This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Like recruit guidon-bearer Green, who knows where he is going—but is keeping a sharp eye on his drill instructor just in case—the present Chief of Naval Education and Training knows where he is and wants to go—“a ready Navy,” now and in the future. But he knows, too, that he and his commanders have to be alert and responsive to complaints and suggestions from both juniors and seniors.
Since establishment of the first office associated with naval training under the Bureau of Equipment and j,a demiting in Washington in 1879, training managers onV;c. struggled to make themselves heard above the din of visional requirements. Their message: training is a tie- ^3rt read‘ness- Equipment, no matter how sophis- is of little value without trained people to operate
andfi maintain it.
trai CCause many offices share training involvement, the B^ning process sometimes seems impossible to simplify. Tr. ■ Perhaps all that is needed is a different perspective, p a|^lng problems do not subdivide into fleet and training res i mS—^ey are Navy problems. Training successes in u *r<)m understanding what is needed in the fleet and am 116 sch°olhouse. Opening lines of communication °ng the people who develop training requirements, the p P. who do the training, and the fleet customers is a t0lVe step. Most trainers come from the fleet and expect treturn- The product of the schoolhouses will be our members in the operational Navy, so we share com- m°n goals.
bri NavaI Education and Training Command (CNET) n gs in about 90,000 recruits every year through our L ,ruit Training Centers at San Diego, California, Great fro CS’ Illinois, and Orlando, Florida. Accessions run 1115,000 in December to 10,000 in the summer months.
Matching these numbers to the instructors and facilities available requires continuous managing. It is not just a numbers game, though. Quality is uppermost in this effort. Every Friday at the training centers, this quality is reflected in the pride exhibited by the graduating recruits, the newest Navy contingent. The physical fitness program of recruit training has been toughened, and recruits have been placed under arms again. These actions are both part of the pride and professionalism program.
Apprentice training at the Naval Training Centers has improved with the addition at the schools of the same kind of equipment the students will operate when they get to a squadron or ship. This apprentice training is provided to recruits going directly to the fleet as airmen, firemen, or seamen.
Another change emanating from the pride and professionalism program is the increased military presence in “A” schools, or basic technical schools, provided by integrated training brigades (ITBs). Previously, recruits moved from the disciplined environment of boot camp to the college-like atmosphere of an “A” school. Since this transition was too difficult for many of them, we have established the same disciplinary controls with the ITBs in “A” schools that are present in boot camp.
The Job-Oriented Basic Skills (JOBS) program at our Naval Training Centers puts recruits who have not had all
the education needed to qualify for a Class “A” school in a classroom for four to eight weeks. The tailored course prepares each individual to qualify for his or her particular “A” school.
The Academic Remediation Training (ART) program helps the young man or woman who cannot read above the sixth-grade level. This program increases the individual’s ability to read and do mathematics.
The Navy Veterans (NaVets) program reorients veterans from the civilian world reenlisting in the Navy. Previously, veterans would arrive at a receiving station, be issued a uniform, then receive a set of orders. Now, they attend a Naval Training Center for a seven- to 12-day formal program. The curriculum restores their grooming standards and outlines the current Navy programs. Once veterans reenlist, they usually remain in the service for a full career.
In fiscal year 1982, 64,000 students graduated from “A” school pipelines with an average of 26,000 under instruction. “C” schools, or advanced technical schools, graduated 126,000 with an average of 11,000 under instruction. An additional 388,000 graduated from “F” schools in fleet and functional courses with an average of about 5,000 under instruction.
“A” schools range from four to 41 weeks. Since its inception, CNET has striven to standardize and consolidate “A” school training by “common coring” schools with related subject matters. For example, we moved schools for yeomen, personnelmen, storekeepers, disbursing clerks, administrationmen, etc., to the Naval Technical Training Center (NTTC) at Meridian, Mississippi, and certain enlisted aviation training to Naval Aviation Technical Training Center (NATTC) at Memphis, Tennessee. Electronic warfare training for officers and enlisted is held at NTTC, Corry Station, Pensacola, Florida.
The Basic Electricity and Electronics (BE&E) common-core schools are located in four places: three at the Service School Commands at San Diego, Orlando, and Great Lakes, and the fourth at the NATTC, Memphis. BE&E is a prerequisite for 25 electrical/electronic Class “A” schools. Most students taking BE&E are just out of recruit training. The course is divided into modules, and a student’s ultimate Class “A” assignment dictates how many of these modules he or she will complete.
Primarily because of a shortage of instructors and partially because of insufficient classrooms and labs, CNET faced a backlog of “A” school students for a number of years. In June 1982, after about three years of fighting this pipeline problem, we got it under control with management initiatives that eliminated the excess backlog of students awaiting instruction at all “A” schools. The prob-
What’s the value in a recruiting poster proclaiming the adventuresomeness of the Navy, if prospects can’t read it? CNET provides remedial reading courses, such as this at the Recruit Training Command, Orlando, to many young men and women unable to read above the sixth-grade level.
lem still must be closely monitored. We have the means to do this with a computerized Navy Integrated Training Re' sources Administration Support (NITRAS) tracking sy*' tern in which we at the staff level can quickly spot a bacKlog that originates because of a lack of instructors of oversubscribed courses. The system uses reports of iriv paired training submitted by the schools when they expo11' ence a problem, so we can identify and correct it before 1 becomes a pipeline backlog problem. ,
Primarily, the pipeline reduction success we have ha results from two practices. First, we were given priority manning of instructor billets; therefore, our manning Pr0 file is very good. If this continues, we can meet the inpu plans without any backlogs. But the instructor is the key- Sometimes the difference between a smooth flow and backlog is one instructor who may be sick or lost to t podium for some other reason. We have no excess ol in structors, but rather just enough.
Granted, priority manning for the fleet is a philosophy we agree with, but to the extent our instructor billets ar not manned, there is a commensurate reduction in training for the fleet. The Training Command is not trying to to the fleet of its talented personnel. Of course, we want t best as instructors, and the fleet should also want us t0 have them. The caliber of person sent to the fleet, ho^ ever, depends on the quality of the instructors and having enough of them. .
For instance, suppose the fleet needed 50 electroni technicians, and we needed an instructor. If only two qu® ified instructors were available and they both went to t fleet, the fleet would still need 48 people, and it w°u
pod*? ^ People forever. But if one technician went to the Heeded1’ W° could soon turn out the 49 others the fleet
a a career pattern for instructors that would include C0([.ainin8 billet, then a tour on board ship where they train' ^er^orm ^e'r skills and perhaps teach on-the-job Couloir anC* dlen a second tour *n a training billet, we real °udd a corPs °f training experts that would be of Qj.Value to the entire Navy.
teac. ,C0Urse, we do not always find instructors who enjoy tor ^8: ^ we Set a good, technically competent instruc- But^f ° *S hapPy w4h j0*3’ then he will want to return, 'fork WC are so shorthanded that the instructor is over-
cannot go on leave, and is constantly forced to
besfUC£ numf)ers instead of quality, then even the very or, jWld not want to return. Good training is tied with
80«d manning.
tion £ Second Practice contributing to our pipeline reduc- inst SUccess ‘s the Training Command’s use of contract Mavructors in certain technical areas. In 1979, the Chief of a8e af ®Perations directed that we relieve the severe short- ja 0 qualified Navy instructors by contracting with civil- c0ulnsdtuti°ns. To do this, we determine whether the njCajSe ls military oriented or strictly technical. If it is tech- can ’ ^en c*vilian in a blue smock can teach it. This only because we continue a military presence in W- tCh°0ls w'[h integrated training brigades. struclth ^is method, we have freed about 25% of our in- lVje °hs at four of our largest training sites—San Diego, c Ws, Great Lakes, and Meridian. The largest single Isse i°r which we contract instructors is BE&E. fleet,3] e^ort producing the training needed in the s0r ' . at question can only be answered by the supervi- have° °.ur graduates. In CNET staff headquarters, we on ‘nstituted changes that will place heavier emphasis aPpr°' ta'n*nS and using fleet feedback. Our training train3'831-111161 fecdback system seeks to ensure that Navy needltlg is adequate, effective, and responsive to fleet
Th
N* *e iive elements in mission specification for deSr tra'n'n8: Who is to be trained? To do what? To what •pi^e qualification? Where? Under what conditions? a SeC wbo” identifies the person entering the course—
' wh n^an’ Metrician’s mate third class, chief, etc. The to be^ ■ sPecif’es the part of the job for which training is t° perf1Ven’ ^he “degree of proficiency” cites the ability t0 c.r orm specific job tasks at different levels—seaman ■ef. “Where” refers to where the job will be per-
The Navy’s Education and Training Command needs good, technically competent instructors who are happy with their jobs. If the fleet cannot provide them, then the civilian community must. To relieve the shortfall of qualified Navy instructors, the Training Command currently contracts civilian instructors to teach certain technical courses.
formed—on board an aircraft carrier, destroyer, shore command, etc. The “conditions” apply to temperature, stress, leadership, etc.
The answers to these questions identify the terminal tasks of every level of every rating. They also identify our training objectives. A good appraisal program provides information for fine-tuning training. It informs us if the training objectives are being met.
The current system of training appraisal/fleet feedback is divided into three levels of response. Level I feedback consists of informal, unsolicited information about Navy courses. Level II information is gathered by surveying fleet supervisors of recent course graduates. Level III feedback results from in-depth studies of problems identified through Level I and II information.
The Level I feedback is the least formal way of gathering information. Anyone at any time can send CNET a letter or submit a Training Inadequacy Report (OpNavInst 1540.50A) to tell us what is good or bad about a course and give suggestions for improvement. CNET forwards this information to the schoolhouses for consolidation with other reports for evaluation and appropriate action. If the manager thinks a more detailed evaluation is needed, he can request a Level II survey be conducted.
CNET schedules most courses for regular review at least every three years. The training activity develops a list of tasks or skills (from the course objectives or curriculum outline) that the graduate should be able to perform at the time of job entry into the fleet. Based on observation of the on-the-job performance of recent graduates of the course, fleet work center supervisors rate the apparent adequacy of the training on a questionnaire developed by CNET. They determine how well the graduates are performing work in the fleet on the subject the school was supposed to teach them. With this questionnaire, the supervisors can also inform the schools of changes in fleet
In order to operate under a logical training plan activities need to know how many people they
cnet
will *
it
training requirements. Reports go to the school for further evaluation, immediate actions within the school’s capability, or proposed actions requiring concurrence or resource support from higher authority.
Occasionally, problems are identified that are of such complexity that the appropriate response is not unequivocal. In these cases, a Level III survey is done. This could mean research personnel conducting personal interviews with graduates and supervisors, experts sitting in on class sessions, performance testing on the job, or other research studies.
Although we hold feedback gathering to the minimum to reduce the burden on the fleet, the feedback we receive must be timely and meaningful to be usable in improving training for fleet personnel. We also prepare consolidated results for a report to fleet and type commanders.
Normally, there are three possible reasons for training failure: the student did not have adequate capacity to absorb the needed training; the instructor failed in his training approach; or the materials were inadequate to meet the training objectives. External feedback must be employed to determine whether the training is on target. After the student graduates, training relevancy must be validated— overtraining or undertraining identified—and a high level of job training must be transferred to the job.
I have impressed upon CNET commanders that they must be alert and responsive to training complaints. It is human nature to reject complaints as unfair, but we intend to take seriously any criticism of training.
CNET offers Navy personnel a number of opportunities for educational improvement with our voluntary educational programs. Through the Navy Campus program, we offer Navy personnel more off-duty education and training opportunities than ever before. These educational opportunities are proving effective in improving morale and retention. In addition, by increasing the skills already purchased with training dollars, advanced training costs are lowered and combat-effectiveness is increased.
Navy Campus is like a huge educational umbrella that coordinates voluntary educational opportunities for Navy people stationed in different parts of the world and constantly on the move through a management network of about 200 education specialists. Their primary duty is to bring Navy people and schools together in off-duty, nontraditional education programs.
The Program for Afloat College Education (PACE) is under the Navy Campus umbrella. It puts civilian professors to sea so sailors can receive college credits for study in their off-duty hours. In fiscal year 1982, 30,391 Navy people attended PACE courses. We also provided instructor services for specific courses (such as a foreign language prior to deployment) for 5,561 people. Functional skill training needed before a sailor could perform in a billet, in such areas as reading, writing, and mathematics, served 27,383 people.
Tuition Aid is another successful program. As a matter of fact, at one time last year, we had to cut the amount of benefits to 50% tuition aid funding for all individuals. So many people were taking advantage of the program that our money was running short. We have now restored tha program to pay 90% tuition for E-5 or above with less tn 14 years of service, and 75% for all other personnel, in eluding officers, who elect to attend college-level cours during their off-duty hours. Last year, 42,987 people par ticipated in Tuition Aid.
In conjunction with 14 universities and colleges, Nav) Campus presents Navy people the chance to work tow college degrees without a residency requirement. A Na - student and a school sign a contract setting forth a coat of study leading to a degree or certificate in a vocatio field. In fiscal year 1982, Navy Campus education pf° grams had 106,322 participants. Total involvement t 1 year is expected to increase to 130,000 people.
A corollary to the Navy Campus program is the v fense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Supp1) (DANTES), which provides off-duty courses for all t ^ services through many means. DANTES receives budge ary and logistics support from CNET, but policy guidan is provided by the Office of Assistant Secretary of Deft)) for Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics. DANl j1 • located at Saufley Field in Pensacola, provides examina tion programs, including the College Level Examinati Program (CLEP), for 40 subject exams and generalexan^ in English composition, humanities, mathematics, natu sciences, social sciences, and history. ^
Off-duty educational programs have gained impetus a measure to foster Navy recruitment and retention. 5t ies corroborate that education is one of the most iruporU‘^ enlistment incentives. A 1973 survey of Navy people active duty (10,500 personnel of all ranks and ratuv groups representing all kinds of duty stations, afloat a ashore) indicated that three-fourths were interested in a ditional education and training. One-third of these w interested in off-duty college-level study. This progt3 provides for self-education as an adjunct to a Navy care£ • As a result, the Navy acquires a better educated, nl0 highly motivated and effective petty officer or offlC ' Studies also show that a better educated person is * likely to be a disciplinary problem. The person bene*1 ' the Navy benefits, and the nation benefits from Nn ) Campus educational programs.
expected to train in the outyears and to what degree training. When new ships or equipment enter the oee ' early training information is essential to establish 11 training progams in time to meet the manning requ|fe ments. Like any other resources, the facilities, equipme j and billets required for training must have early plannu1- and adequate funding. <•
The Navy Training Plan (NTP) process in support new systems provides the vehicle to coordinate the resu ant new training requirements with hardware developing and production. Affordable and cost-effective derives from trade-off analyses of training resources. • starting point for a NTP is a need in the fleet. Even 1 ^ first look at the requirement for a new ship or new eqU'P ment should include implications for training.
How
niany trained people will we need in the fleet?
cnl?reparin8 NTP, we try to think of every possible combination of events:
► kh trained
COurs°U^ students we plan to train have prior required
^ u/u6re s*la** we do this training?
^ I ^re are the students going to sleep?
^ ^ t ere room enough in the mess hall for them?
^ W°i|We neCC* new c^assrooms’ a new building?
I w! training devices (simulators) be required?
goin<! ■tec*ln'cal training equipment (the actual equipment
^ Do lnt° S^'P^ be required for training?
thp We needt0 teach both operation and maintenance of
^ ^equipment?
y jj° We have enough instructors?
then,r need additional instructors, do we need to train
Th •
°f th GSe cons^erations must be reviewed well in advance pe c target date for having the equipment and the trained nel ^ e.rlleet on the ship. Coordination of billets, person- Plan ni'*'tary construction, training support, and training 3nd n'n^ mUSt concurrent with hardware development lead^r0C*UCt'°n' ^°r Pro§ramrn*n§ purposes, the minimum ‘"es required to meet ready-for-training dates are as my- as seven years for major training devices and related trainUr^ construction projects, five years for technical Ing equipment, and three years to program for billets. the pr *°cus during all these deliberations is support for bain'661" CNET does not make policy decisions on what traj *n® 's Programmed. The analysis and validation of aren'n8 requirements are accomplished in the Washington a' 1° the early days of this command, the Chief of jna Education and Training wore a second hat in Wash- 09Q?n 3S director of Naval Education and Training (OP- 0j-flc °n the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations. That sion”2 3n Education Division, Resources Control Divi- g’ and Requirements Coordination Division, face Ca t^lc warfare training sponsors—submarine, sur- trai • aviation—had training desks that furnished
natjn'n* requirements to OP-099’s Requirements Coordi- bv ih0 ^*v‘s’on- As training requirements were provided (Op 5 submarine (OP-02), surface (OP-03), and aviation in ' training divisions, priorities were set, and fund- Ehi TUS Central,y mon>tored and controlled through the table QpNaval Training’s operational link to the budget
ponding to congressional and internal Navy man- lac]|tlent concerns, the Salzer Study in 1978 pointed to a mof total force perspective and to fragmented manage- ple) *n t*le areas op manPower (billets), personnel (peo- 0r ’ ,ar|d training. The report recommended a top-level y anization with total force management be established. the°<5 aPProva' °f the Salzer Study recommendations by tion ecretary °f the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operas> OP-099 was disestablished in 1978. fofljDctober 1978, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations hslv anp°wer’ Personnel and Training (OP-01) was estab- Ca(ed anc^ assumed the determination of training and edu- reta°n requirements and programming. The warfare desks 'ned their existing manpower and training capabilities with a similar capability established in Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Logistics) (OP-04).
Current procedures call for draft NTPs to be prepared with input from many Washington offices and from the various CNET commands. Then, the plans are farmed out to all concerned for comments. Issues are ironed out at a conference. OP-01 validates the NTP, concurring on the number of people we need and, if necessary, recruiting for those people. Then, we go into the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) phase, the annual planning and programming cycle associated with the Navy’s part of the Department of Defense budgeting system.
As a major claimant, when we perform training for one of the warfare sponsors, we must ask him to provide the necessary funds for the training. We put the resource requirements into the POM process—instructors, military construction, student billets, etc. In a perfect world, the sponsor allocates that much money for each year, and everything falls in line—classrooms, instructors, and students. However, in the real world, the sponsor is faced with many competing demands that prevent funding of everything that he wishes to fund. Thus, something must be cut. What is cut is determined by the sponsor, after consulting with CNET. Obviously, the better the communications and coordination between the sponsor and CNET, the more efficient the resolution of funding questions, and, ultimately, the more effective our training effort in behalf of the sponsor. One of my objectives is to improve the CNET end of the dialogue with sponsors.
Another problem is base operations support. If submariners want a certain number of people trained on a piece of
In conjunction with many colleges and universities, the Navy Campus program presents Navy people, such as this pair, the chance to work toward college degrees without a residency requirement.
We also have sophisticated pierside mobile trainers can hook up to ships. Mobile combat systems trainers
that
that
men*
for
equipment, and surface and aviation people need the same type of training, we may suddenly be faced with large numbers of people at one facility. This, in turn, may mean the mess hall is not large enough, there is not room in the barracks, or more masters-at-arms are needed. Yet, no one sponsor is responsible for the increased requirements. Where, then, do we get the money?
With training come the costs of base operations support, and we must allocate these costs. In the past, we have not received enough money both to do the training and to adequately operate and maintain the bases. Some costs are unavoidable. For example, we must pay the light bill or the lights are cut off. If we do not get enough money from the sponsors to pay the bills, we must then rob training mission or maintenance money, with obvious undesirable consequences.
Our facilities are badly in need of improvement and have suffered from this money swapping. Part of the problem has been CNET’s failure to articulate requirements in the outyears. We have not been sufficiently concerned about what the totals reflect beyond the POM year. We must get more precision and discipline into the requirements business.
To paraphrase what Vince Lombardi once said about winning—money is not everything; it is the only thing. We must tailor requirements to match available resources, and we must do so in advance of the budget execution year to allow stability in planning by the training commanders. The result will be increased efficiency in execution.
Money is not the only shortage we foresee in the future. We also anticipate a reduced manpower supply. By 1990, there will be a drop of more than 25% in the pool of 17-year-old males and females. Added to the people problems are the high costs of providing skill training and moving people to training sites. The result may be more on-board training packages and more simulation.
Atlantic and Pacific Education Training Support Centers and the Naval Education and Training Program Development Center at Saufley Field in Pensacola are producing a series of on-board training packages that address everything from submarine sonar to damage control. We are working with the Chief of Naval Reserve to produce onboard training packages that would have both fleet and reserve applicability.
In the future, we are going to see a shift in the “A” schools with a primary emphasis on highly technical training—electronics, missilery, and fire control. It will take more and more technically trained people to man the Navy of the future. Equipment will be more sophisticated and more combat systems-oriented. Consequently, more skilled technicians will be required.
With present resources, we will be able to train only the same number of people we are now training; therefore, people in ratings that do not necessarily require classroom training may be limited to on-the-job training, making room in the schools for people in more skilled areas.
Major aviation and submarine trainers simulate all the motion characteristics and system operations of planes and submarines. Motion cueing and visual simulation produce the required training stimuli. The cost of simulation operation is considerably lower than training time in aircraft w terms of fuel, man-hours, and sometimes lives. Simulators are becoming more realistic every day as they become more visually oriented. Future aviation simulators may use laser holographs projecting three-dimensional imageS to make training truly lifelike.
To simulate the visual cues used in carrier landings, °r those used by helicopter pilots in low-level terrain, nap of-the-earth flight, a visual image that is almost ‘‘wrap around” in the horizontal dimension and up to 90° in 1 vertical is necessary. This is now accomplished with pan° ramie lenses.
stimulate a ship’s radars and other electronic equip' provide a broad range of simulated combat situations individual and team training. .
We are beginning to look at expanding space education and training. We have a foundation in space curricula a the Naval Postgraduate School—Space Systems Genera ■ Space Systems Operations, and Space Systems Engine^ ing subspecialties. These programs are designed to n velop a cadre of officers with expertise in such areas as t design of communications, navigation, and surveillan space systems; the design of terrestrial support system (such as terminals and spacecraft command and sta ^ links); the development and assessment of strategy a tactics for the employment of space systems; the develop ment of intelligence collecting and analysis processi using space systems; and the development of system sign options that can mitigate threats to military spa ^ platforms and associated communications links a ground support systems. The first students were accept6 into these programs in October 1982. . .
The focus of our effort at CNET is not only today,l[' tomorrow as well. The recruits we train today are the pel^ officers on whom we must depend tomorrow in the flee* operate systems correctly and keep the ship ready for60 bat. Our “A” school graduates are the petty officers w will one day, we hope, return to training to work with j another enthusiastic group of recruits. Training is a nev ending cycle. When it works, the ship runs smooth T When it lags, the entire Navy suffers. CNET’s efforts af. dedicated to ensuring a ready Navy. With good commu cation and coordination between those who train and tl>o who steam, training can do its part in assuring readiness the fleet.
\)C'
Vice Admiral Sagerholm served a two-year enlistment in the jn fore entering the Naval Academy in 1948. After graduation, he serv ^ surface ships for 11 years, including command of a minesweeper- then attended submarine school and nuclear power training, beginnin^f 1963. He served in three nuclear-powered submarines, including a as commanding officer of the USS Kamehameha (SSBN-642). As a _ officer, he has served as Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence; mander, South Atlantic Force, U. S. Atlantic Fleet; Director o ^ Navy’s Office of Program Appraisal; in the office of the Assistant be tary of Defense for International Security Affairs; and in the ^ House as Executive Director of the President’s Foreign Intelligence visory Board. Vice Admiral Sagerholm assumed command of H . Education and Training from a tour as Director, Long Range Planning the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.