Unclassified
Directorate for Joint Force Development (J-7),
The Joint Staff
Student to Faculty Ratio Study
8 February 2012
(Draft Briefing)
Dr. Jerry West, JS J7 JEB
Education Advisor 1
Unclassified
Introduction
•Purpose
– Respond to DJS request for rationale for OPMEP S/F
Ratio Standard
– Present recommendations for further study
•BLUF:
– No changes recommended in the OPMEP S/F Ratio
2
Unclassified
Background
Historic Rationale:
Congressman Ike Skelton Panel Recommendation: Skelton Report,
1989
• “…Small group seminar method used at the service and joint colleges
warrants a relatively low student/faculty ratio overall ranging between
3 and 4 to 1 with the lower ratios at the senior schools…
• “… the SECDEF, with the advice of the Chairman, JCS, should
assure comparability of the joint and service school student/faculty
ratios.
3
Unclassified
External View – US News and World Report
Rankings
•OPMEP student-to-faculty ratio standard cannot be modeled
after top tier US Graduate Schools.
Formula Weighting
Value
Faculty resources
for 2010-2011
academic year
20%
Variables
Weights
Faculty
compensation
35%
Percent faculty with
top terminal degree
in their field
15%
Percent faculty that is full time
5%
Student/faculty ratio
5%
Class size, 1-19
students
30%
Class size, 50+
students
10%
US News And World Report Formula for Ranking US Colleges and Universities
4
Unclassified
Findings
•A steady state teaching environment built on a dedicated and
highly qualified faculty remains the bedrock of high quality inresidence, graduate level education.
• Pedagogy Model
Pedagogy Model
•(Socratic, Seminar-based,
Small Class
Sizes)
(Socratic,
Seminar-based,
Small Class Sizes)
Faculty Model
(Teaching
Expertise,Relevant
Experience, Professional
and Academic
Credentials)
Student Model
Student/
Faculty
(Competitive, Welleducated,Functional
Expertise)
Ratio
5
Unclassified
Findings: Internal Assessment of Steady State
Faculty Requirements
Standard faculty annual teaching load = (# of core course & electives)
+ Curriculum/course development
+ Student advising/counseling/mentoring/evaluation
+ Management/administrative duties
+ Outreach, research/publication
Core curriculum faculty requirements:
 Total# of students divided by # of students/seminar = A:
(# of seminars for each core course)
 # of core courses x # of seminars/core course =
B:
(# of seminar leads/year for core courses)
 # of faculty leads/Per Field Studies seminars =
C:
(# of FS leads/year)
• Core and FS Curriculum Faculty Required = B + C (FTEs)
Available faculty resources:
 Total faculty Authorized = D (Based on OPMEP Guidance)
- X (new faculty @ half load)
- Y (academic leadership @ Part-time load)
FTE Adjusted = E@ full load: (X+Y) @ part-time load
Can Maximum FTEs Available meet Faculty Required?
Is OPMEP S/F Ratio acceptable
6
Unclassified
Senior Level College Assessment
AWC
USAWC
CNW
USMCWAR
NWC
ICAF
Students
242
368
251
27
221
321
42
Seminar Size
15
16
14-16
or
10-12
13
13
15-16
13
Seminars required
16
23
18
2
17
21
3
Faculty per Seminar
2
3-4
2
1
1
1(note 1)
1
Total Faculty Required
72.5
114
158***
11
64
93
12
Teaching Faculty Req’d
96
JAWS
11
64
87
12
140***
66
Non-Teaching Faculty Req’d
10
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
18***
0
0
0
0
0
Part-time Faculty Req’d
0
Adjunct FTEs Req’d
6.5
Total Faculty Authorized
64
75
Total Faculty Assigned
66
79
150***
11
64
11
Teaching Positions Filled via
MOA/MOU
80(note 2)
12
95(note 3)
12
23
STFR (Unadjusted*)
3.78:1
4.13:1
-- ***
2.4:1
3.45:1
3.69:1
3.5:1
STFR (Adjusted**)
3.33:1
3.23:1
-- ***
2.4:1
3.45:1
3.45:1
3.5:1
*Unadjusted STFR includes assigned teaching faculty and
excludes adjuncts, part-time, non-teaching faculty.
**Adjusted STFR includes assigned, adjuncts, part-time, nonteaching faculty.
***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC
1.
2.
3.
1 faculty per course, w/teaching team of 5 faculty(fall) & 3-4 faculty in spring
Includes 13 Faculty DOD MIPR funded (8 DAU + 5 DSLDP)
Includes 23 Faculty provided via MOA/MOU and 13 DOD MIPR funded(note 1)
7
Unclassified
Senior Level College Assessment Cont’d
AWC
USAWC
CNW
USMCWAR
NWC
ICAF
Students
242
380
249
52
221
252(note 1)
Seminar Size
15
16
14-16 or
10-12
13
13
12
13
Seminars required
16
24
18
4
17
21
3
Faculty per seminar
2
3-4
2
1
1
1(note 2)
1
114
158***
15
64
93
96
140***
Total Faculty Required (FTEs)
Teaching Faculty Req’d
15
66
Non-teaching Faculty Req’d
Part-time Faculty Req’d
87
12
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
Adjunct Faculty Req’d
0
6.5
0
8
Total Faculty Authorized
66
77
Total Faculty Assigned
TBD
TBD
42 JAWS
64
0
0
JAWS
18***
0
TBD
15
64
80
TBD
TBD
TBD
Teaching Positions Filled via
MOA/MOU
12
TBD
23
STFR (*Unadjusted)
3.78:1
4.17:1
-- ***
3.47:1
3.45:1
2.90:1
3.5:1
STFR (***Adjusted)
3.33:1
3.28:1
--***
3.47:1
3.45:1
2.71:1
3.5:1
***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC
1.
2.
3.
4.
Based on # of seminars and ideal # of students/seminar
1 faculty per course, w/teaching team of 5 faculty(fall) & 3-4 faculty in spring
8
Includes 13 Faculty DOD MIPR funded (8 DAU + 5 DSLDP)
Includes 23 Faculty provided via MOA/MOU and 13 DOD MIPR funded(note 1)
Unclassified
Intermediate Level College Assessment
ACSC
CGSC
CNCS
MCCSC
Students
514
1390(note 1)
322
204
Seminar Size
12-13
16
10-16(note 2)
14-15
Seminars required
40
86-92
18
14
15
Faculty per seminar
1
4
2
2
3
Total Faculty Required
129
366(note 3)
105***
50.25
Teaching Faculty Req’d
JCWS
255
18-19
115
319
87
40
63.75
Non-teaching Faculty Req’d
0
47
0
0
0
Part-time Faculty Req’d
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
10.25
Adjunct Faculty Req’d
Total Faculty Authorized
13.75
NOTES:
1. Ranged from 1375 to 1439
2. Varies by trimester: Either 10-12 or
14-16 for core courses
3. Ranges between 344-368
0.75
115
366
150
40
63
STFR (*Unadjusted)
4.46:1
4.35:1
3.98:1
5.1:1
4.0:1
STFR(**Adjusted)
3.99:1
3.8
3.33:1
4.05:1
4.0:1
Total Faculty Assigned
Teaching Positions Filled via
MOA/MOU
9
***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC
Unclassified
Intermediate Level College Assessment Cont’d
ACSC
CGSC
CNCS
MCCSC
Students
514
1400 (note 1)
322
208
255
Seminar Size
12-13
16
10-16(note 2)
13
16
Seminars Required
40
89-92
18
16
15
Faculty per Seminar
1
4
2
2
3
Total Faculty Required (FTEs)
129
366 (note 3)
105***
49.5
Teaching Faculty Req’d
JCWS
NOTES:
1. Ranges between1375 to
1439
2. Varies by trimester:
Either 10-12 or
14-16 for core courses
3. Ranges between 344-368
63.75
115
319
87
49.5
63
0
47
0
0
0
0
18
0
.75
Non-teaching Faculty Req’d
Part-time Faculty Req’d
Adjunct Faculty Req’d
13.75
Teaching Faculty Authorized
115
366
150
49.5
63
Teaching Faculty Assigned
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
STFR(*Unadjusted)
4.47
4.38:1
3.98:1
4.2:1
4.0:1
STFR(Adjusted**)
3.99:1
3.8
3.33:1
4.2:1
4.0:1
Teaching Positions Filled via
MOA/MOU
***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC
10
Unclassified
Findings: Maintain OPMEP S/F Ratio for SLC
Senior Level Colleges
(Ideal S/F Ratio)
6.00
5.02
5.00
Student Faculty Ratio
4.17
4.00
3.78
3.5
3.00
3.33
3.28
3.50
3.50
OPMEP Standard
3.47
3.45
3.49
3.50
Without Adjuncts
With Adjuncts
2.00
1.00
0.00
AWC
USAWC
CNW
MCWAR
NWC
ICAF
JAWS
11
Unclassified
Findings: Maintain OPMEP S/F Ratio for ILC
Intermediate Level Colleges
(Ideal S/F Ratio)
4.5
4.46
4.4
Student Faculty Ratio
4.3
4.2
4.2
Without Adjunct
4.1
4.05
4
3.9
4
4.00
With Adjunct
4
4.00
4.00
3.99
OPMEP Standard
3.8
3.7
ACSC
CGSC
CNCS
MCCSC
JCWS
12
Unclassified
Recommendations for Future Study
• Retain the long-standing OPMEP S/F ratio standards of 3.5:1 or less
for senior level JPME and 4.0:1 or less for intermediate level JPME.
• Task the MECC WG to examine whether establishing class size
standards would potentially improve academic quality, and if so,
would it be practical to do this, at what cost, and what would those
standards be?
13
Unclassified
Supplemental Slides
Case Study Results
14
Unclassified
MECC WG Participants
The Joint Staff Joint Education Branch wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the following
members of the MECC WG for their contributions to the study.
• COL Thomas Santoro, JS J7 Joint Education Branch Chief
• Dr. Harry Dorsey, Industrial College of the Armed Forces
• Dr. David Tretler, National War College
• Dr. Mark Conversino, Air War College
• Dr. Jeff Reilley, Air Command and Staff College
• Dr. Linda McCluney, Joint Forces Staff College
• Dr. Ken Pisel, Joint Forces Staff College
• Dr. Robert Mahoney, Marine Corps War College
• Dr. Jerre Wilson, Marine Corps Command and Staff College
• Dr. John Persyn, Army Command and General Staff College
• Dr. William T. Johnsen, Army War College
• Dr. William Spain, College of Naval Warfare
• Dr. Brenda Roth, National Defense University
• Dr. Charles McKenna, Marine Corps Command and Staff College
• Dr. Suzanne Logan, Spaatz Center for Officer Education
• Dr. Leslie Cordie, Air University
• Dr. Hank Dasinger, Air University
• Dr. Jerry West, JS J7 Joint Education Branch, Study Advisor
• Mr. Jack Roesner, JS J7 Joint Education Branch
15
Unclassified
Approach
Assumptions:
• Rationale must comply with the law (10 USC) and JPME policy (OPMEP).
• Rationale must be consistent with fiscal policy constraints (current and projected)
• Rationale must be evidence-based and reflect a consensus position from MECC
WG leads.
• The overall quality of JPME will not be degraded.
• Rationale must preserve active learning (seminar-based et al) in the context of a
professional education environment.
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
External
View
J7 JEB
Survey
Case
Studies
Synthesis
(15 Mar -15
Aug11)
(15 Aug-18 Oct
11)
(19 Oct-1
Dec11)
2 Dec11 -15
Jan 12
MECC
Brief
8 Feb 12
16
Unclassified
Background
Challenge: Services are challenged to meet JMPE requirements for resourcing sufficient quantity
and quality of students and faculty to JPME schools in a period of prolonged fiscal austerity which
threatens compliancy to and enforcement of the OPMEP student-faculty ratio standard (SFRS).
– Academic Year 1987-88, student-to-faculty ratios ranged from 2.1:1 (College of Naval
Command and Staff) to 7.7:1 (Marine Corps Command and Staff College)
– 1989 Skelton Report: recommended student-faculty ratios for JPME schools to be
maintained between 3:1 and 4:1 with the lower ratio associated with senior level colleges
(SLC) and the higher ratio with intermediate level colleges (ILC)
– 1990 to Present- CJCS Military Education Policy Documents formally established and
preserved the student-faculty ratio standard (STFRS) as part of goal to deliver high quality
JPME
• Senior-level– not more than 3.5:1
• Intermediate-level and Armed Forces Staff College--- not more than 4:1
– Feb 2011 MECC: DJS tasked the MECC to develop a rationale to justify the student-faculty
ratio standard introduced by the Skelton Panel
17
Unclassified
APPENDIX A
Stage 1. Literature Review
18
Unclassified
External View – US News and World Report
Rankings
•OPMEP STFRS cannot be modeled after top tier US Graduate
Schools
Formula Weighting
Value
Faculty resources
for 2010-2011
academic year
20%
Variables
Weights
Faculty
compensation
35%
Percent faculty with
top terminal degree
in their field
15%
Percent faculty that is full time
5%
Student/faculty ratio
5%
Class size, 1-19
students
30%
Class size, 50+
students
10%
US News And World Report Formula for Ranking US Colleges and Universities
19
Unclassified
PME vs US Graduate School
Faculty Considerations
External View Cont’d
Categories
Professional Military Education
US Graduate School Education
S/F Ratios
JPME schools rely on S/F ratio as the primary
organizational metric to maintain steady-state high
quality in-residence professional educational.
Civilian schools use S/F ratio primarily for marketing
purposes; S/F ratios published by schools are used by US
News and World Report (USNWR) to rank schools based on
reputation and prestige. JPME schools are not ranked.
Curriculum Development
No curriculum developers; since faculty members
may be teaching outside their area of expertise,
collaborative course development is required
Individuals are experts in the areas they teach and develop
their own curricula
Teaching Assistants
Faculty responsible for all teaching
Teaching assistants occasionally available in masters’
programs
Research and Writing
Faculty responsible for all research and writing
Research Assistants often provided
Project and Field-Studies Advisors
Faculty members
Faculty members
Preparation and Development
Much required due to high faculty turnover
Minimal required due to small turnover of core faculty
Higher Headquarters’ Support Requirements
Significant
Typically limited to the areas of grant application/execution
Direct Support to Deployed Forces
Required
Not Required
Deployments
Required
Not Required
Research and Project Support to Senior
Leaders
Required
Research is required but at the discretion of the faculty
Functional Area of Expertise
Faculty often times teach outside areas of
specialization
Faculty members teach within their areas of specialization
Classroom Experience
Faculty members routinely assigned with no prior
teaching experience
More stable faculty means few faculty members are without
prior teaching experiences
20
Unclassified
External View Cont’d
PME vs US Graduate School Student Considerations
Categories
Professional Military Education
US Graduate School Education
Student Profile
Students are 18-25 year professionals;
Therefore requires higher level of faculty
preparation.
Students are between 23 and 30 years old with fewer
than 5 years of professional experience
Contact Hours
Multi-disciplinary programs require students
to work outside their academic backgrounds.
This requires greater student-faculty
interaction than in a single discipline program.
Single discipline focus
Learning Environment
Laptop and I-Pads maybe
Social Engineering/ Mobile Devices probable
Products
Project Term Papers
Thesis
Headquarter(HQ) Demands
Administrators required to support HQ calls
for data and project support
.
No HQ exists which allows administrators to focus
primarily on managing programs in support of the
faculty and students
Administrative Requirements
Administrative requirements (e.g., all
mandatory annual Service training, such as
safety, EEO, Information Assurance, SAEDA;
having to act as your own personnel, time,
pay, transportation clerks; contracting)
Single discipline focus
External Support
Faculty requested to support requests from
external oversight bodies (such as: MECC,
MECC WG, USAWC Board of Visitors, DA
Historical Advisory Committee, Army
Learning Coordination Council)
Minimal support to external bodies required
21
Unclassified
External View Cont’d
PME vs US Graduate School Administration Considerations
Categories
Professional Military Education
US Graduate School Education
Headquarter(HQ) Demands
Administrators required to support HQ calls
for data and project support
.
No HQ exists which allows administrators to focus
primarily on managing programs in support of the
faculty and students
Administrative Requirements
Administrative requirements (e.g., all
mandatory annual Service training, such as
safety, EEO, Information Assurance, SAEDA;
having to act as your own personnel, time,
pay, transportation clerks; contracting)
Single discipline focus
External Support
Faculty requested to support requests from
external oversight bodies (such as: MECC,
MECC WG, USAWC Board of Visitors, DA
Historical Advisory Committee, Army
Learning Coordination Council)
Minimal support to external bodies required
Selection of Military and Possibly Agency
Faculty Members
Limited control on selection. Personnel systemdependent. Results in increased teaching burden
and decreased development time for core faculty.
Faculty are selected for their expertise in the particular
discipline.
Technology Transformation
Often severely limited because of accessibility of
desired technology and information assurance
requirements.
Technology becoming more available and faculty
development on use of technology is available.
22
Unclassified
Bibliography
• Bedard, K., & Kuhn, P. (2008). Where Class Size Really Matters: Class Size and Student Ratings of Instructor
Effectiveness. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 253-265. doi: 10.1016/m.econedurev.2006.08.007
• Brehman, G. E., Jr. (1978). A Study of Faculty Workload in Pennsylvania State-owned Institutions of Higher
Education, 1975-77 (pp. 28). Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State Dept. of Education
• Burnsed, B. (2011). Liberal Arts Colleges with Lowest Student-Faculty Ratios. US News and World Report,
(April 26, 2011). Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/04/26/liberalarts-colleges-with-lowest-student-faculty-ratios
• Cartter, A.M. (1966). An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington, DC: American Council
on Education.
• Chapman, L., & Ludlow, L. (2010). Can Downsizing College Class Sizes Augment Student Outcomes? An
Investigation of the Effects of Class Size on Student Learning. Journal of General Education, 59(2), 105• De Paola, M., & Scoppa, V. (2011). The effects of Class Size on the achievement of college students. The
Manchester School, 79(6), 1061-1079. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9957.2010.02208.x
• Edmonson, J. B., & Mulder, F. J. (1924). Size of class as a factor in university instruction. Journal of
Educational Research, 9(1), 1-12.
• Englehart, J. (2007). The Centrality of Context in Learning from Further Class Size Research. Educational
Psychology Review, 19(4), 455-467.
• Hinrichsen, B. B., Jackson, J. E., Johnson, C. E., Templeton, R. A., Flannigan, P. N., Lawrence, B. J. (2002). A
Study of Faculty Workload as a Means of Improving the Student Learning Environment. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Eduational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED470577
• Hofmann, J. M., & et al. (1994). Adult Learners: Why Were They Successful? Lessons Learned via an Adult
Learner Task Force. Paper presented at the Adult Learner Conference, Columbia, SC.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED375269
• Imel, S. (1999). Using Groups in Adult Learning: Theory and Practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the
Health Professions, 19(1), 54-61.
23
Unclassified
Bibliography Cont’d
• Jaciw, A. (2011). The Use of Moderator Effects for Drawing Generalized Causal Inferences (pp. 10).
Evanston, IL: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE)
• Johnson, I. Y. (2010). Class Size and Student Performance at a Public Research University: A CrossClassified Model. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), 701-723. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9179-y
• Kokkelenberg, E. C., Dillon, M., & Christy, S. M. (2008). The Effects of Class Size on Student Grades at a
Public University. Economics of Education Review, 27(2), 221-233. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.011
• McKeachie, W. J. (1980). Class Size, Large Classes, and Multiple Sections. Academe, 66(1), 24-27.
• National Council of Teachers of English, U. I. L. (1998). NCTE Position on Class Size and Teacher Workload,
K-College (pp. 10). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English
• Redlinger, L. J., & Valcik, N. A. (2008). Using return on investment models of programs and faculty for
strategic planning. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2008(140), 93.108. doi: 10.1002/ir.272
• Shea, C. (1998). Do smaller classes mean better schools? Economists aren't so sure. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 44(30), A17-A18.
• Sibley, J., & Parmelee, D. X. (2008). Knowledge Is No Longer Enough: Enhancing Professional Education
with Team-Based Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008(116), 41-53. doi: 10.1002/tl.332
• Sweitzer,Kyle, & Volkwein, Fredericks(2009). Prestige Among Graduate and Professional Schools:
Comparing the U.S. News’ Graduate School Reputation Ratings Between Disciplines,
24
Unclassified
Appendix B. Internal View
25
Unclassified
Findings Cont’d
• First and Second Order Effects of Changing the Standard
•
Reduced quality of seminar-based education as a result of increase in
number of students per seminar.
•
Forced larger class sizes which could not be accommodated with a number
of colleges already operating at the limits of active, adult based learning.
•
May require shifting personnel from other organizations into a greater
teaching load, thereby degrading their ability to perform their primary
missions.
•
Affect curriculum development and evolution will suffer with fewer faculty.
•
Reduce the opportunities for faculty and students of the Services’ schools to
support the overall mission of the school.
•
Diminish faculty development opportunities.
•
All of the above will have an adverse effect on the ability to recruit and
retain quality faculty.
26
Unclassified
Findings Cont’d
• Survey concerns include:
– Large class sizes( 7 of 12 Schools reported class
sizes of 15-16 students)
– Ability of services to provide faculty with the
requisite qualifications
– Services ability to fill authorizations (JFSC
authorizations filled at only 75% to 80%)
– Agency budget cuts resulting in sustained losses
in faculty provided by agencies and requirement
to fill agency vacancies with Title 10 hires
– Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) actions
which reduce core faculty
27
Unclassified
JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys
CGSC
CNCS
ACSC
USMCCSC
JFSC
The ratio is 12 or 13:1
depending on the
seminar size (i.e., AY 12
has a total of 514
students divided among
40 seminars
7-to-1. 14 students per
seminar. Two faculty
members usually attend
a seminar.
JAWS/ 5.25:1-14:1
JCWS/ 4.25:1-17:1
1. What is your
student to faculty
ratio during a
typical classroom
period for one
seminar?
16:1
2. What is your
preferred student to
faculty ratio during
an ideal classroom
period for one
seminar?
16:1
3. How do you
determine your
student to faculty
ratio?
OPEP + SOP dated 8 Sep
10
OPEP + SOP dated 8
Sep 10
OPEP + SOP dated 8
Sep 10
OPEP + SOP dated 8 Sep
10
4. Who counts as a
fulltime equivalent
(FTE) at your school?
FTE teaches core and
electives, curriculum
development and
research
Faculty members
conducting full-time
teaching, curriculum
development, research.
Fulltime faculty who
conduct only teaching
duties must teach at least
three courses to be
considered a FTE.
Full time faculty
members include
personnel assigned fulltime as faculty
Those that teach core and
electives and curriculum
developers count as one
FTE.
JAWS/ 5.25:1-14:1
JCWS/ 4.25:1-17:1
28
Unclassified
JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d
CGSC
CNCS
ACSC
USMCCSC
JFSC
5. How do you use
adjunct faculty
members?
SMEs who teach IA parttime electives .2 FTE
Adjuncts teach core and
elective courses
We do not count adjunct
faculty external to
Marine Corps
University
Primarily to teach electives
6. What other
positions are used to
determine your
ratio?
Basic Instructor: 1.00
Teaching FTE
Faculty who are
assigned to ACSC’s
Research Department or
are conducting full time
research count as one
FTE. Deployed resident
faculty count as one
FTE.
Course directors, dean,
director, deputy
director/dean of
students, and wargamming personnel.
Only faculty members
who teach electives or a
series of classes are
counted in the partial
count of faculty.
Chairs, Senior Fellows,
adjuncts, and others count
a variable amount
determined by the amount
of time dedicated to JCWS,
JAWS, and AJPME.
7. How do you
determine the %
each non-full time
faculty counts in
your ratio?
Curriculum Developer:
.33 Teaching FTE, .67
CD FTE
Leader Digital
Development Center
(CPOF, and simulations
education): .33 Teaching
FTE;.67 nonDepartment Director:
.67 Supervisory FTE, .33
Teaching FTE
Library Support: 1.00
Research FTE, 0
Teaching FTE
ACSC CF, Dean, and
Director of Joint
Education count as a
FTE; Adjuncts receive a
part time equivalent
(PTE) credit of .25 for
every core course or
elective they teach.
Partial count is awarded
to personnel who teach
electives and classes.
Their contribution
ranges from 0.25 to
0.75. MCU scholar
teaches one elective
he/she will count as
0.25.
Faculty member teaches
only an elective or only
part of the year: .2 FTE
29
Unclassified
JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d
CGSC
8. What has the trend
been for the overall
student/faculty ratios at
your school over the last
three years?
CNSC
AY 2011: 3.80:1
AY 2010: 3.86:1
AY 2009: 3.93:1
AY 08 4:01:1 (highest)
AY 04 3.42:1
ACSC
CSC
JFSC
AY 12/ 3.99:1
AY 11 (ratio reported
last year) 4.88:1
AY 10 (ratio reported
year before last)
4.54:1
AY 12/ 4.1: 1
AY 11/4:1
AY 10/ 4:1
The only trend has been
variability. JFSC has been in
and out of compliance with
the OPMEP standard
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, with full manning
9. Do you feel the ratio is
appropriate for your
school?
Yes.
10. If you could change it,
what would you propose
as justification?
No Change. Current ratio
provides sufficient manning to
support quality education
Recommend this study to
determine whether the status
quo, some adjustment, or a
change would be in order
No Change.
I would not change the
ratio, but allow for
flexibility in counting
personnel who develop,
assess, or assist in the
delivery of the curricula.
No change. A change would
only alter the threshold of
failure
11. Is there pressure from
your parent organization
to raise the ratio
No
Yes. This entire study has its
roots in a collaborative effort
by the OPNAV staff and the
Air Force staff to raise the
issue of the CJCS requirement
and its rationale
No
Indirectly. the increase in
student without an
increase in authorized
faculty.
No
12. Are you expecting
your budget to be reduced
this academic year? Next
year?
Yes. Unknown
USNWC took an end-strength
decrement of 22 for FY 11 with
more decrements planned for
the out-years.
Yes. Yes.
Not so much this year,
but definitely next year.
Unknown in both cases.
13. Are you enhancing
your current residence
course this academic year
through the use of
multimedia, online
materials, or social
media?
Yes. On-going
Yes. Exploring more
effective means of
leveraging multimedia
and online materials to
enhance student
learning.
Yes, except for social
media
Have been for years.
30
Unclassified
JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d
CGSC
CNCS
ACSC
USMCSC
JFSC
Yes. Exploring more
effective means of
leveraging multimedia and
online materials to enhance
student learning.
Yes, except for social
media
Have been for years.
13. Are you enhancing
your current residence
course this academic year
through the use of
multimedia, online
materials, or social media?
Yes. On-going
14. Would you consider
adding blended learning
opportunities to your
course in the coming year
if it could be moved from
the non-resident section of
the OPMEP to be
acceptable additions to a
resident course?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15. What potential
challenges do you see that
would threaten your ability
to meet the required STFR
next year?
Replacing civilian faculty
losses from normal attrition
with active duty military
faculty
Increase of 50 USN
students in CNC&S
(ILC) over the next three
academic years. Faculty
shortfalls will eventually
occur.
Non-forecasted SERB or
RIF
CMC has directed an
increase in student
attending resident ILS and
CLS. Without additional
faculty, CSC will not have
sufficient faculty to meet
the 4-to-1 ratio.
Services filling authorizations
at only 75% to 80%
16. What has been your
greatest challenge for
meeting the STFRS for the
last 3 years
Limited availability of
active duty military
faculty
Meeting the 60:40
military mix required for
a large faculty that
teaches both ILC & SLC
Filling rated billets. ACSC
can expect 78% fill. ACSC
can normally plan on a
90% entitlement fill of
support officer billets.
Obtaining qualified
officers/USMC included)
to deliver the curriculum.
Lack of expertise to deliver
a quality seminar to a very
experienced group of
students.
JFSC has been in and out of
compliance with the OPMEP
standard. Services filling
authorizations at only 75% to
80%
31
Unclassified
JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d
CGSC
CNCS
ACSC
CSC
JFSC
17. What would be
affected if the ratio were
to be 5:1
Change would detract
from accomplishment of
the faculty domains
USNWC would lose
significant faculty
billets; Faculty
development and then
curricula development
would likely diminish;
the institutional
mission capacity
would be degraded
ACSC could not perform
its curriculum
development or research
duties
The obvious answer is
that we would lose 10
faculty members. As
far as second and third
order effects, faculty
would work harder,
fewer electives would
offered, faculty
professional
development off-sites
(sabbaticals) would
disappear—ultimately,
some faculty would
probably quit
If we go to 5:1 and are
manned at 80% we have
the same problem, only
more severe
18. Are you expecting
student throughput to
change significantly this
AY? Next AY
No. No.
8 more international
Reduction of 20 students
students for ILC.
Additionally, the Navy per year for AY 12-13.
determined this past
summer that it would
grow the CNC&S
(ILC) student body by
50 students over the
next three fiscal years.
In total, this would add
4 seminars to our ILC
program.
Not this academic year.
As described above we
will increase 38 Marine
students over the next
four years.
No. No.
32
Unclassified
JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey
USAWC
AWC
Core: 15:1;
Electives: 6-12:1
CNW
MCWAR
Core: Varies between 5:1 and
14:1 depending on
curriculum and Trimester
Electives: 7.5-15:1
27 total students
divided into two
seminars.
1. What is your student to faculty ratio
during a typical classroom period for
one seminar?
Core: 16:1
Electives: 1-56:1
2. What is your preferred student to
faculty ratio during an ideal classroom
period for one seminar?
16:1
15:1
10-16:1
13-14:1
3. How do you determine your student
to faculty ratio?
OPMEP; SOP Dtd. Jan 08
OPMEP; SOP Dtd. Sep
10
JS J-7 SOP of 9 Jan 2008
Metrics from the
OPMEP.
4. Who counts as a fulltime equivalent at
your school?
1 FTE teaches core and
electives, curriculum
development and research
All assigned faculty count
as 1 FTE including Deans
and Dept Chairs
Faculty principal duties for
developing and teaching ILC
& SLC PME are counted as
1.0 FTE.
Each faculty
member is
counted as a fulltime equivalent,
including the
Director, Dean
and Associate
Dean.
5. How do you use adjunct faculty
members?
Teach part-time electives
Teach electives and
advise on research
projects
Teach electives and perform
research
We use outside
faculty members
for some classes.
Not counted in
the ratio
33
Unclassified
JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d
USAWC
AWC
CNW
MCWAR
6. What other positions are used to
determine your ratio?
Dean (1 FTE)
Dept. Chairs(1 FTE)
Director Institutional
Assessment (1 FTE)
Occasionally, we may
include Vice
Commandant
Dean of Academics, our
Associate Dean of
Academics for Electives and
Directed Research and our
Institutional Research
Professor meet the OPMEP
definition and SOP
requirements: However, not
counted in ratio
None.
7. How do you determine the % each
non full-time faculty counts in your
ratio?
those who teach part-time
electives .2 FTE
adjuncts are rated at .25
up to .50
Adjunct faculty teach in the
elective program count as
0.25 for each Trimester
Non full-time
faculty not
counted in ratio
8. What has the trend been for the
overall student/faculty ratios at your
school over the last three years?
FY 12/ 3.23:1
FY 11/ 3.46:1; FY 10/
3.28:1
AY 12/ 3.4:1
AY 11/ 3.38:1
AY 10/ 3.42:1
Number of faculty available
exceeds the number required,
i.e.
AY 11 < 3.5
AY 10 << 3.5
AY 09 <3.5
Steady.
9. Do you feel the ratio is appropriate for
your school?
Depends on Counting
Rule:
Faculty filling staff and
administrative
requirements are counted
in STFR
Yes. Faculty is fully
employed and USNWC has
adjusted workload
expectations
Yes.
10. If you could change it, what would you
propose as justification?
Before applying SOP 5:1;
Applying SOP 3.5;;
Seminar-based with
seminar ratio of 16:1
Requires further study;
AWC has only 64
Authorized faculty billets;
Requires 70 FTE to
support student
throughput of 240-245
Requires study; civilianmilitary faculty mix has
changed significantly since
1989; statutory and policy
expectations have grown
accordingly
Wouldn’t. It is
fine as is.
34
Unclassified
JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d
USAWC
AWC
CNW
MCWAR
11. Is there pressure from your parent
organization to raise the ratio
Yes. 8:1 or seminar
Moderate: Alternatives
considered including Navy
Model which would result
in loss of 70 Slots.
Rejected by CSAF
This entire study has its roots
in a collaborative effort by the
OPNAV staff and the Air
Force staff to raise the issue of
the CJCS requirement and its
rationale
No.
12. Are you expecting your budget to be
reduced this academic year? Next
year?
No. Unknown
Yes. 35% budget cut
expected
USNWC took an end-strength
decrement of 22 for FY 11
with more decrements planned
for the out-years.
No for this year.
Yes for next.
13. Are you enhancing your current
residence course this academic year
through the use of multimedia, online
materials, or social media?
Yes. On-going
Yes
We currently use IPADs,
electronic and paper readings,
and the Blackboard learning
management system within
our academic program.
We use
blackboard to
deliver our entire
curriculum and
Microsoft Office
for the calendar
14. Would you consider adding blended
learning opportunities to your course in
the coming year if it could be moved
from the non-resident section of the
OPMEP to be acceptable additions to a
resident course?
N/A
Different topic for a
different time
Different topic for a different
time
35
Unclassified
JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d
USAWC
AWC
CNW
MCWAR
15. What potential challenges do you see that would
threaten your ability to meet the required STFR next
year?
Services fail to provide
JPME II faculty; 60:40
military faculty ratio;
balance of military and Title
10 faculty
Reliance on Academic
Centers at Air Univ to meet
faculty requirements. Officer
force reductions
Balancing operational currency
with CJCS requirements for
SLC faculty; Recent SERB will
affect a significant number of
the USNWC faculty
Large budget crunch
that could cause
outside
services/agencies to
withdraw their
faculty
16. What has been your greatest challenge for
meeting the STFRS for the last 3 years
Services fail to provide
JPME II faculty; 60:40
military faculty ratio;
balance of military and Title
10 faculty
Force drawdowns such as O-6
Selective Early Retirement
Board (SERB) and on-again,
off-again freezes against Title
X hiring
Meeting the 60:40 mix required
for a large faculty that teaches
both ILC & SLC and meet SLC
military faculty requirements.
Budget shortfalls
17. What would be affected if the ratio were to be 4:1
Could lose 40 Faculty;
program destroyed
Could sustain the core but
reduce outreach, slow
curriculum changes, reduce
number and variety of
electives and actually force
further reductions in our
ability to respond to taskings
USNWC would lose significant
faculty billets: faculty
development and curricula
development would likely
diminish as Dept. Chairs would
have less flexibility: institutional
mission capacity would be
degraded; only one
(educational) of four vital
mission functions of the college
could be achieved.
If we went to 4:1,
we would possibly
use more guest
speakers
18. Are you expecting student throughput to change
significantly this AY? Next AY
Yes. Current increase in 17
IF. Next year plus 13 IF;
Could increase US Army
students by 20 and still
meet OPMEP and Law
None. Remain at 245
students
None. None
None. None
36
Unclassified
JPME Senior Level Colleges
NWC
ICAF
1. What is your student to faculty ratio during a typical classroom period for one
seminar?
13:1
15:1
2. What is your preferred student to faculty ratio during an ideal classroom
period for one seminar?
13:1
12:1
3. How do you determine your student to faculty ratio?
IAW OPMEP
IAW OPMEP.
4. Who counts as a fulltime equivalent at your school?
Everyone assigned to the NWC faculty counts
as “1” FTE. Includes the Dean of Faculty,
Associate Deans, Department Chairs, Course
Directors and International Affairs Adviser
Everyone assigned to the ICAF faculty counts
as "1" FTE, although not all
FTEs teach. Includes the Dean of Faculty,
Associate Deans, Department
Chairs, Course Directors and International
Affairs Adviser.
5. How do you use adjunct faculty members?
Not used.
ICAF does not use adjunct faculty members.
6. What other positions are used to determine your ratio?
None
None.
7. How do you determine the % each non-full time faculty counts in your ratio?
the Commandant, Chief of Staff/Dean of
Students, and Director of Institutional
Research and Assessment not counted in ratio
Per ICAF business case.
8. What has the trend been for the overall student/faculty ratios at your school
over the last three years?
AY 12 /3.35:1
AY11 /3.45:1
AY10 /3.68:1
FY 11/ 3.5:1
FY 10/3.4:1
FY 09/3.5:1
9. Do you feel the ratio is appropriate for your school?
We believe 3.5:1 is appropriate for National
War College
Yes.
37
Unclassified
JPME Senior Level Colleges
NWC
ICAF
10. If you could change it, what would you propose as
justification?
Would not change it
No Change.
11. Is there pressure from your parent organization to raise
the ratio
No.
Yes. July 2010 SecDef budget efficiency cuts.
Projected POM 13-17 cuts
12. Are you expecting your budget to be reduced this
academic year? Next year?
Unsure. Reduced ≈5% from FY10 to
FY11─Programmed to reduce another
≈8% from FY10 levels in FY13, but may
be directed to take that reduction this FY─
After FY 13, programmed to reduce
another ≈3% from FY10 levels
AY 11 - 12: Amount TBD. AY 12 - 13: $1.18M out
of current 2.8. Impact – 3 faculty members and on
support staff
13. Are you enhancing your current residence course this
academic year through the use of multimedia, online
materials, or social media?
Yes; moving to deliver all our course
materials via BlackBoard; Additionally
continuing exploitation of a variety of
multimedia applications as appropriate
Yes; ICAF is moving to deliver all course materials
via Blackboard
14. Would you consider adding blended learning opportunities
to your course in the coming year if it could be moved from
the non-resident section of the OPMEP to be acceptable
additions to a resident course?
N/A
N/A
15. What potential challenges do you see that would threaten
your ability to meet the required STFR next year?
Budget reduction and/or hiring freeze;
Reduction in faculty from the Services
and/or Agencies (e.g., State Department);
NDU decision to shift military and/or
agency faculty normally assigned to
National War College for duties
elsewhere within the University; Increase
in student load without provision for
proportional increases in faculty staffing
ICAF faculty is funded from nine independent
sources. Processes and cuts are not coordinated and
have multiplier impact.
38
Unclassified
JPME Senior Level Colleges
NWC
ICAF
16. What has been your greatest challenge for meeting
the STFRS for the last 3 years
Title 10 retirements/resignations
coupled with Title 10 hiring
delays/freezes imposed by NDU and/or
DOD; Vacancies created by Title 10
retirements/resignations must be filled
via new Title 10 hires because we can
get no additional military or agency
faculty
Maintaining the number of
MOU/MOA civilian agency faculty to
ensure 3.5:1 ratio
17. What would be affected if the ratio were to be 4:1
Increasing our ratio to 4:1 would
damage the quality of our educational
program: Force us to assign new
faculty as primary seminar leaders
before they were ready─ And/or force
us to increase the number of students
per seminar; -would also significantly
reduce, or even eliminate, opportunities
for faculty sabbaticals
First impact would be on amount of
time available of professional
development and research. Second
impact would be to shift some current
seminars to lectures. Would prefer to
see throughput reduced after that to
maintain the essential nature of current
program.
18. Are you expecting student throughput to change
significantly this AY? Next AY
Yes. reduce the number of Navy
students in next year's class by 5.
without replacements from USMC or
Coast Guard leave us well short of the
OPMEP requirement that we must have
approximately equal representation.
DCPMS might pull all 13 of the
DSLDP students. If so must offsite
with other agencies in the national
security arena
AY 11-12: No. AY 13-17 reductions
in DSLDP students.
39
Unclassified
JPME In-Residence Student Faculty Model
(Senior Level Colleges)
SLC In-Residence Seminar-based
Instruction
Faculty
(1-4 Faculty per Seminar)
NWC, ICAF,
JAWS
( 1/3, 1/3,1/3)
Military
JFSC
(100%
Military with
ILC or SLC
graduates
with relevant
joint
experience
(Services)
60/40
Host/nonhost; nonhost equally
divided
(Services)
75 % with
SLC Degree
or JQO
Faculty
Student
Ratio
=3.5:1
Students
(13-16 Students per
Seminar)
NWC, ICAF,
JAWS,
(1/3,1/3,1/3)
Military
(Services)
60/40
Host/nonhost
(Services/
Seminars)
>1 officer
from each
non-host
Dept.
40
Unclassified
JPME In-Residence Student Faculty Model
(Intermediate Level Colleges)
ILC In-Residence Seminar-based
Instruction
Faculty
(1-4 Faculty per Seminar)
(Services) Non
host >5% each)
JFSC Military Mix
(1/3,1/3,1/3)*
(Services) 75 %
ILC or SLC
graduates or
JQOs **
Faculty
Student
Ratio=
4.0:1
Students
(12-16 Students per
Seminar)
JCWS(Allocated
in accordance
with Services
JDAL billets)
(Services/
Seminars)
>1 officer from
each non-host
Military Depts
*For JFSC, all military faculty should be graduates of an ILC or SLC program and have comparable joint experience
**In PME institutions where a single faculty is indistinguishably responsible for both intermediate and senior JPME
curriculum, total host military department faculty shall be no more than 60 percent of the total military faculty whose primary
duty is student instruction of JPME; 75% of the military faculty should be graduates of a senior-level PME program or be
JQOs…OPMEP
41
Unclassified
APPENDIX C
Stage 3. Case Studies
Case Studies are available at
https://jdeis.js.mil/jdeis/index.jsp?pindex=0
42
Unclassified
Findings: Internal View
Steady State Faculty Requirements
Standard faculty annual teaching load = (# of core course & electives)
+ Curriculum/course development
+ Student advising/counseling/mentoring/evaluation
+ Management/administrative duties
+ Outreach, research/publication
Core curriculum faculty requirements:
 Total# of students divided by # of students/seminar = A:
(# of seminars for each core course)
 # of core courses x # of seminars/core course =
B:
(# of seminar leads/year for core courses)
 # of faculty leads/Per Field Studies seminars =
C:
(# of FS leads/year)
• Core and FS Curriculum Faculty Required = B + C (FTEs)
Available faculty resources:
 Total faculty Authorized = D (Based on OPMEP Guidance)
- X (new faculty @ half load)
- Y (academic leadership @ Part-time load)
FTE Adjusted = E@ full load: (X+Y) @ part-time load
Can Maximum FTEs Available meet Faculty Required?
Is OPMEP S/F Ratio acceptable
43
Faculty Workload (Typical)
Man-hours
(per yr)
Man-hours
(per wk)
Instructional Tasks
1147.0
22.9
Curriculum Development
136.0
2.7
Student Counseling
406.2
8.1
Faculty Development
388.0
7.8
Miscellaneous/Admin
553.2
11.1
Teaching Team
112.4
2.2
Additional Tasks
56.0
1.1
2798.8
56.0
Duties
Total
CGSC Resident ILE/JPME-I
OPMEP Student-to-Faculty Ratio
5.0
4.5
4.18
4.0
3.82
3.87
3.94
4.01
3.93
3.97
3.79
3.86
3.71
3.80
3.54
3.5
3.42
3.0
2.5
OPMEP standard is ≤ 4:1
for Intermediate-Level Colleges
2.0
MAR 05 OCT 05 OCT 06 MAR 07 SEP 07 MAR 08 SEP 08 MAR 09 SEP 09 MAR 10 SEP 10 MAR 11 SEP 11
National War College
Faculty Staffing Requirements
Standard faculty annual teaching load = 3 core course & 1-2 electives
+ Curriculum/course development
+ Student advising/counseling/mentoring/evaulation
+ Management/administrative duties
+ Outreach, research/publication
Core curriculum faculty requirements
 221 students @ 13/seminar
=
17 seminars/core course
 6 core courses x 17 seminars
= 102 faculty seminar leads (FSL)/yr
23 Field Studies (FS) @ 2 faculty/FS
= 46 FSL/yr
TOTAL FSL REQUIRED/YR = 148
Faculty resources available @ 3.5:1
 Total faculty required for 221 students = 64
= 192 FSL/yr (@ std teaching load)
 Adjusted for faculty @ half load:
≈ 16 new faculty/yr (average)
- 24 FSL/yr
13 faculty in academic leadership
- 20 FSL/yr
TOTAL FSL AVAILABLE/YR @ 3.5:1 = 148 (meets requirement, best case)
National War College
Steady State STFR Justification
Seminar-based Instruction
(6 sequential core courses taught in 17 seminars + 23 Field Studies seminars + 4 electives)
64 Faculty
35 @ full load
29 @ half load
Military
Land/Sea/Air
9/9/8
Civilian
DoD/Non-DoD
25/13
221 Students
13 students/seminar
1 faculty/seminar
STFR
3.45:1
Military
Land/Sea/Air
43/44/43
Civilian
DoD/Non-DoD
24/33/34
Faculty
contact hrs/wk
13
Justification based on evidence of steady-state conditions satisfied by case study
S/F Ratio Justification
(U.S. Army Command and General Staff College)
Instructional Model
Seminar-based Instruction (Staff Groups)
Teaching Teams (12 Instructors per Team, 4 Staff Groups per Team)
Faculty
S/F Ratio
Students
366 Faculty (FTE)
3.80:1 OPMEP
1390 Students (2 starts)
12 Instructors per Team
5.33:1 Team
16 Students per Staff Group
70% Civ/30% Mil (Goal)
16:1 Classroom
4 Staff Groups per Team
74.2% Civ/25.8% (Current)
Non-host Ratio
Sea Svc 8.5%
Air Force 9.2%
JQO Experience
75 % with ILC
or SLC or
87 Staff Groups
Host/Non-host
Student Mix
71/29 (Current)
Non-host/SG
>1 officer from
each service
USAWC Steady State
Student-Faculty Ratio (AY12)
Seminar-based Instruction
(6 Core Courses taught in 23 Seminars
114 FTE Faculty
(106@ 1 FTE;
8 @ .2 FTE)
Military
(Land, Sea ,Air)
( 30, 11, 9)
(50 FTE)
Civilian/Int’l
(64FTE)
STFR
3.23:1
368 Students
(16 students @ 1 Faculty
per Seminar)
Military
(Land, Sea, Air)
(210,34,32)
Civilians/IFs
(DoD, Non-DoD,
IFs)
(21,4,67)
Faculty Contact
Hrs/wk
(12 for planning;
15-22 in reality)
United States Army War College
Unclassified
ACSC Steady State STFRS Justification
Seminar-based Instruction
(9 Core Courses taught in 40 Seminars)
66 Faculty
(40@Full load; 26@
half load)
Military
AF/AR/MA/NA/IO)
( 68,8,4,2,3)
Civilian
(DoD)
(30)
STFR
3.99:1
514 Students
(12-13 students @ 1
Faculty per Seminar)
Military
(AF, AR,MA,
NA)
(341,43,10,
30)
Civilian
(DoD,NonDoD,Int’l)
(14,1,76)
Faculty
Contact
Hrs/wk
(15)
Justification provided based on evidence of steady-state conditions satisfied based on case
study.
50
AWC Steady State STFR Justification
Develop America's Airmen Today ... for Tomorrow
Seminar-based Instruction
(6 Core Courses taught in 16 Seminars*)
64 Faculty
(59@Full load; 5@
half load)
Military
(Air, Land,Sea)
( 21, 7, 9, 2
Int’l)
Civilian
(DAF,Non-DAF)
(22, 3)
STFR
3.78:1**
3.33:1***
242 Students
(15 students @ 1
Faculty per Seminar)
Military
(Air,
Land,Sea)
(132,
34,21)
Civilian
(DoD, &
NonDoD,Int’l)
(9, 46)
•*Includes Regional and Cultural Studies, with 2 faculty leads each)
•** Using faculty AUTHORIZED to AWC; does not include adjuncts;
•*** w/adjuncts, 3.33:1
The Intellectual and Leadership Center of the Air Force
Aim High…Fly – Fight – Win
Faculty
Contact
Hrs/wk
(12-15)
51
College of Naval Warfare (CNW), US Naval War
College (ILC)
Seminar-based Instruction
154 Faculty Authorized
Non host
>5% each)
Faculty
Student
Ratio:
75 % with
ILC or SLC
or JQO
Experience
*Includes international students
322 Students*
41/36
Host/nonhost Military
student mix
>1 officer
from each
non-host
Industrial College of the Armed Forces (SLC)
Seminar-based Instruction
94 Faculty
Faculty
Student Ratio
321 Students
3.41:1
Military
Faculty
( 1/3, 1/3,1/3)
75 % with SLC
Degree or JQO
or Joint Exp
Civilians
Land,Sea, Air
(62,61,61)
*IF (International Fellows); IndF (Industry Fellows)
.
(DoD,NonDoD,IF,IndF*)
(67,36,25,9)
JAWS: SLC
Seminar-based Instruction
(3 Core Courses taught in 3 Seminars/Individual Thesis
Research
12.25 Faculty
Military
(Land,Sea,Air)
2/3/2
DOD Civilian
5
Academic Dean
.25
STFR
3.43:1
42 Students
(13 Seminar)
Military
Civilian
(Land,Sea,Air)
(DoD,NonDoD,IF)
9/9/9
5/6/3
Faculty
Contact Hrs/wk
15-20
Justification provided based on evidence of steady-state conditions satisfied based on case
study.
JCWS: ILC
Seminar-based Instruction
3-instructor team/seminar
63.25 Faculty
.75 Adjunct
DOD Civilian
Military
(Land/Sea/Air)
13/19/14
17
Academic Dean
.25
STFR
4.03:1
255 Students/class
4 classes/year
Military
(Land/Sea/Air)
298/300/333
DOD
Civilian/Int’l
Fellows
13/72
Faculty
Contact
Hrs/wk
26