18 Nov 13
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDANT, RGNCOA
FROM TSGT SAMUEL MORSE
SUBJECT NCOA photography, recording, and dissemination restrictions
1. Since arriving at the Robert Gaylor NCO Academy and learning about the local rules, there is one series of rules that I find myself disagreeing with wholeheartedly. I’m referring to the rules prohibiting recording devices of any kind inside the Academy, the limiting of documentation of course activities, and the restrictions on sharing course materials.
2. Restricting information acquisition and dissemination regarding course principles is counterproductive to goal of lifelong learning and mentorship of our peers and subordinates. If the purpose of this Academy is to promote networking across career fields, giving young leaders the tools for success, and ultimately make our enlisted corps stronger, these policies severely restrict this Academy’s ability to do so.
3. First of all, the Academy, student guides, and course materials (other than tests) are not classified nor controlled. If they were, we would not be able to use personal laptops to do work. This renders most arguments saying that we can’t acquire or disseminate information based on this to others moot, other than perhaps the possibility that an instructor or student does not want to be recorded, or during knowledge testing.
4. Additionally, as outlined in the lesson on “Successful Learning,” some of our students are auditory learners, which means that having a recording of the class will likely help them more than written notes (although the two in tandem would be even better). As I stated before, this would certainly come into conflict if an instructor or student didn’t want to be recorded, especially in a non-attributive environment. However, this can be easily mitigated by asking for students to turn off recording devices during guided discussions. Recording devices can also assist with students practicing for speeches, allowing them to see directly what they do in front of an audience. In short, the benefits of recording devices far outweigh the negatives.
5. Another item that was brought up as a concern, although I can’t remember if this was part of the official rules for the RGNCOA, was that we couldn’t share course materials. I think this is a huge foul, and another situation where the benefits far outweigh any possible negatives. While I certainly can see where test answers cannot be shared, that’s the only situation where sharing course materials could constitute test compromise. Even graded papers and speeches can be helpful to others, while not compromising the evaluation system.
6. This is a situation where we have to look at what the purpose of this course is. If the purpose is to test who is a good NCO and who is a bad NCO, then restricting information makes sense. However, if the goal is to develop all students into effective leaders, why wouldn’t we want them to learn from not just their mistakes, but those of their peers? Excellence is not created in a vacuum, and learning to properly evaluate good speeches and papers from bad ones is a significant portion in developing one’s own ability to write and give speeches.
7. This concept extends beyond just the students at the RGNCOA. The successes and failures we encounter here can also be lessons we can teach our fellow NCOs. I can certainly say that ALS did not even come close to preparing me for when I eventually had an Airman of my own, made worse by the significant time that elapsed from my graduation date to my first day as a rater. Luckily, I eventually had a supervisor who was a former NCOA instructor who helped guide me to be the NCO I am today, but not until after I had made a lot of mistakes. I could have used someone to guide me better, and possibly show me some of the concepts taught in NCOA so I could be a more effective leader. I also know of a few NCOs and future NCOs I supervise who would benefit from the same sort of mentoring.
8. Of course, the argument comes up that we don’t want to give people an unfair advantage in NCOA, or give away the answers. This argument is patently absurd. This goes back to my earlier question of whether the purpose of this institution is to test our NCOs, or to develop them. If the answer is the latter, then any development or “reading ahead” can only help future students, because they can bring more to the table and push class discussions forward more quickly, getting deeper into the course material. Besides, we are required to read the student guides prior to each class, so what’s the harm in reading them even farther ahead? The “Successful Learning” lesson itself said that reading is not enough, and that the class and discussion portion were still necessary, thus justifying the continued existence of the NCOA, regardless of how many people get access to course materials ahead of time. If reading ahead negates the necessity of NCOA, then the question should be whether we have an NCOA, not whether or not we can share course material.
9. To illustrate my point, let me use an example of some other training I’ve attended. In the Public Affairs community, both in the military as well as civilian photojournalists, there are a multitude of workshops in which we can hone our skills by receiving mentorship and feedback from the experts of our career field. I had the opportunity of attending one of these workshops earlier this year, known as the DoD Worldwide Military Photography Workshop (on my own dime as a PTDY, but I still went). This workshop opened my eyes to what military training could be. Much like leadership, in photography, there are many possible solutions to every problem, and a dozen ways to come to the same conclusion. We were given resources and guidance to help hone our skills (sound familiar?) and learned a lot. However, we weren’t forbidden to directly share our experiences or course materials. In fact, we were expected to share anything and everything we gained from that workshop. That was the point – to exchange and propagate knowledge and understanding.
10. Returning to the RGNCOA, the benefits of relaxing or overturning these policies would extend beyond the direct areas previously mentioned. It would also help show students that they are respected, and help them take ownership of their experience. Photos of students in the middle of an exercise or discussion would help jog their memories years from now when the look back. Not being made to feel like children who aren’t trustworthy enough to have cell phones on their person might help them to feel more comfortable and respected within the classroom environment.
11. Allowing photography would help in another area as well. I’ve noticed that the recently created Facebook page for the Academy has definite room for improvement. With only 20 posts since June and 75 “likes,” this equates to roughly a post per week and less than a sixth of all the students who have passed through here in that time subscribed to the page, assuming there are more students than instructors who have liked the page. By allowing photography and practicing the “culture of engagement” taught at the Academy, you could crowd-source content for your social media page along with relevant informational updates and additional learning resources. This will ultimately bring success to your social media presence and encourage that lifelong learning this Academy is meant to promote. I have more ideas on how to improve the social media presence of this Academy, but that can be a conversation for another time.
12. This is not to say the rules do not have reasons. Cell phones are certainly a disruption in class, but this can be mitigated by having a rule to silence or turn off cell phones during class time, and not answer them in class even if you forget to turn them off. Cell phones and cameras could also be banned on testing days, similar to WAPS testing. Bottom line, there are ways to have the positive effects desired by the current policies without the staggering downsides.
13. In conclusion, I think serious thought should be given to the future of these policies, possibly resulting in their immediate termination or modification. It’s counterproductive to the goals of this organization, hurts students’ ability to pass on their learning, dismisses their maturity, and is a detriment to the Academy’s ability to engage past and future students. Please consider these arguments and help this Academy meet its original intent.
SAMUEL A. MORSE, TSgt, USAF
Student, RGNCOA
3