Have your say on the future of Canadian Military Colleges: Review Board launches consultations with Canadians online portal

[daftandbarmy]

May the odds be ever in your favour

Have your say on the future of Canadian Military Colleges: Review Board launches consultations with Canadians online portal​

July 08, 2024 - Defence Stories

The Canadian Military Colleges Review Board (CMCRB) online consultation portal is open and ready to receive input from Canadians regarding Canada’s two military colleges, as related to the mandate of the CMCRB. The Consulting with Canadians platform will be available until September 15, 2024 for submissions.

The CMCRB will review the benefits, costs and advantages to both the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the nation, of continuing to educate Regular Officer Training Plan (ROTP) naval/officer cadets at the Canadian Military Colleges (CMCs) – the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) in Kingston and Royal Military College Saint-Jean (RMC Saint-Jean) in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. It is focused on assessing the comparative quality of education, socialization and military leadership training at the CMCs.

“There are current and former CAF members, as well as Canadians in general, who wish to share with us their knowledge of and experience with the military colleges,” said Dr. Kathy Hogarth, CMCRB Chairperson. “The information we gather via Consulting with Canadians will augment the broad consultations we have conducted thus far with subject matter experts across a range of domains, both in Canada and abroad, and will inform our recommendations on the future of Canada’s military colleges.”

The CMCRB, which started work on a year-long mandate in January 2024, is employing a documented, evidence-based approach and consulting widely, both in Canada and abroad, including with current and former CAF members with lived experiences. They will make their recommendations pertaining to Recommendation 28 and Recommendation 29 of former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour’s Independent External Comprehensive Review (IECR) in 2025.

Their recommendations will position whether the military colleges should continue in their current form or in a different form as undergraduate degree-granting institutions, or whether officer candidates should attend civilian university instead. The Board is comprised of five external education and culture experts and two internal Department of National Defence (DND)/CAF members.

Have your say on the future of Canadian Military Colleges: Review Board launches consultations with Canadians online portal - Canada.ca

The Canadian Military Colleges Review Board online consultation portal is open until September 15, 2024 to receive input from Canadians on Canada’s two military colleges, as related to the mandate of the Board.

www.canada.ca

 

[stoker dave]

Has this been cross-posted to Reddit? I don't have an account over there. Some of the good folks who contribute to that conversation might want to add their two cents on the future of military colleges.

 

[dimsum]

I filled it out. Interestingly there isn’t a “CAF member who hasn’t been to the CMC” option - the closest for anyone who didn’t go there was “Canadian interested in military matters” or something to that effect.

 

[Good2Golf]

I filled it out. Interestingly there isn’t a “CAF member who hasn’t been to the CMC” option - the closest for anyone who didn’t go there was “Canadian interested in military matters” or something to that effect.

Was there an “ex-CAF member of an ex-CMC who is not interested” option to optionally opt out option?

 

[Blackadder1916]

• I am a current or former naval/officer cadet of one of Canada’s military colleges.

• I am a current or former CAF members with experience at one of Canada’s military colleges.

• I am a current or former DND employee with experience at one of Canada’s military colleges.

• I am a current or former academic or non-public fund employees of one of Canada’s military colleges.

• I am a Canadian with an interest in Canada’s military colleges.

They seem to be situating the estimate by primarily only seeking input from students, graduates and staff of the milcols. I would be interested in seeing how many of those would respond with comments that one of the important milestones in their life and career was one of the worst decisions that they had ever made. And even the questions that they posed presupposes that the milcols should remain and only need changes to eliminate the problems.

What are the benefits, costs and advantages of educating naval/officer cadets at Canada’s military colleges? So they only want comment about how good it is/was? By phrasing it as such, they suggest that there are no drawbacks, inefficiencies or disadvantages that are worth mentioning.

How is the quality of education, socialization and military training at Canada’s military colleges? The true measurements of those aspects shouldn't come from those who attended a milcol, but from superiors and, more importantly, subordinates. In the self-licking ice cream cone that is the awesomeness of the milcols, it is more likely that an officer's superiors were also similarly educated. To make a better comparison, an adjunct study of the same aspects should be made of those who got their education at a civilian institution.

How well does the current Cadet Wing structure work as a means of learning and developing leadership skills? Again it centres the milcol as the primary leadership development tool for beginning officers and does not seek analysis of other systems or recommendations of using a model that doesn't include the milcols.

What changes are needed to improve the culture at Canada’s military colleges, including current efforts to address sexual misconduct? Likewise

Additional general comments related to the Board's mandate. Oh, where do I start?

 

[FJAG]

I'm also in the process of filing it out and am quite surprised with the narrowness of the questions considering the breadth of their mandate.

Must agree. It feels a bit like a situating of the estimate which will result in some fine-tuning rather than an in depth analysis.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I filled it out out and stressed that, if we are going to keep the Milcols, making mistakes (and learning from them) while you are there is exactly the point.

To expect mature judgement out of an 18 year old first year cadet, away from home for the first time, is a bit much.

Correct, discipline and correct again. There is no other way.

 

[OldSolduer]

I filled it out out and stressed that, if we are going to keep the Milcols, making mistakes (and learning from them) while you are there is exactly the point.

To expect mature judgement out of an 18 year old first year cadet, away from home for the first time, is a bit much.

Correct, discipline and correct again. There is no other way.

THIS. IS. THE. WAY.

Seriously.

 

[daftandbarmy]

They seem to be situating the estimate by primarily only seeking input from students, graduates and staff of the milcols. I would be interested in seeing how many of those would respond with comments that one of the important milestones in their life and career was one of the worst decisions that they had ever made. And even the questions that they posed presupposes that the milcols should remain and only need changes to eliminate the problems.

What are the benefits, costs and advantages of educating naval/officer cadets at Canada’s military colleges? So they only want comment about how good it is/was? By phrasing it as such, they suggest that there are no drawbacks, inefficiencies or disadvantages that are worth mentioning.

How is the quality of education, socialization and military training at Canada’s military colleges? The true measurements of those aspects shouldn't come from those who attended a milcol, but from superiors and, more importantly, subordinates. In the self-licking ice cream cone that is the awesomeness of the milcols, it is more likely that an officer's superiors were also similarly educated. To make a better comparison, an adjunct study of the same aspects should be made of those who got their education at a civilian institution.

How well does the current Cadet Wing structure work as a means of learning and developing leadership skills? Again it centres the milcol as the primary leadership development tool for beginning officers and does not seek analysis of other systems or recommendations of using a model that doesn't include the milcols.

What changes are needed to improve the culture at Canada’s military colleges, including current efforts to address sexual misconduct? Likewise

Additional general comments related to the Board's mandate. Oh, where do I start?

Survey bias enters the chat... it's basically a 'self-licking ice cream cone' style survey, sadly:

The 7 types of sampling and response bias to avoid in customer surveys​

In a previous post on biased survey questions, we went through how bad survey questions (e.g. leading or double-barreled questions) can negatively impact your survey results. In this post, we’ll be diving into the other major cause of misleading survey data: survey bias.

First, let’s define bias as a whole: bias is defined as “an inclination of temperament or outlook.” The concept comes up frequently in sociology and psychology, because it’s associated with prejudice or favoritism. But how does bias show up in surveys?

Survey bias is a “systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.” That “encouragement” towards a specific outcome is what leads to survey bias, where you may only be getting one type of customer perspective.

The 7 types of sampling and response bias to avoid in customer surveys

Learn how to recognize and reduce the impact of the 7 major types of survey bias, so you don’t end up making business decisions based on inaccurate survey results.

delighted.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

Executive Summary: Doubling down ... report's release ironically coinciding with International Women's Day... nice

Report of the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board​

Executive Summary​

In her 2022 Independent External Comprehensive Review, which examined sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, The Honourable Louise Arbour raised concerns about a culture of misogyny and sexual misconduct in Canada’s two Military Colleges. She posited that sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces finds its origins, in part, in the culture of the Canadian Military Colleges and she questioned whether the situation at the Colleges was remediable.

Pursuant to Madame Arbour’s report, the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board was established to examine and make recommendations about whether the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston (RMC) and the Royal Military College Saint-Jean (RMC Saint-Jean) - collectively “the Colleges”, “the Military Colleges” or “the CMCs” - should continue to exist and, if so, to what extent and how they should be reformed.

The question of whether misogyny and sexual misconduct are so ingrained in the culture of the Military Colleges as to render them irremediable was a threshold issue for the Board. We therefore began our work with a multifaceted examination of the state of the CMCs. The Board undertook three visits to each of the Colleges, studied multiple information sources, reviewed input from approximately 400 Canadians from across the country and met in-person and virtually with several hundred stakeholders, including current and former Naval and Officer Cadets, military and academic leaders, professors and staff.

Through these extensive engagements, alongside a detailed analysis of a large quantity of qualitative and quantitative data which focused on systemic and structural issues, the Board was able to develop a rich picture regarding the history, evolution, design, dynamics, programs and living conditions of and at the CMCs. This yielded, in turn, a deep understanding of the state of culture and conduct at these institutions.

The Board is acutely aware that over the decades the Military Colleges have been the sites of deeply harmful and traumatizing experiences for some individuals, resulting from a range of harmful attitudes and behaviours. While the instances of such events are not prevalent, they continue to be present and to create harm. Moreover, despite the largely positive experiences of many who have attended the CMCs, we also know that there remain significant differences in the experiences and perceptions of women and men who are enrolled at the Colleges.

The Board acknowledges that robust policies, procedures and practices have been adopted at the Colleges to prevent sexual misconduct and to respond to it when it occurs. We believe that these top-down and grassroots efforts must continue to be pursued and given time to yield results.

However, in light of the time constraints of its mandate, as well as the fact that some of these mechanisms and tools have only been implemented recently, the Board was not able to fully assess their effectiveness. The Board has consequently recommended that, as has been done at several civilian universities, the Colleges be required to mandate and publish a comprehensive analysis of the impact and effectiveness of their policies, procedures and practices with respect to preventing sexual misconduct and supporting those who experience it.

We have also recommended that Health, Safety and Wellbeing Resource Centres be established at each College to help prevent and respond to all forms of harmful behaviour through a mix of education, intervention, response and advocacy. We have further recommended that the percentage of female Naval and Officer Cadets be increased from 25% (which was reached in 2024) to 33% by 2035, as a greater presence of women at the CMCs would have a positive impact on the culture of the Colleges and would be beneficial for the Canadian Armed Forces.

Finally, the Board has determined that a restructuring of the Cadet Chain of Responsibility (CCOR) is required to fully address issues of culture and conduct at the CMCs. This peer leadership model, which has for decades featured as a signature element of the Regular Officer Training Plan at the Military Colleges, was called into question by Madame Arbour, who recommended its elimination. The Board agrees with the concerns she raised but believes that key changes to the CCOR can mitigate harm and return value to the model. In particular, the CCOR should revert to its original purpose of providing practical opportunities for the Naval and Officer Cadets to acquire hands-on leadership experience, and any authority - real or perceived - for discipline over their peers should be removed from the Cadets.

In sum, the Board witnessed a profound commitment at all levels and within all constituencies at the Military Colleges to ensure that they are safe, healthy and respectful places in which each Naval and Officer Cadet is enabled to achieve their full potential. As such, we believe that although instances of misconduct continue to exist at the Colleges, significant progress has been made towards diminishing negative and unhealthy attitudes and behaviours, and we are confident that there is a collective determination to do more. It is this determination that has allowed the Board to conclude that Canada’s Military Colleges should remain degree-granting institutions, with a mandate to educate and train Naval and Officer Cadets to join the Profession of Arms and become officers in the Canadian Armed Forces.

However, this conclusion rests on another assumption: that there is, prima facie, inherent value in the Canadian Military Colleges. The Board did not take this for granted; we dedicated significant time and energy to identifying and evaluating the value proposition of the Colleges. The results of these efforts led us to conclude that the Military Colleges are indeed critical national institutions of significant import to Canada, that play a distinctive role in advancing the defence and security interests of our country. They are unique establishments that cannot be replicated by civilian universities or other military units within the Canadian Armed Forces. They should be sources of pride for Canadians and should reflect Canada’s ability to project national power. As currently organized and run, however, they have failed to demonstrate a distinct value proposition, to prove their value in relation to escalating costs or to assert their relevance vis-à-vis the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces or the country.

Through a process that included studying discrete thematic issues and undertaking comparative analyses (including an examination of the varied approaches to pre-commissioning military education in fifteen countries), we have concluded that while the current structural model of the Military Colleges remains the right fit for our country’s distinct needs and characteristics, major reforms are required vis-à-vis many aspects of the Colleges’ operations. To this end, in addition to our recommendations with respect to conduct, culture, health, wellbeing and peer leadership, we have also crafted a series of recommendations related to identity, governance, program design, and infrastructure, operations and support, all with a view to refocus, restructure, rebalance and rejuvenate the CMCs.

Report of the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board - Canada.ca

The Honourable Louise Arbour recommended that a Review Board be established to assess the benefits, disadvantages and costs – both to the Canadian Armed Forces and to Canada - of continuing to educate naval and officer cadets at the Military Colleges. This report is the culmination of their mandate.

www.canada.ca

 

[daftandbarmy]

misfire unload...

 

[Brad Sallows]

If the government wants out from under the heat of scandals at mil cols, just close them. They are bound to draw more attention than plain ordinary universities. Let the gender mix be driven by applicants who attend aforementioned institutions.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The Report is an interesting read.

It is alot more frank than I expected it to be and if implemented, could actually do some good.