Document created: 21 April 03
Air University Review, March-April 1976

For more than a century the armed services have struggled with the matter of voluntary, in-service educational opportunities for their personnel. Questions, philosophical positions, problems and even "solutions" concerning the issue, which may seem new, have cropped up since Civil War times.

Today, at a high point of educational opportunities for Air Force airmen and officers, it is important to take note of how and why the programs developed and what may happen in the future.

The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to determine the evolution of Air Force policies regarding voluntary education and their relationship to the goals of individual servicemen.

The Historical Perspective

Current Air Force policies and programs, which provide the opportunities for the serviceman to improve his education level, derive from a long history of efforts for, and against, the concept. Early records show that the first attempts to establish nonmilitary education in American armed forces were the Army post schools, but these were often based on compulsory off-duty attendance and generally aimed at giving black troops a rudimentary education.¹ It is not clear how well the program was received by the individuals or whether it would have worked on a purely voluntary basis.

But although the desire of the individual American serviceman to further his own education during the last century is difficult to document, the policies reflected in Congressional permissive legislation and armed forces implementation of laws to provide for voluntary educational opportunities can be traced back to an 1838 statute. That particular law allowed the administrative council at each Army post to hire a chaplain who would act as a schoolmaster.² During the Civil War the Union Army provided, in some instances, for the education of its black soldiers;³ but such activities all but ceased at the end of that conflict, and White says: "The Army and Navy Journal was considerably understating the situation when it commented in 1873 that 'our Army is not, as a whole, alive to the subject of education….’ " ⁴

Some efforts to establish an organized system of voluntary education in the Army began with a provision within the Army Reorganization Bill of 1866, sponsored by Representative James A. Garfield and supported by representative Robert C. Shenck, Chairman of the House Committee on Military Affairs (both men were former Civil War generals). The bill made possible the detailing of Army officers to colleges and universities and also the establishment of post schools for enlisted men. Instruction in the post schools, according to Garfield, was to concentrate on United States history in order to instill patriotism, but also for another purpose: ". . the more practical one of reducing crime and vice rates by eliminating idleness. . . . "⁵

In his history of the Army post schools, White goes on to note that ". . . during the next decade little notice was taken of the requirement. Army officers were either unaware of it or were ignoring it, despite supplementary orders by the War Department. . . . Ignorance of the measure was evident when Brigadier General F.O.C. Ord wrote to the Adjutant General in 1871, requesting authority to establish post schools…"⁶

As the provisions of the 1866 act became better known, a storm of controversy swirled around its implementation. To some extent this resulted from the fact that Congress never chose to vote for specific funding to carry out the concept. Thus commanders who did wish to put the program in practice usually were hampered from a lack of trained teachers, buildings, and even fuel to heat rooms set aside for on-post education. Just as serious, however, was the opposition of many officers, who listed myriad reasons for noncompliance.⁷ Even the Army and Navy Journal"... philosophized, although somewhat ungrammatically, that a soldier would take advantage of existing opportunities if he had a desire, but 'if he don't [sic] want to learn you can't compel him to by regulation. Like a horse, you may drive him to water, but you can't make him drink.’"⁸

A flurry of suggestions to solve the problem of the lack of well-trained, inspiring teachers was made in the late 1800s: use of officers and/or noncommissioned officers; sending interested soldiers to a normal school in Ohio; and the establishment of an army normal school. None of these ideas seemed to set well with the War Department, By the late 1800s the department had moved to a position in which it still officially sanctioned the idea of opportunities for servicemen to further their education, but the implementation was given over to civilian welfare and religious agencies.⁹

Why the department had turned away from a policy of service-run schools to some extent may be discerned from philosophical differences that developed concerning the relationship of education to the purposes of the armed forces. White presents the conflict in this way:

For the idealists, post schools were a fundamental step toward the army's destiny of becoming the educator of those who lacked a good civilian education . . .. Those who chose to leave the army after their last enlistment would be better citizens on their return, having learned true citizenship in the army . . . By the 1890's this view was on the wane. . . there were those who took a narrower and more practical view of the army’s mission. The army's duty was to defend the nation, not to educate or civilize it, and the home and community must bear the responsibility [for general education]…. Technological innovations and changes in the tactics of warfare, however, made it necessary that the enlisted man be better trained and more intelligent and self-reliant.¹⁰

The Army began to need more intelligent men, but the best way to achieve it, according to those who opposed nonmilitary education for servicemen, was to raise enlistment standards.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the War Department adopted what appears to be a compromise position between the opposing philosophies. As a result, even at the time of World War I, nonmilitary education was considered by the War Department as a matter of no direct concern to its function. Instead, since personal educational goals were taken to be a facet of welfare and morale, the problem was left to be resolved by volunteer civilian agencies. During World War I, however, the War Department, although it did not assume responsibility for education other than military training, did back efforts by the YMCA and other groups to provide off-duty education.¹¹ After the end of the war, though, the YMCA education officers were transferred into the Army Education Corps, and the War Department set up an education and recreation program, which continued on a very limited basis for about twenty years. A new initiative in the direction of off-duty education came with the Mobilization Regulations of 1939. The regulations provided for a committee of civilian and military experts on welfare that by 1941 became an advisory Joint Army-Navy Committee on Welfare and Recreation. The committee was instrumental in the establishment of educational programs for service personnel.¹² During the same year the "Morale Branch" of the Army was brought into existence, and it included an education section; by 1942 the name of the branch was changed to Special Services. Emphasis by Special Services during World War II was on correspondence instruction, although preparations were also made for ". . . a large-scale on-duty program after hostilities ceased."¹³

In 1945 the Information and Education Branch of Special Services, which was responsible for voluntary education programs, was separated from Special Services in the European Theater as an "I and E" Division, and the concept soon spread throughout the Army.¹⁴

By the time the Air Force became a separate service in 1947, voluntary in-service educational opportunities for personnel in the form of correspondence courses through United States Armed Forces Institute, the use of the G. I. Bill for off-duty study, and tuition assistance had become firmly accepted as ways to help the individual serviceman to improve himself educationally.

The assignment of voluntary education to "morale" functions during the early part of the twentieth century is indirect evidence that considerable numbers of service personnel tended to "vote with their feet" in regard to the issue. Morale as an area for voluntary education continued into World War II and grew in Topsy-like fashion.

During World War II, for example, Houle says:

A school established in Italy by a unit of the twelfth Air Force was one of the first comprehensive schools of its type in the Mediterranean theater. It originally offered some thirty-five courses. A few classes were taught by competent teachers without texts. In other classes USAFI textbooks were used. Observers testified to the interest shown by the students and the ability of their instructors.¹⁵

Documentation of the numbers of people who took part in the programs is difficult, since no reports of the activities were required.

The most comprehensive studies of the relationship of volunteer education programs to individual objectives and motivation came about very recently as a result of the decision to end the draft and go to all-volunteer services.

One of the first studies to note the relationship was conducted by Allan Fisher and Mari Harford and reported in 1973.The authors said, "the most frequently endorsed reason for enlistment was to learn a trade or skill valuable in civilian life." They added, however, that the second reason for enlistment receiving a majority endorsement was the opportunity for advanced education and training. Further, "…additional analysis indicated a higher percentage of Air Force enlistees endorsed this reason compared to enlistees in the other Services."¹⁶ These results led Fisher and Harford to say that the findings "…suggest that both draft-motivation and financial incentives should be evaluated in proper perspective, considering the complex of additional, more powerful reasons for enlistment."¹⁷

A later study reported by Fisher and Martha DiSario showed the strong incentive that in-service educational opportunities would have for young people to enlist in the armed services.

In November 1972, the single most frequently endorsed incentive to enlist in the Regular Force was a fully paid college education . . . . this incentive appeals to the 16-17 year old "target segment" of the youth population (including higher aptitude high school students) and shows no racial differences. In contrast, a $3,000 enlistment bonus was less frequently endorsed, was more popular among low-aptitude high school students, and had a higher appeal for non-whites than whites…¹⁸

In their study of incentives for the all-volunteer force, William Beusse and Andrew Dougherty compared monetary and nonmonetary inducements for service enlistments and said, "the inescapable conclusion is that compensation incentives have not lived up to expectations. However, there has still been very little attention paid to non-compensation incentives."¹⁹ The authors go on to review studies by Johnston and Bachmand which support the view that ". . . paid schooling would attract a higher percentage of young men than the alternative of higher pay."²⁰

Furthermore, the Beusse and Dougherty analysis of a 1973 DOD Personnel Survey presented convincing evidence that: (1) in-service voluntary educational programs have a positive effect on re-enlistment intent; and (2) education incentives to reenlistment can have a beneficial impact upon the quality of the force.²¹

In a separate study, Beusse found that even when general intelligence and time in service are controlled for in a relationship equation, the individual's level of education remains positively related to pay grade achieved. This provides indirect evidence that general education is related to career progression apart from the individual's mental ability and time in grade. ²²

Although the evidence is very indirect, the remark made in 1866 by James A. Garfield in proposing off-duty education as a way to reduce crime and vice rates by eliminating idleness comes to mind. Beusse and Dougherty brought up an interesting point in regard to the relationship of education level to disciplinary problems:

Lower disciplinary rates is another area of potential benefit to the service. Many studies have shown that disciplinary problems are inversely related to educational level. A recent compilation of Army court-martial data found that although only 14.3 percent of the total enlisted force had less than a high school education, the non-high school graduates comprised 65.1 per cent of the service-men brought up on court-martial charges.²³

In a study of the results of a 1973 DOD survey it was found that for Air Force personnel: (1) in-service educational opportunities can be the single most potent source of motivation for both officers and enlisted men to follow a service career; and (2) younger and lower-grade male officers of all races choose voluntary educational opportunities as the major reason to stay in service.²⁴ The most surprising result of the study, however, had to do with why in-service educational opportunities are a motivator.

Another finding of interest was that among participants in off-duty educations idealistic and personal motivation seem to take priority over pragmatic considerations. About two-thirds of these people who said they were taking part in the programs also said they were doing so to obtain a higher level of education or to improve their general education. Only about a third checked answers such as "to increase their knowledge for the current military job or a future civilian job," or "to increase chances for promotion."²⁵

Finally, the study indicated that educational level itself is related to a desire for further education; it is the younger, more highly educated officers and airmen who say that the opportunity to complete a degree while in service would serve as the most powerful motive to follow a military career.²⁶

At the very highest levels, the people who formulate policies that affect the voluntary educational programs in the armed forces continue to support the concept strongly. For example, in a memorandum dated 4 February 1975, Air Force Major General Oliver W. Lewis, who was then Director, Directorate of Personnel Programs, wrote: "The broad availability of on-base programs which provide truly feasible opportunities for our college graduate officers and airmen to pursue graduate level study is a major asset to the Air Force. These opportunities support the attractiveness of the Air Force in terms of both initial personnel procurement and career retention. Further, they provide the means for our people to develop advanced skills applicable to their career development and to their post-service life."²⁷

In a similar vein, General George S. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote on 31 October 1974: "Indeed, it is an exceptional feat of American imagination and ingenuity that our educational institutions have extended themselves to every corner of the world, affording the men and women of the Armed Forces the opportunity for higher education which complements and supplements his or her job."²⁸

Finally, Dr. James R. Schlesinger, then Secretary of Defense, writing his welcome to those attending the Sixth Worldwide Armed Forces Educational Conference held at the University of Maryland, said: "In this time of limited funding the one resource that continues to grow is the individual This growth is through education. That is why we consider our educational opportunities so very essential to maintain the All-Volunteer Force. You may rest assured that continuing to provide these opportunities is, and will remain, one of top priority."²⁹

According to Thomas Ford and Robert Quick, although the current education services voluntary off-duty program of the Air Force ranges"... from pre-high school and skill development through post-secondary academic and occupational opportunities leading to associate and baccalaureate degree, as well as a broad range of graduate study, . . . it is graduate study which has grown most rapidly in the last half decade.…Since the establishment of the USAF Personnel Plan, we have had the objective that graduate degree completion should be available to our people at all major bases. Early in 1974, this objective was revised and do more specific."³⁰

But will support for the concept of voluntary education opportunities in the armed forces continue? One disturbing event has occurred very recently that does not bode well for such programs. On budgetary grounds, the Office of Management and Budget proposed termination of the G. I. Bill. The Defense Department immediately raised objections: "Although the current G. I. Bill is very costly, we believe educational benefits are a major recruiting incentive, particularly for the higher quality individual."³¹

DOD has made a series of counterproposals, which include: (1) lower stipends; (2) restrictions on the use of the Bill by men in-service to undergraduate work and within "fields of utility" loosely related to the general purposes of the armed forces; and (3) an increase in the service-funded partial tuition assistance program for the personnel during the first three years of service when they would not be eligible for G.I benefits of the counterproposal.³²

The Air Force is most concerned with the effect that some of the proposals might have on graduate education. In a memorandum to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Taylor said:

…. we do not wish to see usage of the G. I. Bill by active duty personnel limited to undergraduate study. You may be under the impression that graduate level in-service G. I. Bill usage is negligible. However, during the first terms of the current academic/ fiscal year, over 10,000 Air Force officers and over 1100 enlisted personnel were participating in part time graduate work. Of these, 26% of the officers and 66% of the airmen were using G. I. Bill benefits. We have no objection to limiting post-service benefits to undergraduate programs.³³

Regardless of the way the current issue is resolved, it is apparent that pressures to reduce voluntary educational programs have begun.

For more than a century, the concept of voluntary military educational opportunities has gradually developed until now, within the Air Force, individuals can pursue their educational goals at all levels within loosely defined "fields of utility." Yet the view that education outside the scope of military training should be provided for service personnel was not easily accepted. After each war, as funds have been cut back, those within the military who opposed the idea have moved to reduce such programs. However, the idea not only refused to die but has come back and grown. Literally millions have raised their educational levels while serving in the military.

At the beginning of the century, the War Department came to support the efforts of voluntary agencies to provide off-duty educational opportunities. Acceptance of the idea resulted from categorizing them as "morale" programs. Then the Army discovered that it was unnecessary to "lead the horse to water." Finally, it was realized that educational improvement might be helpful not only to the individual but to the service as well.

The controversies surrounding the concept of voluntary educational opportunities for servicemen have concerned the notion of general education of the individual. As military occupations have become more complex, the relevance of nonmilitary education has become more difficult to assess. Thus policies have seemed to waver on the issue, and rising levels of ability and education have tended to increase the percentage of servicemen who wish to pursue further education while in the Air Force.

What will happen to education policies as a result of the current economic crunch? History indicates that service-funded educational opportunities will be reviewed, particularly those which allow individuals to choose programs nonrelevant to the military. The basic question, of course, is, What is relevant? Since educational goals and technical military needs are not always congruent, it might be useful to determine the relationship, if any, between education level, regardless of its military relevance, and the military as an institution within a democracy.

Another question that might be considered is the nature of the inverse relationship between disciplinary problems and education level. Whether the relationship is one of cause-effect is another matter that should be studied.

Why is it that a higher level of education is related to career progression regardless of intelligence level and time in grade? If an individual's effort at self-education is responsible for the relationship, it would challenge the principles regarding transfer of training proposed at the beginning of the century and accepted by psychologists and educators ever since.

Those who control the purse strings and those who make the policies should be kept aware of all the possible implications that arise from restrictions on service programs. Current Air Force policies, based on the idea that voluntary educational opportunities are an important facet of recruitment and career development, seem to be very sound. Programs based solely on those points, however, could become an easy target for budget curtailment, since recruitment and career continuation have almost ceased to be a problem. Failure to study the many aspects of the voluntary educational opportunities might well bring them to an end, which would be unfortunate for the Air Force and the other services.

1. Robert S. Bahney, "Generals and Negroes: Education of Negroes by the Union Army, 1861-1865," doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1965.

2. Bruce White, "ABC's for the American Enlisted Man: The Army Post School System, 1866-1898," History of Education Quarterly, Winter 1968, p. 479.

3. Bahney, op. cit.

4. White, p. 479.

5. Ibid., p. 480.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., pp. 481-83.

8. Ibid., p. 488.

9. Ibid., pp. 488, 490.

10. Ibid.,p. 491.

11. Cyril O. Houle, The Armed Services and Adult Education (Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1947), p. 14.

12. Ibid., pp. 14-15.

13. Ibid., p. 20.

14. Ibid., p. 27.

15. Ibid., p.103.

16. Allan H. Fisher, Jr., and Mari A. Harford, Trends in Enlistment Motivation: Results at AFEES survey of Enlisted Men from April 1971 to April 1972, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Report No. MA 73-1, Washington, September 1973, p. 15.

17. Ibid., pp. 3-4.

18. Allan H. Fisher, Jr., and Martha H. DiSario, Attitudes of Youth Toward Military Service in a Zero-Draft Environment: Results of a National Survey Conducted in November 1972, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Manpower Systems Evaluation Report MR 74-8, Washington, February 1974, p.6.

19. William E. Beusse and Andrew J. Dougherty, "Educational Incentives: The Critical Element to the Success of the All-Volunteer Force," Operations Research Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer 1974, p. 12.

20. Ibid., p.13.

21. Ibid.

22. William E. Beusse, In-Service and Post-Service Benefits of GED Program Participation, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Report MR 73-3, Washington, December 1972.

23. Beusse and Dougherty, p. 18.

24. Armand J. Galfo, "Art Analysis of the1973 Department at Defense Personal Survey Data Related to the Air Force Education Services Function," Directorate of Personnel, Education Services DPPE, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., 1974.

25. Ibid., p. 11.

26. Ibid.

27.Oliver W. Lewis, Major General, USAF, Director Personnel Programs, Memorandum to ALMAJCOM/DP on the subject "Graduate Study through the Air Force Education Services Program," 4 February 1975.

28.George S. Brown, General, USAF, in a letter to Stanley J. Drazels, Vice Chancellor of the University College, University of Maryland, 31 October 1974.

29. James R. Schlesinger in a letter to the Sixth Worldwide Armed Forces Educational Conference, 6 December 1974.

30. Robert W. Quick and Thomas S. Ford, "Graduate Study through the Air Force Education Services Program," Report of the Education Services (DPPE), the Pentagon, Washington, D. C., 4 February 1975.

31. William P. Clements, Jr., Deputy Secretary of Defense, in a memorandum to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, on the subject "Modification of G. I. Bill," 6 March 1975.

32. Ibid.

33. David P. Taylor Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, in a memorandum to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs on the subject "Modification of G. I. Bill," 5 March 1975.

Dr. Armand J. Galfo (Ed.D., University of Buffalo) is Professor of Educational Research, College of William and Mary. He holds the rank of Colonel, USAF Reserve, his current reserve assignment being with Education Services Division, Headquarters USAF. He also serves as a consultant and researcher with the strategic research group at the National War College. Dr. Galfo is the author of a widely used textbook, Interpreting Educational Research, and numerous journal articles.

Disclaimer

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor