
2
9
5.1.4. Percentage of Amendments within 10 days or after start date
18
Other
1 in Oct
2006
1 in Apr
2006
5.2.4. # of Multiple STAPs
19
5.2.5. # of multiple IADs
Class 2008
MIADs
PIADs
0
AIADs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
0
245
90
15
2
2
0
1
355
1
272
355
68
10
2
1
0
708
2 Total
5
522
0
445
2
85
0
12
0
4
0
1
0
1
7 1070
1
0
1
2
Total
10
4
1
15
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
11
5
1
17
2
0
1
Total
50
11
61
2
2
4
0
0
0
52
13
65
Class 2009
MIADs
PIADs
0
AIADs
0
1
2
3
4
Total
0
73
116
39
7
2
237
1
255
329
93
13
2
692
1
0
1
2
64
14
14
7
8
2
20
2 Total
4
332
1
446
2
134
0
20
0
4
7
936
0
0
0
71
22
16
Total
92
17
0
109
Class 2010
MIADs
PIADs
0
AIADs
0
1
2
3
4
Total
0
818
402
34
1
1
1256
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2 Total
0
820
0
402
0
34
0
1
0
1
0 1258
1
0
1
2
Total
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AIAD
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
2008
585
463
86
12
4
1
1
1152
2009
403
468
140
20
4
0
0
1035
2010
822
402
34
1
1
0
0
1260
MIAD
0
1
2
Total
2008
431
714
7
1152
2009
319
709
7
1035
2010
1258
2
0
1260
PIAD
0
1
2
Total
2008
1070
17
65
1152
2009
936
99
0
1035
2010
1258
2
0
1260
21
2
0
0
2
6.1.1. ROTC Cadets Participating in USMA MIADs
6.1.2. ROTC Participation in CFT
6.3.1. USMA participation in LDAC
22
7.1.1 & 7.1.2. Leave Taken Summer 08
12. The number of days leave I actually took this summer was:
Count
usma_grad_yr Class year
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
0
0
15
12
5
32
1
0
3
2
1
6
2
0
3
6
0
9
3
0
1
3
0
4
4
0
5
4
1
10
5
0
6
5
2
13
6
0
4
8
3
15
7
0
4
11
7
22
8
0
3
5
9
17
9
0
2
5
0
7
10
1
14
11
7
33
11
0
7
6
1
14
12
0
3
10
2
15
13
0
3
4
7
14
14
0
45
33
15
93
15
0
14
14
10
38
16
0
4
14
7
25
17
0
10
21
7
38
18
1
10
20
11
42
19
0
6
9
10
25
20
0
39
59
43
141
21
0
40
67
90
197
22
0
2
4
13
19
23
0
5
7
1
13
24
0
6
8
20
34
25
0
21
18
20
59
26
0
8
9
18
35
27
0
9
20
25
54
28
0
35
39
87
161
29
0
5
7
8
20
30
0
79
35
59
173
31
0
2
6
0
8
32
0
3
5
4
12
33
0
1
1
5
7
34
0
1
6
5
12
35
0
10
8
32
50
36
0
2
0
5
7
37
0
3
0
3
6
38
0
1
1
3
5
23
Total
39
0
1
0
1
2
40
0
9
3
15
27
41
0
0
0
1
1
42
0
11
2
9
22
43
0
1
0
0
1
45
0
7
2
3
12
48
0
0
0
2
2
49
0
1
1
3
5
50
0
5
0
4
9
52
0
0
0
2
2
54
0
1
0
1
2
55
0
2
0
0
2
56
0
2
0
0
2
57
0
1
0
0
1
58
0
1
0
0
1
60
0
2
0
4
6
228
0
0
1
0
1
2
478
512
591
1583
24
Sensitivity Analysis for
Measure of Effectiveness Weighting
Default MOE Weight
Sensitivity Range
(+/- .2)
Original Score
Minimum Goal Score
MOE Weight
MOE Weight
MOE Weight
MOE Weight
Maximum Goal Score
MOE Weight
MOE Weight
MOE Weight
MOE Weight
Goal Impact
Goal #1
.333
.15 - .55
Goal #2
.333
.15 - .55
Goal #3
.25
.1 - .45
Goal #4
.333
.15 - .55
Goal #5
.5
.3 - .7
Goal #6
.333
.15 - .55
Goal #7
1
N/A
93
82
82
64
63
58
42
89
W 1.1
W 1.2
W 1.3
78
.3
.55
.15
97
W 1.1 .3
W 1.2 .15
W 1.3 .55
No Change
W 2.1
W 2.2
W 2.3
86
W 2.1
W 2.2
W 2.3
80
.15 W 3.1 .35
.55 W 3.2 .1
.3 W 3.3 .1
W 3.4 .45
85
55
W 4.1
W 4.2
W 4.3
62
.55
.3
.15
72
.55 W 3.1
.15 W 3.2
.3 W 3.3
.1 W 4.1 .15
.35 W 4.2
.3
.45 W 4.3 .55
W 3.4 .1
No Change No Change No Change
1
W 5.1
W 5.2
44
.3
.7
65
W 5.1
W 5.2
W 6.1
W 6.2
W 6.3
42
.3
.15
.55
71
.7
.3
No Change
W 6.1
W 6.2
W 6.3
W 7.1
1
42
.3
.55
.15
Goal Rating
Decreases if
MOE 6.3 is
Most Heavily
Weighted
W 7.1
1
No Change
Sensitivity Analysis for
Measures/Indicator Weighting
Default Measure Weight
Sensitivity Range (+/- .2)
Original Score
MOE 1.1
.333
.15 - .55
100
Minimum MOE Score
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
99
W 1.1.1 .15
W 1.1.2 .3
W 1.1.3 .55
Maximum MOE Score
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
MOE Impact
100
W 1.1.1 .52
W 1.1.2 .33
W 1.1.3 .15
MOE 1.2
.125
.1 - .35
81
77
W 1.2.1.a
W 1.2.1.b
W 1.2.1.c
W 1.2.1.d
W 1.2.2.a
W 1.2.2.b
W 1.2.3.a
W 1.2.3.b
No Change
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
84
W 1.2.1.a
.1
W 1.2.1.b
.1
W 1.2.1.c
.1
W 1.2.1.d
.1
W 1.2.2.a
.1
W 1.2.2.b
.1
W 1.2.3.a
.3
W 1.2.3.b
.1
No Change
MOE 1.3
1
N/A
100
MOE 2.1
.5
.3-.7
92
100
W 1.3.1
1
88
W 2.1.1
W 2.1.2
100
W 1.3.1
1
95
W 2.1.1 .7
W 2.1.2 .3
No Change
2
.3
.7
No Change
MOE 2.2
.5
.3 - .7
84
78
W 2.2.1
W 2.2.2
.3
.7
MOE 2.3
.5
.3 - .7
83
80
W 2.3.1
W 2.3.2
.7
.3
MOE 3.1
.5
.3-.7
83
76
W 3.1.1 .7
W 3.1.2 .3
90
W 2.2.1 .7
W 2.2.2 .3
86
W 2.3.1 .3
W 2.3.2 .7
88
W 3.1.1 .3
W 3.1.2 .7
No Change
No Change
No Change
Sensitivity Analysis for
Measures/Indicator Weighting
Default Measure Weight
Sensitivity Range (+/- .2)
Original Score
MOE 3.2
.5
.3-.7
86
Minimum MOE Score
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
84
W 3.2.1
W 3.2.2
Maximum MOE Score
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
MOE Impact
86
W 3.2.1
W 3.2.2
.3
.7
MOE 3.3
.5
.3-.7
87
87
W 3.3.1
W 3.3.2
.5
.5
MOE 3.4
.333
.15-.55
74
66
W 3.4.1
W 3.4.2
W 3.4.3
.3
.15
.55
MOE 4.1
.2
.1-.4
41
22
W 4.1.1
W 4.1.2
W 4.1.3
W 4.1.4
W 4.1.5
MOE 4.2
.142
.1 - .35
68
55
.1
.3
.1
.1
.4
W 4.2.1.a
W 4.2.1.b
W 4.2.1.c
W 4.2.2.a
W 4.2.2.b
W 4.2.3.a
W 4.2.3.b
.7
.3
No Change
87
W 3.3.1
W 3.3.2
.5
.5
No Change
80
W 3.4.1
W 3.4.2
W 3.4.3
.3
.55
.15
MOE Rating
Increases if M
3.4.2 is Most
Heavily
Weighted
3
56
W 4.1.1
W 4.1.2
W 4.1.3
W 4.1.4
W 4.1.5
78
.1 W 4.3.1
.15 W 4.3.2
.1
.1
.1
.35
.1
77
.4
.1
.1
.3
.1
MOE Rating
Decreases if M
4.1.5 & M 4.1.2
Most Heavily
Weighted
W 4.2.1.a
MOE 4.3
.5
.3 - .7
83
.1
W 4.2.1.b
.1
W 4.2.1.c
.15
W 4.2.2.a
.1
W 4.2.2.b
.1
W 4.2.3.a
.1
W 4.2.3.b
.35
No Change
MOE 5.1
.25
.1-.45
68
64
.3
.7
88
W 4.3.1 .7
W 4.3.2 .3
W 5.1.1
.45
W 5.1.2
.1
W 5.1.3
.1
W 5.1.4
.35
72
W 5.1.1
W 5.1.2
W 5.1.3
W 5.1.4
No Change
.1
.35
.45
.1
No Change
Sensitivity Analysis for
Measures/Indicator Weighting
Default Measure Weight
Sensitivity Range (+/- .2)
Original Score
Minimum MOE Score
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Maximum MOE Score
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
Measure Weight
MOE Impact
MOE 5.2
.2
.1- .4
59
48
W 5.2.1
W 5.2.2
W 5.2.3
W 5.2.4
W 5.2.5
.4
.1
.1
.3
.1
67
W 5.2.1
W 5.2.2
W 5.2.3
W 5.2.4
W 5.2.5
.1
.4
.1
.1
.3
MOE Rating
Decreases if M
5.2.1 & M 5.2.4
Most Heavily
Weighted
MOE 6.1
.5
.3 - .7
71
70
W 6.1.1
W 6.1.2
72
W 6.1.1
W 6.1.2
.3
.7
86
W 6.2.1
W 6.2.2
.7
.3
.7
.3
88
W 6.2.1
W 6.2.2
.3
.7
No Change
4
MOE 6.2
.5
.3-.7
87
No Change
MOE 6.3
1
N/A
17
MOE 7.1
.5
.3 - .7
42
17
W 6.3.1
1
33
W 7.1.1
W 7.1.2
17
W 6.3.1
1
50
W 7.1.1 .7
W 7.1.2 .3
No Change
No Change
.3
.7