HomeFaculty & StaffOperations and PlansIRAPAnnual Administrative & Educational Support Units Assessment Report AY18

Annual Administrative and Educational Support Units Assessment Report AY18

From:  Director Institutional Research, Assessment, and Planning, Marine Corps University

To:       President, Marine Corps University

Via:     Vice President for Education Integration, Operations, and Plans Marine Corps University

 Subj:   ACADEMIC YEAR 18 MARINE CORPS UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT – Administrative and Educational Support Units

  Encl:   (1) Vice President of Education Integration, Operations, and Plans (VPEIOP) Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Report and 4-Column Matrix Close-Out

(2) Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA) Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Report and 4-Column Matrix Close-Out

        (3) Vice President of Business Affairs (VPBA) Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Report and 4-Column Matrix Close-Out

        (4) Vice President of Distance Learning (VPDL) Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Report and 4-Column Matrix Close-Out

        (5) Gray Research Center (GRC) and History Division (HD) Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Report and 4-Column Matrix Close-Out

        (6) Lejeune Leadership Institute (LLI) Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Report and 4-Column Matrix Close-Out

        (7) National Museum of the Marine Corps (NMMC) Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Report and 4-Column Matrix Close-Out

        (8) Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning (CAOCL) Institutional Effectiveness Assessment Report and 4-Column Matrix Close-Out

 

1.  Purpose.  This document provides the AY18 assessment results and Directors’ recommendations from the Administrative and Educational Support (AES) units within Marine Corps University.

 

2.  Administrative and Educational Support (AES) Unit Review Process

 

     a.  All MCU organizations – academic programs and academic and educational support (AES) units – participate in an annual, comprehensive review process. AY18 was the tenth academic year that MCU used the four-column matrix to assess the effectiveness of the AES units. The outcomes, measures, performance results, and proposed improvements documented in the four column matrix are also synthesized in a final Director’s Report.

     b.  The objectives and measurements the AES units used in AY18 were approved in the fall of 2013 (AY14) by the MCU Administrative and Educational Support Unit Review Board (AESURB). Effective 21 December 2017, the AESURB review process was rescinded and approval authority for modifications to Administrative Outcomes rests with the owning AESU Director or applicable Vice President. AES unit Directors will review and revise outcomes annually. The broader, holistic review of all administrative outcomes to identify linkages and gaps will be conducted by the Institutional Effectiveness Working Group (IEWG). Through these revisions, MCU seeks to ensure continuous, routine review of institutional performance and improve the efficiency and usefulness of the IE reporting process.

 

3.  Analysis. This report includes excerpts from AES unit Directors’ Reports and four column matrices highlighting ongoing activities, successes, challenges, and recommendations from AY18 (detailed four column matrices can be found in the enclosures).

 

4.  Vice President for Education Integration, Operations, and Plans (VPEIOP)

 

Ø  2 Sections evaluated

Ø  11 Administrative Outcomes

Ø  26 Measures used to assess the AES outcomes

 

     a.  Operations

 

         (1)  Discussion/Comments for AY18.

 

               (a) Having finished up our second year as a full up department within MCU/EDCOM, we continue to learn and improve upon our processes and procedures in order to meet the requirements of the university. Synchronizing education operations has been, and will continue to be our focus with the goal of maintaining an effective, transparent, collaborative, and responsive organization that fosters a culture of continuous learning and improvement.

 

               (b) We have maintained our finger on the pulse of MCU/EDCOM operations in a multitude of ways. A few highlights include the management of the MCU Operations Calendar, execution of monthly Ops synch and quarterly TEEP meetings, Task management both internal and external via the DON TRACKER system, MCU facilities scheduling, SITREP development and dissemination to HHQ, and execution of or participation in MCU level events.

 

               (c) Some of the more notable activities of this year in which VPEIOP was instrumental was the first year implementation of the 2017-2022 MCU Strategic Plan, the 2015-2020 Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), “The Legacy of Belleau Wood: 100 years of making Marines and winning battles” lecture series, and the development of an MCU video which showcases the university and the importance of PME. All of these endeavors support achieving both the short and long term vision of MCU/EDCOM. 

Supporting integration across the university, the operations directorate continued to support the Director of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Planning (IRAP) Institutional Effectiveness (IE) requirements as well as support MCU/EDCOM training requirements for both uniformed and civilian personnel.  

 

         (2)  Results Summary.

 

               (a) VPEIOP continued to effectively and efficiently manage MCU/EDCOM Operations despite being undermanned. Our ability to accomplish this was due to the dedication and experience of key staff members. VPEIOP’s ability to support future requirements in the coming year will only increase as we have recently been able to fill key vacant positions.

 

               (b) While we accomplished many things this year within VPEIOP, valuable lessons were learned as well. As expected, the first year execution of the MCU Strat Plan had a large learning curve for all. First time execution of reporting requirements was a challenge for some as they were new to the process having just within the past year picked up their respective department’s reporting responsibility. As with anything new, these issues were resolved as personnel understood and became familiar with the requirements. Overall the first year implementation of the strategic plan has given focus to areas that need it and will undoubtedly produce positive results in the future.

 

               (c) Implementation of the QEP was hit hard this year due to stagnant execution from previous years, and it was an arduous endeavor. VPEIOP took the lead in getting the QEP heading in the right direction and the director of IRAP was critical in making this happen with the operations directorate in support. Now with the QEP on track the execution of it will evolve into the normal MCU battle rhythm.

 

               (d) The Legacy of Belleau Wood series was a huge success having four separate speaking events throughout the academic year, an MCU produced anthology, and an essay contest.  We leveraged the 100-year anniversary of Belleau Wood to introduce this iconic battle to a new generation of Marines and how it, along with other historically significant periods within our Marine Corps have brought us to where we are today. 

 

         (3)  Recommendations for AY19.

 

               (a) VPEIOP will continue to monitor and manage the execution and reporting requirements of the strategic plan.  We will develop and disseminate standardized reporting formats IOT alleviate any confusion on what is required for future reporting. 

 

               (b) Now that the new director of the Brute Krulak Center for Innovation and Creativity (BKCIC) has been hired, the responsibility for executing the QEP should transfer with VPEIOP/IRAP in support.

 

               (c) As always we will continue to look for ways to improve our abilities to support the university.

 

     b.  Institutional Research, Assessment, and Planning

 

         (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18.

 

               (a) The Institutional Research, Assessment, and Planning (IRAP) office continued its support to the direct and indirect assessment of Academic and Administrative and Educational Support (AES) units during AY17/18. The demand for IRAP support continues to grow in terms of survey development and administration and in support of accreditation related initiatives. Support to the QEP Implementation Team has received significant IRAP attention during the reporting period. These efforts will continue as MCU prepares for its 5-year report to our SACSCOC accreditors.

 

               (b) The position of IRAP Director was gapped from 31 Mar 17 to 30 Oct 17 which delayed publication of certain IRAP reports. Spinning up a new director has created an opportunity for a full scale review of IRAP processes and policies. In this reporting period, this led to revision of the AES review process as well as ongoing revision of the Institutional Effectiveness Plan. IRAP also reviewed and consolidated its 4-column matrix reporting elements. The concurrent drafting of VPEIOP regulations with the establishment of the IE Working Group creates further opportunity for input and revitalization of IRAP processes. SACSCOC’s adoption of new Principles of Accreditation in December 2017 will catalyze and inform this review as well.

 

               (c) The first reporting period for the MCU Strategic Plan 2017-2022 is currently wrapping up to meet an annual report deadline of 15 August. IRAP will continue to be involved in the revision and review of that reporting process and assessment of university progress in its goal areas. This forecast is consistent with expectations outlined on the AY16/17 IRAP Director’s Report.

 

         (2)  Results Summary. An overview of results is provided below. Further information is available in enclosure.

 

               (a) IRAP Outcome #1: Collect and compile timely, relevant data to support decision making and institutional improvement. (1)  IRAP conducted 193 surveys throughout MCU in AY18, including the Annual MCU Student Survey and MCU Administrative and Academic Survey. (2)  MCU publications such as the MCU Factbook and MCU Research Topic Lists were completed and circulated to university stakeholders.

 

               (b) IRAP Outcome #2: MCU is in compliance with SACSCOC Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 (Institutional Effectiveness). (1)  The CG approved a new review process for AES units in Jan 2018, requiring an annual update of AES outcomes and charging the IE Working Group with a holistic review to identify gaps. (2)  AY18 Institutional Effectiveness Reports and the STRATPLAN Report are on track for completion by 15 Aug. (3) In support of the QEP Implementation Team, IRAP collected and analyzed data covering four academic years of QEP artifacts, providing update and decision briefs to the Board of Visitors, President’s Planning Council, and CG in accordance with the revised implementation plan (FRAGO #1).

 

               (c) IRAP Outcome #3: MCU is in compliance with SACSCOC Core Requirement 2.5 (Institutional Effectiveness). (1)  Review of mission, goals, and outcomes was conducted via the Curriculum Review Board process (biannual) and Strategic Plan reporting process in AY19. These document and assess progress in key institutional areas and identify areas and paths towards improvement for the upcoming AY. (2)  Institutional Assessment documents (Academic Regs, Annual IRAP Plan) are currently under review for consolidation into the VPEIOP regulations. (3)  IE Working Group membership has been identified and first meeting to be held before the September 2018 PPC.

 

               (d) IRAP Outcome #4: MCU research activities comply with regulations regarding Human Subjects Research. (1)  IRAP consulted with 9 researchers regarding USMC IRB requirements (4 faculty, 2 students, and 3 external) and consulted with the USMC IRB on the applicability of HSR regulations to current GRC Field History division activities. (2)  No formal trainings were offered regarding HSR and IRAP review indicated little inclusion of HSR/IRB considerations in school/university SOPs.

 

         (3)  Recommendations for AY18. Below are highlights of recommendations for next academic year: IRAP Outcome #2: Leverage the IE Working Group to revitalize the university-level review process for outcomes, strengthening the existing framework. IRAP Outcome #3: Incorporate IRAP institutional assessment documents into VPEIOP Regulations and seek to better publicize these processes via the IE Working Group and other university-wide communications. Review the STRATPLAN data collection and reporting process following the first iteration to ensure efficiency and utility for university stakeholders. IRAP Outcome #4: Focus efforts on increasing awareness of IRB/HSR through university and school-level briefings as well as coordinating inclusion of HSR information into written SOPs. AY19 Outcome Revision: Further consolidate IRAP outcomes to avoid duplication and improve alignment with SACSCOC 2018 Principles.

 

5. Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA)

 

Ø  7 Sections evaluated

Ø  34 Administrative Outcomes

Ø  106 Measures used to assess the AES outcomes

 

     a.  Overview. Unfortunately, due primarily to lack of personnel, some of the desired outcomes were not attained across Academic Affairs divisions. Activities were prioritized by President, MCU (e.g., BKCIC and QEPIT matters), regular duties (e.g., CRBs, day-to-day registrar requirements), and the Strategic Plan. Focus of effort during AY18-19 will be the maturation of the Brute Krulak Center for Innovation and Creativity and further refining its role in supporting the goals of the University’s Quality Enhancement Plan; identifying compliance requirements for addressing those principles of the Principles of Accreditation to be reported out in the University’s Fifth Year Interim Report; and, reviewing and updating the references.

 

     b.  Academic Support

 

         (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. Approved ASD AY18 outcomes, assessments, measures, and recommendations for change are outlined in the enclosure. This report highlights the implementation status of the most significant recommendations from AY17, and elaborates as necessary on key recommendations for change to be implemented in AY19. The major subordinate elements included in this report are: 1) Curriculum Review Boards; 2) Academic Policy; 3) SACSCOC Membership; 4) Integration of Emerging Topics into PME, and also incorporates 5) Joint Education, 6) PME Academic Policy, and 7) Registrar, functions. The Director, Leadership Communication Skills Center (LCSC) provides a separate report and set of 4-Column Matrices for AY18.

 

         (2)  Results Summary.

 

               (a) Curriculum Review Boards (CRB). Two off-cycle OPME CRB presentations were conducted by EWS and MCWAR, along with regularly scheduled biennial CRBs for EWS, CSC, and MCWAR (SAW’s biennial CRB is scheduled for 30 July to accommodate its new director’s arrival). Off-cycle CRBs, and CSC’s indication of need to conduct off-cycle review of SLOs pending next PAJE visit suggest need for review of CRB time and cycle. Will undertake in AY19.

 

               (b) Academic Policy. Review and revision of the MCU Academic Regulations was not conducted due to personnel shortages and higher priorities. Draft Faculty Regulations, under VPBA cog, are under development due to identified policy and procedural gaps in Chapter Four of current Faculty Handbook.

 

               (c) SACSCOC Membership. SACSCOC reporting requirements were met. President, MCU changed intended annual impact statement from Dir, BKCAC (now BKCIC) requirement to QEP Implementation Team. Task of drafting remains to be determined.

 

               (d) Integration of Emerging Topics into PME. This Administrative Outcome needs to be reviewed to define ASD role vice program Directors’. Directors take lead in curricula development, specifically for AY18 in integrating President, MCU directed focus on Information Environment Operations across all programs.

 

               (e) Joint PME. While minimal requirements were met, the lack of a dedicated PME Policy Officer to address joint and service PME issues is a serious deficiency given MCU’s mission. If ASD receives, as currently projected, an officer to fill the PME management billet, focus of effort will be on updating and publishing the PME Order. As JPME requirements have been institutionalized within applicable PME programs, internal relationship of ASD support to PME program requirement remains ripe for review during AY19.

 

               (f) PME Policy. While minimal requirements were met, the lack of a dedicated PME Policy Officer to address joint and service PME issues is a serious deficiency given MCU’s mission. If ASD receives, as currently projected, an officer to fill the PME management billet, focus of effort will be on updating and publishing the PME Order.

 

               (g) Registrar. Education Officer performed yeoman’s service as Acting Registrar. As with past years, administrative tasks remain heavily reliant on manual manipulation and entering of student data, grades, transcripts, and diplomas. Lack of efficient systems, personnel redundancy, and competing requirements meant transcript production goals not met, and generally precluded addressing continuing requirement to define, standardize and integrate administrative requirements.

 

         (3)  Recommendations for AY18. ASD was continually challenged by personnel shortfalls during AY17-18. Within the policy and education section, only 2 of 5 billets were filled. In addition, hiring for the Registrar’s billet took the entire academic year. As a result, both officers were tasked with accomplishing the duties of three separate full-time billets, including key positions of Registrar and Deputy Director, BKCIC. The Education Officer performed his own duties, and those of the Registrar and the Family Readiness Officer. The IO Officer similarly also serves as the Deputy Director, BKCAC, and lead for PME policy and support requirements. In addition, significant non-PME related tasks, such as CMC’s Task 15 for expanding enlisted Marine educational opportunities, consume significant time and energy. The relationship and division of labor between VPEIOP and VPAA remained less than fully defined, leading to additional time and energy devoted to continual coordination of effort. With the arrival of both the Dir, BKCIC and the Registrar in the next few weeks, the division’s primary focus on reestablishing a sustainable, long-term battle rhythm will hopefully be supportable. In the coming academic year, ASD will attempt to orient on the pending SACSCOC Fifth Year Interim Report, define a current baseline of requirements, codify and publish them for other elements of the University’s edification, define their desired outcomes, revise as needed appropriate measures to assess them, and, to the maximum extent possible, establish a standard planning cycle to accomplish them in the most efficient and effective manner.

 

     c.  Leadership Communications Skills Center

 

         (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18.

 

              (a)  The LCSC recorded a total of 2294 visits from students, faculty, and staff in AY 2018 with a 100% student satisfaction rate, as indicated by responses to the AY2018 Student Survey. Of faculty who responded to the AY 2018 Faculty/Staff survey, 100% agreed that student writing improved after their students had used the LCSC. These scores of 100% favorability mark the highest favorability ratings in the past five years. Comments from both surveys summarize positive perceptions of LCSC faculty, their work, and their work ethic.

 

               (b) LCSC faculty members offered classes in writing, research methods, and/or critical approaches to reading to each of the three degree-granting colleges early in the academic year. At CSC, LCSC faculty presented a lecture on writing as part of the Think, Decide, Communicate curriculum. At SAW, the writing classes served as follow-up classes to LCSC evaluations of the students’ diagnostic essays. The LCSC faculty evaluated the diagnostic essays at MCWAR, and subsequently identified ten students to participate in a five-session Studio Course in the fall. Two additional students elected to participate in the studio for a total of 12 MCWAR students. The LCSC also ran several open workshops for CSC students throughout the academic year that coordinated with CSC assignments and MMS milestones. LCSC Brownbag Workshops ran in the fall and in the spring with a separate series of workshops focused on the MMS requirements. While these workshops were well received, student attendance was often unpredictable.

 

               (c) In addition to classes, lectures, and workshops—which are typically “one and done” events—the LCSC also teaches several types of courses: the IMS Graduation Communication Preparatory Course, the TOEFL course, and a series of Studio Courses for CSC students and MCWAR students. Courses run for multiple weeks with the same groups of students. The LCSC Director also teaches a popular two-credit elective on Leadership Communication in the CSC Elective term. In AY 2018, LCSC faculty spent more than 145 hours teaching classes, courses, and workshops.

 

               (d) The LCSC’s early involvement in the schools—teaching classes, evaluating diagnostic essays, and offering Studio Courses—may have contributed to its strong relationships with students and faculty this year, which seem to be reflected in highly increased usage over recent years from students in all the degree-granting schools, most especially from CSC students. Recorded visits in AY 2018 increased by almost 300 from the previous year.

           

         (2)  Results Summary.

 

               (a)  Students who use the LCSC individually or through classes and workshops not only demonstrate improvement in written communication skills, but they also change their own perceptions of their communication abilities. Student perception that their own writing skills have improved is overwhelmingly positive, as data in the student and faculty surveys indicate.

 

               (b)  LCSC Working Beyond Capacity. In this recent academic year, the LCSC has had to turn away 26 paper review requests (23 from CSC students and 3 from SAW students) because LCSC faculty had already been beyond capacity with their paper reviews. AY 2018 was the second year in a row that the LCSC had documented these rejected paper review requests. . In AY 2018, the LCSC had implemented some practices that had been designed to mitigate request rejections. In addition to having turned down 26 requests for paper reviews, growing demands on the LCSC have necessitated additional rejections for assistance in AY 2018. In the absence of funding to support growth in the LCSC, the center will have to develop a plan to establish and maintain priorities during times of peak usage, and it will have to continue to reject requests from entities that are not directly related to MCWAR, CSC, and SAW.

 

               (b)  Misperceptions about Writing Authority from Faculty and Students. While faculty members were 100% supportive in their survey responses, two student comments indicate potential conflicts between LCSC guidance and faculty guidance. The LCSC typically receives a similar comment about grammar or sentence structure each year, and it usually has to do with faculty misperceptions about passive voice. The LCSC addresses such issues on a case by case basis, always with the best interests of the student in mind.

 

               (c)  Faculty Misperception about mission of LCSC. Not all faculty members understand the range of our work with students, particularly our work with International Military Students and their families. The LCSC does not take on work that falls outside of its mission set. Courses such as the TOEFL course and the Spouses’ English Conversation Course--which meets for only one hour on Friday mornings--do much to improve the experience of our International Military Students at Marine Corps University and to support the leadership development of these international officers. Additionally, such a course helps improve joint and international relations among family members, and thus, among officers from the MCU international community.

 

         (3)  Recommendations for AY18.

 

               (a)  Meeting Volume Demands: The LCSC is functioning at high volume, having more than doubled its number of annual consultations since AY 2013. In the past, to help the LCSC meet increased demand in this time period, MCUF had funded a part-time adjunct faculty member to work in the LCSC during surges. The LCSC recommendation is to either reestablish funding for this part-time adjunct faculty member in AY 2019 or to simply hire a fourth faculty member for the LCSC. In the absence of funding to support growth in the LCSC, the center will have to develop a plan to establish and maintain priorities during times of peak usage, and it will have to continue to reject requests by students when the LCSC is beyond capacity and requests from entities that are not directly related to MCWAR, CSC, and SAW.

 

               (b)  Given the popularity of LCSC classes and workshops, no changes are required to curriculum or management. Andrea Hamlen-Ridgely will continue to serve as LCSC Workshop Coordinator and Mrs. Stase Wells will continue to serve as IMS Programming Coordinator.

 

               (c)  As for professional time for LCSC faculty members, the best solution seems to be to use a combination of telework days and calendar blocks as uninterrupted times during which professional work can be completed and obligations to meet the professional PARS/PD element can be met.

 

     d.  MAGTF Instructional Group (MIG)

 

         (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. The MAGTF Instructional Group (MIG) was created to establish a resident capability within Marine Corps University to teach the Marine Corps Planning Process (MCPP) and other warfighting skills to schools throughout Marine Corps University. It is currently operating in direct support of the Senior Enlisted Professional Military Education Course (SEPME) and in general support of the University. The MIG began this academic year consisting of the Director, three Facilitators, a communication specialist and two Senior Enlisted Mentors (SEMs). Resident within the MIG for a portion of the academic year is the Marine Corps University Red Team. The Director, a Lieutenant Colonel, was selected by MCCDC for an Individual Augmentation billet in Iraq. The MCU Red Team is currently unmanned.

 

         (2)  Results Summary.

 

               (a)  The MIG provided classroom instruction and small group facilitation for the SEPME Course five times during the year. Approximately seventy percent of the instruction of a SEPME course is provided by the members of the MIG. Also, the Senior Enlisted Mentors are involved in both the twice yearly 1stSgt’s Course and Cornerstone Course and Faculty Development for Enlisted PME.

 

               (b)  The Strategy and Policy Course was planned for April and May of 2018 but was cancelled due to too small a number of nominees to make the course feasible. The course is intended as an advanced PME course designed to fill the formal PME void/span between O-6 (post top level school) and O-7 (senior level development program) formal PME. The concept is to refresh and educate colonels in a small group setting in the operational art of planning, strategy and campaigning and to help bridge the operational and strategic levels of war.

 

               (c)  In July the MIG ran its seventh Reserve Senior Staff Course (RSSC) designed to prepare reserve officers to serve on active duty staffs. This course was designed and implemented at the request of Manpower and Reserve Affairs and is loosely modeled after the Strategy and Policy Course. The RSSC is now a board selected school for Reserve Officers and is the most requested course available for Reserve Officers. A Flag Panel made up 2 entirely of Reserve Flag Officers was brought in on the last day as in earlier courses. This was an opportunity for Reserve Officers to ask any question of currently serving Reserve Flag Officers. The course is funded by Manpower and Reserve Affairs, supplemented by Marine Corps University and facilitated by the MIG.

 

               (d)  For a portion of this academic year the Marine Corps University’s (MCU) Red Team remained on the cutting edge of Red Teaming in the Marine Corps. All members of the Red Team attended training at the Army’s University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies (UFMCS) at Fort Leavenworth Kansas. This six week (RT member) period of instruction will allow the MCU Red Team to teach, mentor and engage all MCU schools and external agencies as acolytes of Red Teaming. The MCU Red Team is currently unmanned.

 

               (e)  The number and function of MCU’s Chairs and Scholars continue to support the University in many ways. The President made some decisions to embed the Chairs with the different schools to reinvigorate some the historic relationships from the past. These changes would also move some of the Chairs back into offices within the schools. The Chairs continue to add to the school with their outreach and professionalism.

 

         (3)  Recommendations for AY18. The MIG will continue to work with the Director, Senior Enlisted Academies and the Deputy Director of Senior Enlisted PME to evolve Senior Enlisted PME to expand the role and quality of the instruction provided. This year the MIG has participated in assisting in the education of the Marine Corps Planning Process at the Staff NCO Academies by going to the Academies to work with the Faculty during the planning week. The MIG will also continue to support Officer PME as directed by the Commanding General of Education Command and the Vice President of Academic Affairs. The Officer courses facilitated by the MIG are relatively new and are currently the only course reflected in the four column matrix (4CM) as the MIGs support to SEPME has its own 4CM. The Strategy and Policy Course and the Reserve Senior Staff Course have been assigned CIDs (Course Identification numbers) by Training and Education Command (TECOM). The mission of the MIG will continue to be refined and will expand due to the quality of the people and the needs of the Marine Corps; as stated last year in our assessment, we wish to continue moving forward and will not accept status quo in our educational processes.

 

     e.  Middle East Studies (MES)

 

          (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. Middle East Studies (MES) Administrative outcomes and measures for AY18 included hosting lecture series and panels on topics pertaining to the Middle East and South/Central Asia; providing presentations and lectures to and participating in academic symposia with the Marine Corps PME schools, other U.S. Armed Force Services, and U.S. and foreign governmental and nongovernmental institutions; and publishing academic research related to the Middle East and South/Central Asia and other Middle East areas of interest to the Marine Corps.

 

          (2)  Results Summary. The enclosed four-column matrix highlights MES’s use of the AY18 results in its effort to build upon the success of ongoing programs and expand OME support and outreach. Some specific examples include: MES’s successful coordination and execution of panels on Iran and Turkey as part of the MES Lecture Series and the Marine Corps War  College’s (MCWAR) Diplomacy and Statecraft block, MES’s teaching a class to the Expeditionary Warfare School (EWS); MES’s supporting Command and Staff College (CSC) and MAGTF Instructional Group (MIG) directed courses, a successful offering of a CSC elective on Israel, hosting of a visiting Israeli scholar for a week of PME support at MCU with outside funding following the MES director’s certification course on Israeli studies at Brandeis University last summer, participation in educational symposia and panel discussions throughout the U.S. and abroad, pre-deployment and PME support to U.S. and allied forces that included teaching and discussion onboard USS Harry S Truman  and at the NATO Defense College in Rome, continued expansion of interest in and readership of MES publications, as evidenced by requests for reprints and updates of publications and social media and internet analytics, and continued contribution to outside publications. Overall, the results have contributed to expanding PME support and outreach aimed at broadening the resources available to both faculty and students and elevating MCU’s status and reputation as a world-class institution of learning.

 

          (3)  Recommendations for AY18. MES plans to continue with its current lines of efforts to bring new perspectives and resources to the university and larger Marine and PME community. Additionally, MES will continue to seek opportunities within MCU and externally to deepen Marine understanding of the Middle East and South/Central Asia and broaden student, faculty, and institutional access to scholars and resources from the Middle East security and academic communities.

 

     f.  Faculty Development and Outreach (FDOC)

 

          (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. The Faculty Development Program provides training and development opportunities for the MCU civilian and military faculty. The Board of Visitors functions within parameters established through FACA, SACS, and BOV By-Laws and Charter.

 

          (2)  Results Summary.

 

               (a)  A media marketing plan exists that promotes faculty expertise to media outlets. A Faculty "Who's Who" is published annually on the MCU homepage (digital). At least 2 formal faculty development sessions are held annually. A formal faculty development advisory committee is in place. IAW MCU policy letter X-03, VPAA will maintain a master file of all faculty development to be included in command chronology. The media marketing plan addresses outreach through a variety of resources including MCU website, Blackboard, and a MCU Speakers Bureau was developed to promote MCU faculty and their expertise. Faculty Directory was updated on the MCU website (digital). Formal faculty development sessions are devoted to professional development in teaching and learning. One summer FACDEV conference and tailored sessions throughout the AY are offered for faculty professional development. FDOC formalizes relationships with other government agencies and colleges/universities in order to utilize and share professional development resources. The Faculty Development Advisory Group meets regularly to examine aspects of MCU FACDEV opportunities. The group consists of representation from across MCU. Faculty Development activities are being logged for chronology & assessment purposes. A Faculty Newsletter is published semi-annually. Collaborative relationships were formed with FBI Academy and local colleges/universities. Interns continue to work with MCU faculty during summer semesters.

 

               (b)  Surveys concluded that faculty development sessions during the AY were useful & effective. The Faculty Development Advisory Group was formed to receive input into FACDEV events. Representatives from all colleges and schools are involved in this group. Activities continue to be logged.

 

               (c)  As relates to the BOV, information in the FACA database is updated. BOV membership and charter are up-to-date. A spring BOV meeting is scheduled for May 2018. Vice-President Academic Affairs designated Federal Officer (DFO). Faculty Development and Outreach Coordinator is assigned as alternate designated federal officer. No more than 50% of members are retired military.

 

          (3)  Recommendations for AY18. No changes recommended at this time. The MCU website is currently down so updates will be made as soon as the website is functional. FDOC will continue to work with Base Legal and faculty to promote the MCU Speakers Bureau. In addition, the MCU homepage and Blackboard sites will continue to be updated. Twitter and Facebook accounts will continue to enhance the media market plan. FDOC will continue to publish Faculty Newsletters semiannually. Outreach will be continued.

 

     g.  Brute Krulak Center for Innovation and Creativity

 

           (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. The enclosure is provided per MCU Academic Regulations. The enclosed four-column matrix has, in some key respects, been superseded by actions taken to implement Marine Corps University (MCU)’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), the details of which are hereby incorporated.

 

           (2)  Results Summary. In sum, analysis in the spring of 2017 of the status of QEP implementation led to the formation of an Operational Planning Team in the fall of 2018 to make recommendations to the President, MCU as to how to complete Phase 1 and Phase 2 requirements by the end of Academic Year 2018. That effort resulted in the President, MCU issuing reference (b) which re-focused the QEP on integrating Information Environment Operations into the MCU curricula at all levels to use as a vehicle for assessing student creative problem-solving. A QEP Implementation Team (QEPIT) was established and tasked with accomplishing the remaining Phase 1 and Phase 2 activities originally conceived as being performed by the (renamed) BKCIC.

 

           (3)  Recommendations for AY18. The Director, Academic Support Division is providing this report as the newly hired Director, BKCIC joined MCU only a week prior to FRAGO 1 DP 2 of 30 Jul 18. Future BKCIC Institutional Effectiveness Reports will be submitted by its Director. The QEPIT will draft a notional QEP Impact Report NLT 31 August 2018 in the format of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges’ accreditation requirement for a Fifth-Year Interim Report in order to fully describe the status of the QEP to date.

 

     h.  Fellows and Foreign PME.

 

           (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18.

 

               (a)  As indicated in the four-column matrix, the CMC Fellows, Foreign PME, and Olmsted Scholars programs continued on track and provide solid return on investment for the Marine Corps in terms of education, outreach and engagement. The following program comments amplify points from the matrix.

 

              (b)  Some background notes on the Cyber Fellowship are in order. For the previous two years (that is, AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17), the Cyber assignment was with Intel Security/McAfee (Plano, TX). While program goals were partially met at Intel Security, the desired outcomes were not fully achieved. Therefore, an opportunity to partner with Morgan Stanley/Cyber in New York City opened, and upon evaluation, the Fellowship was shifted to Morgan Stanley for AY 2017-18. This has proven to be a solid change. Overall, the CMC National Fellows program provides unique experience in government and industry.

 

               (c)  As previously reported, memoranda of understanding (MOUs) are either being initially established or revised for all programs. Several have been completed as of the time of this report and 10 are pending approval.

 

               (d)  Finally, a critical concern remains regarding “umbrella” agreements for Foreign PME assignments and exchanges. Establishing a DoD Level/State Department authorized umbrella agreement between countries where we have exchanges is seriously lagging. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has the responsibility, with DOS approval, to negotiate umbrella agreements with foreign governments/defense department equivalent organizations where U.S. military services have PME exchanges or where PME exchanges are desired. These agreements are established over a 10 year period. Each service participating with a specific country then negotiates a separate reciprocal appendix to the umbrella agreement. In the recent case of Norway, the agreement was about to expire (October 2017) and DSCA had not completed efforts to renew the agreement. A special authorization was established allowing for a one year extension of the agreement. The implications of not extending this agreement – which has yet to be renewed – is that each service cannot operate under an exchange/reciprocal agreement wherein each country does not charge for tuition, etc. The implications are significant from both an assignment process as well as fiscal implications to the MCU/Fellows budget. Some non-reciprocal FPME assignments, for example, cost in the vicinity of $100,000 annually.

 

(1)   Results Summary.

 

               (a)  All programs are assessed as having merit. Continuous evaluation of program return on investment for both the individual and for the Marine Corps provides validation of assignments. More formal evaluations are included in the annual final conferences each year. All current fellowship locations and assignments were subjectively validated by each Fellow during the May 2018 conference. Increased interaction during AY 2017-18 by both the MCU staff and President will serve to strengthen the partnerships. This included participation by the CG, EDCOM/President MCU at the Department of Homeland Security’s Marine Corps Birthday Cake cutting ceremony last November and his trip to the Boston area (Harvard, MIT, and Tufts/Fletcher) among others. Additionally, the Commandant’s engagement in Washington DC think tanks (Brookings, CSIS, etc.) and other venues increases Marine Corps “stock” and engagement. Such activities at the MCU staff and command level will be expanded as practical as they increase the return on investment for both the participants and the Marine Corps.

 

               (b)  For the CMC Fellows program, conferences continue to show value. The orientation, mid-year and final conferences provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and professional knowledge. The occasional addition of ‘gray beard’ or mentors at mid-year or final conferences provides seasoned perspectives for all participants and will continue whenever schedule permits.

 

               (c)  Evaluation of the Senior CMC Fellows and CMC National Fellows programs with respect to cost-benefit is ongoing and continuous. All reports indicate both programs are successful and within expectations. However and as indicated above, senior MCU leadership desires further evaluation to determine if the Senior CMC Fellow should continue as post-TLS assignments. The CMC National Fellows program continues to display expected merits. Additionally, there are multiple opportunities to grow the program. Exploration of opportunities with Amazon and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is ongoing. Additionally, the Office of Naval Research will be considered.

 

               (d)    Regarding the Olmsted Scholar screening and selection process, the system complimentary to the Commandant’s Career Level Education Board (CCLEB) establish for MMOA by MCU has proven to be successful. Last year we reported that the Marine Corps nomination process of Scholar candidates to the Olmsted Foundation had shifted to the CCLEB and CBIP. This has proven to be a solid evolution of the process resulting in more senior officers being selected. The Foundation has expressed their support for the process as the best qualified Marines desiring to participate are assigned to this prestigious program. The Olmsted Scholar program continues to receive solid coverage in MMOA Roadshows, Gazette Articles, and from former Scholars.

 

               (e)    Papers written by program participants continue to require cataloging with the Library of the Marine Corps so that they are available for use by future students or those researching a related topic. This remains an ongoing effort and will require additional resources in order to complete the initiative.

 

               (f)     Establishing MOUs with not only fellowship locations but also Foreign PME locations is tracking but requires more resources to move forward in a timely manner. Progress continues but, as indicated above, has some challenges with perceived legal concerns. The use of Marine awaiting assignment to a Senior CMC Fellowship over the summer has been extremely helpful in advancing this effort.

 

           (1)  Recommendations for AY18.

               (a)  All programs continue to be appropriately managed and all provide professional benefits to the Marine Corps and to the participating Marines. Several areas for change and/or improvement are highlighted below. As previously stated, to move the programs from ‘good to great,’ however, will require additional manpower resources.

 

               (b)  Conferences for the CMC Fellows provide and integral part of the education program. Engagement with MCU leadership will continue in an effort to maintain all three conferences.

 

               (c)  Monthly report sharing/distribution will continue ot be a focus point in the next academic year to include posting them on a Google Drive as a means of sharing information. This effort requires a timely and renewed effort.

 

               (d)  Continuing coordination and review of Fellowships and Foreign PME assignments will involve not only internal assessment by MCU but also key HQMC departments. Further, continuing liaison with sister Service counterparts for all programs has led to support enhancements. In particular, coordination with the Joint Staff on Foreign PME locations will be a positive step. A major challenge remains establishing appropriate DSCA umbrella agreements as discussed above.

 

               (e)  Continued refinement and coordination with MMOA on program selections will ensure that the Marines best suited for assignments are selected. This includes management of the MCU quota plan.

 

6.  Vice President for Business Affairs (VPBA)

 

Ø  4 Sections evaluated

Ø  18 Administrative Outcomes

Ø  29 Measures used to assess the AES outcomes

 

     a.  Civilian Manpower

 

           (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. To properly manage and track all civilian manpower actions.

 

           (2)  Results Summary. Civilian manpower has successfully met all expectations. Further information can be found in the enclose four-column matrix.

 

           (3)  Recommendations for AY18. Civilian manpower will continue to meet all goals in the next academic year.

 

     b.  Military Manpower and Student Services

 

           (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. All administrative outcomes for both Military Manpower and Student Services remain relevant.

 

           (2)  Results Summary. All administrative outcomes that are applicable for both Military Manpower and Student Services have been met. Further information can be found in the enclose four-column matrix.

 

           (3)  Recommendations for AY18. Continue meeting established goals. Due to the amount of turnover that occurred during the spring into early summer, training will be imperative for new joins to ensure continued success.

 

     c.  Facilities & Logistics

 

           (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18.

 

               (a)  The AY17/18 survey identified facilities problems with HVAC and roof issues in Bldg 3078 and HVAC issues in Dunlap Hall. A new AC unit was installed to solve the HVAC issues and a new roof is to be installed before the end of this fiscal year. Mold issues will be addressed at the same time. The Dunlap Hall HVAC issues were caused by a malfunctioning controller and this has been addressed as well. Food service in Warner Hall also didn’t meet expectations for the speed of service.

 

               (b)  In our response to the AY16/17 survey we made the following recommendations for this AY; change menu options in the Warner Café in order to speed up service and provide more ready-made sandwiches so students would have the opportunity to grab and go.

 

           (2)  Results Summary.

 

               (a)  The results of the AY17/18 student and faculty surveys reflect student and faculty satisfaction with academic spaces. Environmental issues were highlights of this year’s survey. Warner Hall has provided an excellent learning environment but the remainder of MCU’s facilities are very old with varying degrees of old mechanical systems.

 

               (b)  Our results from the recommendations from last year’s survey are as follows. We changed the menu in the Warner Hall café to have fewer options and requested more ready-made meals and salads. This did speed up service, however, it still is taking too long from order to delivery of food. We also changed the furniture in the café to promote more grab and go and less sit down meals. The former Warrior Canteen in Dunlap Hall has been converted to a Micromart supported by the Warner Hall vendor. This change has brought the same menu items to the staff in Breckinridge Hall.

 

               (c)  The next MILCON from MCU is for EWS but it appears that may be some years in the future so we are upgrading Geiger Hall academic spaces this year. We continued to refine our supply and transportation request procedures in order to meet the logistics requirements of the university.

 

           (3)  Recommendations for AY18. Changing the menu to a Starbucks model of ready-made food that only needs to be heated will meet the requirements for speed of service and good quality food. Improving the classrooms for EWS will provide a better learning environment for their students until the future MILCON is built.

 

     d.  Fiscal

 

           (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. In AY17/18 the Professional Development budget was reduced by $1.795M from the previous year. We were able to secure an additional $1.2M for the Distance Professional Military Education Program for Staff Sergeants. Our office returned $2M of civilian labor funding to Training and Education Command due to the amount of vacancies.

 

           (2)  Results Summary.  The Financial Management Office (FMO) was able to meet all requirements to include funding executable emergent requirements. The FMO was able to facilitate mission accomplishments as directed.

 

           (3)  Recommendations for AY18. Continue to manage resources effectively in order to avoid reductions in programmed budget. Continue to enhance the reconciliation process for better accountability and to facilitate the FMO’s ability to meet emergent requirements.

 

7.  Vice President for Distance Learning (VPDL)

 

Ø  2 Sections evaluated (Note: CDET is evaluated in a separate report.)

Ø  xx Administrative Outcomes

Ø  xx Measures used to assess the AES outcomes

 

     a.  IT Directorate

 

           (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18.

 

               (a)  This academic year saw progress for the IT Department as it continued to align its capabilities, operations and portfolio with the vision for Marine Corps University. As the University continues to expand PME opportunities for more Marines and through more methods, we made progress, developed plans, and secured the resources needed to support this effort. At the same time, the daily operations of the department, the sustainment of the USMCU.EDU network, and the routine support for students, faculty and staff, all matured and solidified, improving educational outcomes and the daily experience of the end user.

 

               (b)  While we made progress in the areas identified above, we also faced set-backs and challenges requiring great effort and extensive coordination to overcome. Starting in AY 18, greater emphasis has been placed in the assessment, planning, and allocation of resources for the USMC.EDU expansion to other locations around the world. Additionally, the original expansion scope was adjusted during this AY. In addition to the Staff Non- Commissioning Officer Academies (SNCOA) initial expansion plan, College of Distance Education and Training (CDET) centers are now being included as part of this line of effort. While this compounded effort increases the planning and coordination complexity, the solutions to overcome these challenges will lead to even greater outcomes for the University and the Marine Corps.

 

           (2)  Results Summary.  

 

               (a)  Early in the AY, CampusNet WiFi was successfully extended to the Camp Johnson SNCOA in Camp Johnson, enabling open, bring- your-own-device (BYOD) wireless access to students, faculty and staff in that location. While extending the managed, wired portion of the .EDU network to Camp Johnson remained an ongoing and unresolved effort for the remainder of the year, the experience gained in this project will pay dividends as we seek to expand the .EDU network to other SNCOA locations in future years. The funding for this effort, $14 million from FY20 through FY24, was secured this year as part of the POM.

 

               (b)  The wireless experience for EWS, which was a major source of negative feedback during AY18, was enhanced as SPAWAR installed and setup new equipment. SPAWAR also improved the AV capabilities within Geiger Hall through re-configuration efforts.

 

               (c)  The AV capabilities and quality of Warner Auditorium, meanwhile, continued to attract visitors from outside MCU, resulting in many high-visibility events on campus and in the auditorium. However, the AV system continued to exhibit reduced responsiveness resulting in poor operational control and degraded audio and visual capabilities during some events. To address this situation a SPAWAR-contracted effort has been going on for several weeks during the late summer and is currently underway.

 

               (d)  In April, the MCU website was defaced and compromised by malicious actors utilizing a zero-day-vulnerability. The web servers were quickly assessed and taken offline by MCU IT personnel. This attack was the beginning of a months-long process of working with both the Marine Forces Cyber Command (MFC) and the Marine Corps Cyberspace Operations Group (MCCOG) to fully investigate and secure the .EDU network against any further threats. However, after a Quarantine Review Board found that all webserver vulnerabilities were addressed, MFC directed MCU to no longer host its own website and instead, leverage the Defense Media Activity’s American Forces Public Information Management System (AFPIMS) content management system. Coordination with AFPIMS is currently ongoing and a roadmap for migration has been established. While this change in site- hosting will impact how the MCU webmaster and other content managers do business and the way content is presented, it provides a physical separation of MCU’s public facing information and the rest of the .EDU network – increasing our cyber-security posture in the process.

 

           (3)  Recommendations for AY18.

 

               (a)  The long-term effort to extend the .EDU network to the SNCOAs and CDET facilities in CONUS, it will first require an increase to the network capacity, from 1 to 10 Gbps. This will require not only upgrading C-ISP circuits, but also the .EDU domain infrastructure in Warner Hall. This will require about $1.5 million that was not budgeted for FY19. An unfunded deficiency will be submitted, but the assistance of leadership is required in order to ensure this effort is completed in the coming AY. Increasing the network capacity in FY19 will provide better network responsiveness and ensure the expansion project stays on track to meet the commander’s intent.

 

               (b)  The challenges with keeping the AV systems fully operational have been technological, logistical, and contractual. Additionally, the complexity of working across different organizations within MCU increased the complexity of coordination between technicians working on the AV equipment and calendar availability. To alleviate this situation, the IT department will plan in advance to allocate time off for the auditorium and lecture halls.  Lastly, the university has an acute need for a dedicated and appropriately-compensated AV professional who can take ownership of all AV systems and sustain them throughout their lifecycle. Hiring for the specialized AV technician is currently in progress.

 

               (c)  After the AV system in Warner Hall has been baselined, the next step will be to plan for its lifecycle support. This will include identifying components that require spares to ensure system redundancy and fault-tolerance, as well as a longer-term plan for refresh.

 

               (e)  Due to the interdependencies between different departments and sections within MCU, there is a need for an enterprise-level Service-Management system to synchronize activities and resources across the University.       The IT Department currently uses a small, cloud-based system called FreshDesk, but we have been planning, both with VPBA and with vendors, for the implementation of ServiceNow, which is a robust system that will support MCU in orchestrating activities across the University and lead to greater efficiencies.  Additionally, ServiceNow offers a network management module that will improve the organization’s cyber-security posture. Funding request for this effort and submitted for FY19 budget was denied. To pursue this capability, the IT department will be submitting an unfunded deficiency for FY19.

 

               (f)  The Authority To Operate (ATO) for the .EDU network requires renewal by October 2019. Work will be underway starting in October of 2018 and will continue well into AY19 to obtain the new ATO accreditation.

 

     b.  ET Directorate

 

           (1)  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. During AY18, the Educational Technology (Ed Tech) Department has focused on planning the transition of MarineNet as an asynchronous Learning Management System (LMS), together with Moodle, the current LMS supporting resident and distance PME, to an eLearning ecosystem that provides eLearning services to deliver training and education across the Corps. Additionally, the Ed Tech department has continued to improve and enhance MarineNet Video Services (MVS) that provides a location for units and organizations to upload various training videos.

 

           (2)  Results Summary.  Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) was procured to act as the presentation layer of the new eLearning ecosystem. AEM provides the ability for units and organizations to establish communities of interest and social media-like interactions to enhance and deliver training. Currently, there are 26 communities actively working in Pilot 1, which will close on 30 Sept. Additionally, there are approximately 50+ courses and over 650 users in the ecosystem instance of Moodle. MVS currently has 31 active channels, 27 channels in development, and 545 approved training videos.

 

           (3)  Recommendations for AY18. During the next AY, Ed Tech will work towards full operational capability of the eLearning ecosystem. Once FOC is reached, training on the use of the system will begin for resident and distance training and education organizations.

 

8.  Gray Research Center (GRC) & History Division (HD)

 

Ø  8 Sections evaluated

Ø  23 Administrative Outcomes

Ø  27 Measures used to assess the administrative outcomes

                                   

           a. Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. Early in the year, the Division’s focus was on producing the Legacy of Belleau Wood, tracing the effect that series of 1918 battles had on the development of the modern Marine Corps. The book was distributed to all resident students. Our two commemoratives series, the centennial of the First World War and the 50th anniversary of large-scale Marine Corps involvement in Vietnam, are on schedule. The lack of an operating website since February has proven to be a major stumbling block to efficient division operations. Just as this period closed, the contracts were signed for a new library management systems; this was a multiple-year process and the library anticipates having the new system fully operationally by the 2nd quarter fiscal year 2019. Division historians made several trips to fleet units to talk about Marine Corps history in general and the unit’s unique history. Historians are hard at work on the book for next academic year discussion amphibious warfare tentative title is: Power from the Sea: U.S. Marines and Maritime Strategic Thought an Anthology.

 

            b. Results Summary. Despite an inefficient management system, the library’s level of service has garnered outstanding comments from staff and students; as have the Reference Branch and Archives. Progress has been made on hiring new personnel. Marine Corps History periodical continues to receive excellent reviews and the pool of contributing authors continues to grow. Further details for measures and results for each section can be found in the enclosed four-column matrix.

 

             c. Recommendations for AY18. As changes and improvements are identified, HD and GRC will institute improvements in service.

 

9.  Lejeune Leadership Institute (LLI)

 

Ø  5 Sections evaluated

Ø  8 Administrative Outcomes

Ø  18 Measures used to assess the administrative outcomes

 

           a. Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. The LLI has eight outcomes under MCU Administrative Outcomes. These eight outcomes are directly linked to the MCU Strategic Plan (See enclosed four-column matrix). To meet these outcomes:

 

            (1)  The Civilian Leadership Development Branch manages Civilian Marine (CM) participation in four leadership development areas. The branch develops and implements leadership development seminars, manages participation in Centrally Managed Civilian Leadership Courses (CMCLC), funds and oversees locally procured leadership development classes that are procured by Installation Human Resource Development Strategic Advisors (HRD-SA) worldwide, and markets and tracks CM participation through MarineNet online leadership development training modules. (Outcome 1.1).

 

           (2)  Leadership Development Branch writes leadership concepts, policies, and directives related to leadership development for Marines. These actions include development of the Marine Leader Development (MLD) initiative with an associated Marine Corps Order; Leader Development website, and tailored instruction for Marine units. The branch also manages the Russell Leadership Conference, and provides Operational Law instruction for MCU and USMC. (Outcomes 2.1, 2.2, & 2.3)

 

           (3)  Professional Programs Branch manages the Commandant’s Professional Reading Program (CPRP) and the Cornerstone program (Outcomes 3.1 & 3.2)

 

           (4)  Ethics Branch develops and provides courses and instruction support for MCU in the areas of professional core competency in ethical and moral decision making. The branch collaborates in research for value base leadership by building and revising ethics instructions for MCU and Marine operating forces. (Outcome 4.1)

 

            (5)  Education Support Branch provides administrative and financial support for all programs and activities within LLI. The branch also manages the Executive Education Program (EEP). (Outcome 5.1).

 

           b.  Results Summary. The following results for the eight administrative outcomes are as follows:

 

           (1)  Civilian Leadership Development Branch provided the Lead Self and Lead Teams leadership development seminars at 19 Marine installations in AY 17/18 to a total of 1,160 Marines and civilian employees. The branch provided 66 civilian employees participation in centrally managed formal leadership courses taught by the Graduate School. Also, LLI provided $151K for leadership development classes for civilian employees at their installations and MarineNet leadership development modules were completed by 181 civilian employees. (Outcome 1.1)

 

           (2)  Leadership Development Branch (LDB) was engaged in two of three administrative outcomes during AY 17/18. 1)

 

               (a)  The branch managed the Marine Leadership Development (MLD) initiative by overseeing and coordinating the publishing of the MLD MCO with HQMC (CMC signed the MLD MCO on 10 July 2017). As part of this process, the LLI has been the lead in coordinating changes to the MCO based on other leadership initiatives sponsored by M&RA and HQMC (Safety Division). The branch did provide 8 AY 17/18 MLD MTTs in support of implementing a leadership development program based on the MLD MCO and will continue to provide MLD MTTs to requesting commands. The focus of the MTTs was to provide tangible lessons and skills to unit leaders for use in the execution of their leadership development programs. As part of this outcome, the LLI has participated in the development and implementation of CMC Command Climate Surveys.        The feedback from the Surveys was used in the development process for the MLD MCO and to provide current leadership trends to new commanders participating in the Commandant's Cornerstone program. (Outcome 2 .1)

 

               (b)  No Russell Leadership Conference (RLC) was held during AY 17/18. Outcomes of previous RLC's are included in the MLD public website for use throughout the USMC. (Outcome 2.2)

 

               (c)  Based on AY 16/17 instructor feedback and current research, AY 17/18 Operational Law instruction was provided to 950 MCU students. Feedback from the school's directors, faculties, and students will be reviewed and applied to AY 18/19 instruction. (Outcome 2.3)

 

           (3)  Professional Programs Branch managed two administrative outcomes during AY 17/18.

 

               (a)  The branch is responsible for the Commandant's Professional Reading Program (CPRP). The CPRP reading list review for AY 17-18 was in Phase I of the four phase review cycle. The complete review cycle will be complete in Feb 2019. (Outcome 3.1)

 

               (b)  Incorporating results of the AY 16/17 Cornerstone program, the branch managed outcome 3.2 by delivering two iterations of the Cornerstone during AY 17/18 (Oct and April/May). The Cornerstone program sessions provided focused instruction to 319 commanders/SgtsMaj and 188 spouses. The branch collected post-course critiques and used the feedback to write an after-action report for the President, MCU review and subsequent planning guidance for building the AY 18/19 Cornerstone program. (Outcome 3.2)

 

          (4)  Using AY 16/17 course delivery feedback, Ethics Branch provided ethical and moral decision making instruction for Cornerstone participants and MCU schools, TBS, OCS, and other Marine organizations. The branch also provided research mentoring for several CSC students participating in the Master of Military Studies (MMS) degree program. Feedback from all participants of ethics instruction and support will be used to modify courseware and instruction for AY 18/19. (Outcome 4.1)

 

          (5)  Education Support Branch provided administrative and financial assistance and coordination for Cornerstone, EEP and CLDP programs and courses. The branch also used the AY 16/17 report to improve and modify the EEP program by including that feedback when building and publishing AY 17/18 EEP bi-annual slates. Feedback from general officers and senior executives participating in the AY 17/18 EEP program will be used in the development of the AY 18/19 EEP slates. (Outcome 5.1)

 

     c.  Recommendations for AY18. The LLI will review all major initiatives it is engaged in and determine if any of them should be added to the AY 18/19 administrative outcomes list.

 

 

10.  National Museum of the Marine Corps (NMMC)

 

Ø  1 Section evaluated

Ø  6 Administrative Outcomes

Ø  14 Measures used to assess the administrative outcomes

 

     a.  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. NMMC continues to focus its time and resources on outcomes dictated in the NMMC and MCU strategic plans. Despite the impact of multiple continuing resolutions, contractual issues, and hiring challenges, we continue to be generally on target. The two biggest projects this year have been, and will continue to be, (a) the Final Phase and (b) cataloguing the collection.

 

     b.  Results Summary. Below are highlights of NMMC results:

 

          (1)  The Museum met or exceeded all goals for outreach, visitor support, and PMEs. Supported 121 PME events with 6,542 participants.

 

          (2)  Reached 17,000 visitors at 21 outreach events throughout the mid-Atlantic, including Marine Week Detroit.

 

          (3)  Formal school visitors from grades K-12 totaled 43,978. The new classrooms and school lunch room have been heavily utilized by formal school groups and other groups, too.

 

          (4)  Trained 49 new docents and 71 new hospitality ambassadors. Also trained 90 docents in preparation for .the opening of the

WWI Centennial art exhibit in the Combat Art Gallery.

 

          (5)  MCHF continues to manage marketing efforts, with our input. NMMC Public Affairs partnered with the Prince William County Visitors Bureau to. surgically target organizations that send tours to the mid-Atlantic.

 

         (6)  Hosted 16 media events, and had media attend seven other public events at the Museum, all of which continue to garner regional, national, and international coverage.

 

          (7)  Population of 12 web-based calendars with NMMC programming continue to draw regional interest, as did 33 Public Service Announcements broadcast throughout 82 media venues in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

 

          (8)  Data-entry contract on schedule and budget. Collections staff and Department of Navy Heritage Assets Management System (DONHAMS) liaison worked through a number of serious technical glitches with the DONHAMS system at NMMC and command museums.

 

          (9)  Art Loans. Reconciled 20% of all framed artwork on loan and in storage.

 

          (10)  Final Phase efforts progressed very well. Navy Facilities Command (NAVFAC) completed all lighting work. Major contracts awarded for fabrication and cast figures continue with relatively few challenges; task orders tend to be awarded within 60 days, which exceeds schedule goals. Contracts for audiovisual media and digital exhibits hardware are off to a good start. The system design drawings for AV hardware is complete, and the equipment list has been submitted for an ITPRAS waiver. All macro artifacts restored and staged at NMMC. Small artifact selection and recall complete. Final graphic production files for Gallery 5 almost complete; fabricator to mobilize during June/July 2018. Fabrication drawings significantly complete.

 

           (11)  Adjusted small exhibit schedule to allow the staff more time to focus on the Final Phase. “Welcome Home" continues to receive favorable comments and will remain on exhibit until the Final Phase is significantly complete.

 

     c.  Recommendations for AY18.

 

          (1)  Continue to focus on unit PME, especially at the battalion level and below. Feedback from participants continues to validate value in repeat visits.

 

          (2)  Use feedback from teachers to inform educational programming, exhibit design, and Final Phase development.

 

          (3)  Keep the USMC and NMMC educational programming in front of a broad and diverse public via web, print, radio, and television. Continue to focus on tour operations and visits and earned media.

 

          (4)  Continue to work toward adjusted goal of 300 active docents.

 

          (5)  Continue to minimize competing priorities so the staff can focus on (1) the Final Phase and (2) cataloguing. Adjust the NMMC Strategic Plan as needed.

 

          (6)  Remove responsibility for ad campaigns from matrix, when approved by MCU, as MCHF has the lead.

 

11.  Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning

 

Ø  8 Sections evaluated

Ø  7 Administrative Outcomes

Ø  79 Measures used to assess the administrative outcomes

 

     a.  Director’s Discussion Comments for AY18. Internally, during AY 17/18, CAOCL expanded efforts initiated in AY16/17 to improve its programmatic and organizational level assessment practices. These efforts included redesigning and creating new assessment tools and furthering efforts through internal reporting to assess and improve CAOCL's operations across all its programs and initiatives. CAOCL's contractual situation continues to challenge the enactment of the enhanced live instruction, SME support, and operational forces support assessment processes designed this year as well as limited the amount of support CAOCL could provide to the operating forces. CAOCL continues to work with the contracting office to resolve these challenges. CAOCL has updated its measures throughout the enclosed "AY 17/18 4-Column Matrix Closeout" brief to accommodate the Strategic Plan reporting requirements tasked to CAOCL, and provided feedback on the Strategic Plan reporting process for consideration.

 

     b.  Results Summary. Detailed results are provided in the enclosed matrix. Key areas of interest include:

 

          (1)  CAOCL continues to provide live LREC instruction to units within all three MEFs and the Reserve Component during pre-deployment cycles. Courses are routinely well-received, and demand remains high. However, contracting challenges are limiting CAOCL's ability to meet that demand.

 

          (2)  CAOCL's government and contractor personnel are engaged in the full spectrum of academic activities at the university, to include administration and advising, course development and instruction for both officer and enlisted personnel, faculty development opportunities, student mentorship and advising, research design, faculty council leadership, assessment, and research. CAOCL seeks to expand engagement with the School of Advanced Warfare in the coming year, as that was an identified gap; plans are underway. CAOCL also will expand its assessment support to the university in partnership with IRAP.

 

         (3)  The Regional, Culture, and Language Familiarization (RCLF) Program received its recommendation for ACE accreditation, a major milestone. Students continue to respond positively to the RCLF courses. CAOCL is in the process of redesigning all of the end of course surveys and intends to design a graduate survey in the upcoming AY aligned with the initial block of RCLF instruction. Enrollment numbers are still low, due in part to the lack of movement on the PME Order, which will make RCLF rankĀ­ aligned course completion a requirement for promotion. CAOCL intends to dedicate resources to pushing the order to finalization during the coming year.

 

          (4)  CAOCL achieved institutionalization milestones again this AY with the signing of the LREC T&R Manual and the identification of eight tasks at the LREC OAG meeting that informed the CBA inputs to POM21 process and will serve as the agenda for the next OAG meeting, which is the precursor to updating the LREC strategy. CAOCL personnel will be fully engaged in that process during the coming year.

 

          (5)  CAOCL significantly expanded its scientific advising activities this year, especially on research policy development and interpretation. CAOCL will continue these efforts in the coming year as their resolution impacts the Marine Corps' ability to conduct certain types of research with certain populations as well as the release the outcomes of such work.

 

          (6)  CAOCL's main research effort this year was an exploratory research project to help the Marine Corps better understand issues surrounding leadership, cohesion, and gender bias that gained external notice during the Marines United misconduct. CAOCL issued two reports that have offered broader perspective on the issues and gave voice to Marine experiences and perceptions that other research designs would not reveal. CAOCL continues work on cleaning and scrubbing the data. Additional analytical work is pending resolution of policy and regulatory interpretation issues.

 

     c.  Recommendations for AY18. As described above, CAOCL anticipates dedicating time and resources to updating existing and creating new assessment tools, in some cases pending contract issue resolution, pushing key policy documents to conclusion, clarifying research policies and regulations, and continuing its education, training, research, and advising activities. CAOCL will continue to support university initiatives, such as broadening student access to research expertise and the QEP. Additionally, CAOCL is prepared to support university efforts to refine the overall strategic plan and reporting processes.

 

12.  Summary. This document and its enclosures provide evidence of a thoughtful and continuous review process occurring across the AES Units in the university, encompassing:

 

Ø  37 Sections evaluated

Ø  107 Administrative Outcomes

Ø  299 Measures used to assess the administrative and educational support outcomes

 

AES Units provided evidence of outcome achievement and highlighted areas for future improvement. The systematic use of this process will continue to ensure MCU sustains its commitment to deliver a world-class professional military education.

 

 

 

KATHLEEN KUEHN

Add Content...