Q&A: Colonel (Ret.) Billy Wells
Written by Mark Fitzgerald
MAE 2010 Volume: 5 Issue: 7 (September)
Colonel (Ret.) Billy Wells
Liaison
Advisory Council on Military Education
Colonel (Retired) Billy E. Wells Jr. is a 30 year Army veteran currently serving as the vice president for executive affairs at North Georgia College and State University, the Military College of Georgia—one of six federally designated senior military colleges in the nation. Prior to transitioning into a career in higher education, he served in a wide range of infantry and training assignments around the globe. He is a graduate of Mississippi State University and holds an M.Ed. from Louisiana State University.
Wells began his civilian career at North Georgia in 2005 and is responsible for strategic plans and policy as well as government relations. He has served on numerous committees and planning groups including the Regents’ Advisory Committee on Military Education and the Chancellor’s Task Force on Veterans’ Affairs. He is currently serving as president of the Organization for Military Education in Georgia, the DoD recognized Advisory Council on Military Education for the state. Wells also serves as the national ACME representative to the Council of College and Military Educators, the national organization focused on advancing educational opportunities for servicemembers and their families.
Wells was interviewed by MAE Editor Mark Fitzgerald.
Q: To begin, can you please provide an overview of the Advisory Councils on Military Education’s history, capacity and current focus?
A: Advisory Councils on Military Education, or ACMEs, began back in the 1970s in California, the state with the largest military population. Originally organized as the California Community Colleges and Military Educators Association, it eventually evolved into the Council of College and Military Educators [CCME] an organization that now has a national mission. Several other states independently joined the effort. One of the most significant was Texas, which established the Council on Military Education in Texas, which eventually expanded into a regional role and became Council of Military Educators in Texas and the south. A number of other states with large military populations also established ACMEs which have operated pretty much continuously for several decades; Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maine are among them. Today, ACME organizations include 14 states in either a state or regional configuration with developing programs in another three.
Q: As an ACME liaison, what are your primary roles and responsibilities?
A: My primary role is to integrate the ACMEs and their professional development and other requirements into the planning of the Council of College and Military Educators. One of the main responsibilities is to coordinate the ACME meetings into the schedule for the annual symposium. While ACMEs usually hold at least one major meeting in their home state each year, they typically conduct another during CCME and also during DoD Worldwide on the years it is scheduled. ACME meetings during CCME are generally smaller than the meetings in their home states due to constraints on travel funds for many participants. However, these meetings serve a very useful purpose since potential members can hear about current and projected ACME activities and meet the ACME leadership.
The conference also facilitates more extensive dialogue with a wider variety of DoD and service representatives than is generally possible in a state meeting. Over the last two years, both at DoD Worldwide and at the CCME Symposium in Nashville, we have conducted a collective meeting of ACME leadership teams to discuss the way ahead. These discussions have included the senior leadership of CCME and DoD. As a result, all the leadership teams have much greater visibility of some innovative initiatives under way in other states. These meetings also help to highlight national level issues affecting servicemembers’ access to affordable and responsive higher education opportunities.
Currently we are engaged in a major effort to expand this networking of ACMEs through the CCME Website. Our intent is to shift the responsibility for hosting the site from DANTES to CCME, the recognized professional development home of the ACMEs. With this shift comes an expansion in capability for continuous networking throughout the year.
This is essential for a host of reasons. While engagement of the ACMEs at the CCME symposium is critical, a once a year exchange of important information and discussion of issues is insufficient if ACMEs are to be effective advocates. To help meet this need for continuous dialogue, sharing of information and the coordination of collective advocacy, CCME is dedicating a section of their site to ACMEs. The same basic information currently provided by DANTES will be posted, but in addition there will be places to post information on state initiatives, and also a location for cross-talk among the various ACMEs and other key leaders in voluntary education. CCME is also working on a virtual conference that will help shape the ACME agenda for the CCME Symposium. All of these changes highlight the transition of ACMEs into the national organization.
Q: What are some of the recurring concerns and problems that are brought before the Council?
A: There are a wide range of issues that need to be addressed in support of voluntary education. The issue I hear most often concerns credit transfers and credit for military education and experience. In many cases this is a three, or more, way struggle involving the American Council on Education [ACE], regional accrediting authorities and the institutions that accept servicemembers into their degree programs. The servicemember is generally caught in the middle and relatively powerless to influence the outcome.
ACE does an excellent job of documenting credit recommendations for military schools and experiences. However, these recommendations are not always accepted for a variety of reasons. In some cases these reasons are sound. In others they are not. Most universities will not accept credit for courses that do not fit into the plan of study for the student’s declared degree. This is reasonable. On the other hand, many ACE recommendations which would fit are frequently not accepted. Justification varies, but the most often heard reason is that the acceptance might jeopardize accreditation status or that the course in question does not measure up to the institution’s equivalent offering.
This issue needs a policy or legislative fix; policy is the preferred solution. Action is needed by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation along with the six regional accreditors and ACE to clarify acceptance standards and to establish a more uniform policy. It is interesting to note that the federal government entered the accreditation field in 1952 following an increase in institutions seeking to take advantage of the authorization of the GI Bill for Korean War veterans. The intent was to insure that the federal government was paying for quality educational opportunities for veterans. Lack of acceptance of military credit, where applicable, puts the government in the position of paying for the same education twice. With today’s deficits, this is not a good plan.
Q: How important is it to maintain communication between the military, university educators and state and government agencies?
A: Collaborative communications are essential for a lot of reasons. First, without continuous engagement, sound programmatic changes by service providers are delayed. Additionally, issues that impact the ability of servicemembers to access educational opportunities can go unaddressed or viable solutions can be significantly delayed. In some cases, a few days difference in visibility of a problem can mean a year’s delay in delivering a policy or legislative remedy. Constant communications among the various constituencies is critical to the effort. ACMEs were specifically formed to address this need.
Q: How different or similar are the educational needs of the various branches of the armed services?
A: Obviously there is a great deal of overlap in requirements for most of the services, such as the need for access to a general studies degree and for selected common inter-service specialties such as military law enforcement and access to criminal justice degree programs. Beyond the common specialties, I would say that the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard have more of a technical focus in terms of courses and programs. The Army and Marine Corps also have post-secondary requirements in technical fields, but the nature of their missions on the ground certainly argues for building expertise through higher education in the humanities and the social sciences, particularly critical languages and area studies.
The common similarity for all is access and flexibility. For the last several years, over half the tuition assistance dollars spent by the services was for distance education. The reason is obvious. The men and women of today’s armed forces live in a chaotic time. With limited dwell time back at home station, their ability to do course work needs to be as mobile and flexible as their current life style. Institutions that step up to this challenge with quality programs will be rewarded for their efforts.
Q: Have the ACME conferences served as a strong forum for new ideas and information?
A: Absolutely. State conferences provide the critical face to face information sharing that still cannot be completely replicated through virtual means. A five minute sidebar conversation can sometimes transmit more information than three days worth of email exchanges. Most ACMEs only host one conference a year. In order for it to have maximum effect, it must be carefully planned with regard to the participants, the agenda (which should be of significant interest and use to the membership) and the timing.
It is critical to gather the key leadership together from all the various organizations concerned with military education in the state. This includes not just providers and ESOs, but the political leadership as well. Within the various states with ACMEs, there is an annual cycle of legislative and policy making activity. Many state councils schedule their meetings in order to reach out to policy makers in advance of legislative sessions in order to be active participants in the process. They must be able to keep their fingers on the pulse of current actions related to voluntary education in their state, and they must be able to engage policy makers at critical points if they are to influence policy and legislation.
If ACMEs are not connected to the political structure of the state, then they will probably not be able to influence change in support of military education. ACME senior leadership should know who to reach out to in the governor’s office, the state legislature, and the various departments and agencies of the state government to promulgate military friendly legislation and policy. While they generally won’t be able to get all the members of the veterans affairs or higher education committees to their conference, they should be able to get a few for at least a brief period of time. Beyond that, the ACME leadership should seek them out through office calls or briefings to their committees when they are in session, or, better yet, in pre-session activities before legislation is developed.
Q: What do you think are some of the biggest issues facing higher education?
A: Frankly, there are many. If I had to choose the most challenging, it would be adapting to a changing environment. Change is the nature of things and higher education is no exception. Failure of higher education to adapt to new demands has serious implications across all segments of our society. People are more mobile not just physically, but in their chosen careers as well, and the military is a microcosm of society as a whole in this regard. Constantly changing locations and jobs, unable to attend traditional classes in the regular university environment, yet needing what higher education can provide in order to be successful, the military is a model of the larger national issue of how higher education supports work force development. If higher education does not adapt to this need, then our wellbeing as a nation is at risk. I often tell my colleagues that whatever time and resources we invest in supporting the flexible requirements of military education has a direct and positive impact on work force development for the state as a whole. The needs are essentially the same.
The culture of the academy in most higher education institutions is founded in medieval tradition. In some ways this is good, as it wards off expedient change based upon politics or fads. At the same time, it can slow adoption of needed adjustments in pedagogy and policy. Fortunately external competition forces change, acting as a healthy incentive to spur adaptation. Institutions that do not adapt their plans and policies to reflect new realities can expect to be left behind. The wide range of service providers involved in voluntary education is helping to change the higher education landscape for all through competition. At one end of the spectrum are the for-profit institutions which must rapidly adapt to ensure their own survival. At the other are the public colleges and universities which rely in part on the state tax base for funding. I believe the competition for students and resources along this continuum will facilitate positive changes in how we provide access to higher education in the future.
Q: What trends are you seeing now in military education?
A: I think I already mentioned the significant trend toward online and distance education. Providers who can deliver flexible, anytimeanywhere programs of good quality will be increasingly successful and will serve as change agents for the rest of higher education. In undergraduate pre-commissioning education, there is also a shift from the technical fields to a more liberal arts focus that sets the stage for the development of adaptive leaders. Also, as the undergraduate degree replaces the high school diploma as the baseline expectation in much of the work force, the demand for graduate programs will grow. This has already occurred in the officer corps and I suspect the same trend applies to the NCO corps.
The other very interesting trend I have observed relates to the significant push for regional accreditation of military service schools, colleges and universities. A few decades ago this was not the case. This trend has occurred for a variety of reasons. First, the services clearly recognize the need to provide credentialing opportunities for their leaders. Some of their best and brightest operate at such an intense pace during troop assignments that voluntary education is not a viable option for them. The solution is either fully funded full-time attendance at a civilian institution or the accreditation of a service school to provide academic credentials. In many cases, hybrid partnerships between civilian institutions and service schools have been created to provide degree opportunities. Second, accreditation recognizes the high quality of the programs in our military institutions. Finally, I believe this trend is also a reaction in part to quality issues with some providers, to the credit transfer or “portability” of academic work between civilian academic institutions, and to difficulties of acceptance of military experience and education for academic credit in degree plans at many civilian institutions.
This trend covers the entire spectrum of post-secondary education from technical credentials through graduate work. The latest example of this trend is the College of the American Soldier Career NCO Degrees Program and the vision of the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy as an accredited master’s degree granting institution in three to five years. The implications for voluntary education are significant. Partnerships with military institutions will take on a more significant role and acceptance of academic credit from military institutions into plans of study will become more prevalent.
Q: How has your background and education informed your choices and activities in your current position?
A: My graduate and undergraduate degrees are both in education. My military background as an infantry officer revolved around troop assignments in a wide variety of infantry units with different training challenges and my staff assignments have been in the operations, plans and training areas. When I retired after 30 years of service, I was afforded the opportunity to become a staff member at North Georgia College & State University, the Military College of Georgia. This provided me an opportunity to use both my civilian education and military experience to help enhance the impact of undergraduate education for future officers. Since that time, five years have passed, and we have made significant strides as an institution.
The collaborative and innovative work of faculty and staff along with the support of the senior leadership of the university has created an undergraduate experience of tremendous benefit to our signature program, the Corps of Cadets. Since about two-thirds of the cadets are also reservists, this educational foundation has a value added. New programs in international affairs, strategic languages and study abroad have all helped prepare cadets as well as their civilian peers for the future.
One of my most significant opportunities came with the decision by University System of Georgia Chancellor Errol Davis to fully engage the system and its 35 institutions in supporting military education. The military education initiative resulted in the formation of the Organization for Military Education in Georgia, which serves as the state’s ACME. It also resulted in a significant increase in Servicemembers’ Opportunity Colleges in the state and the creation of a number of programs targeted at the military and other working adults in the Georgia work force. As an ACME president, I was subsequently selected by my peers to serve as liaison to the CCME board. This has been a tremendous experience. I have watched this dedicated group of volunteer professionals work tirelessly to not only prepare an outstanding conference every year, but also to engage all the state organizations in their efforts to serve as an advocate for voluntary education.
Q: How much do you think education factors into preparing servicemembers for the workplace?
A: In today’s workplace a solid and current education is a necessity. I say current because advances in knowledge associated with every academic field is accelerating. In order to stay current and competitive for jobs and promotion, servicemembers must adopt the idea of becoming a lifelong learner. In order to do that they must have the flexible opportunities offered by voluntary education.
Q: What advice can you offer to servicemembers who are transitioning to civilian life?
A: Think early about what your lifetime goals are and when you expect to transition to civilian life. Plan ahead and get the education you can while still on active duty if possible. For career servicemembers, the trend toward accreditation of service schools will help in this effort. If given the opportunity to gain a degree in combination with a service school attendance, take it if the degree fits your goals. Yes, it will be additional work, but the effort will be worth the additional time invested. Depending on your goals, plan to locate to a region where you can gain employment and have access to further education if you need it. Advances in distance education are making local access less of an issue, but in some fields there is still a bias against it, so more options are better. Remember that today’s baccalaureate is slowly becoming the equivalent of yesterday’s high school diploma. If you need employment, and you probably will, you had better start working on that at least a year out. All of the services have transition assistance programs. Use them, and use them early. A long range plan is critical, especially if you have family responsibilities.
Finally, make sure you have a firm grasp on the educational benefits available to you and to your family. This generally requires a discussion with a financial aid counselor who understands the various versions of the GI Bill. When you entered the service, your component, and whether you have already used some benefits can all enter into your decision-making process. Also, don’t neglect the services offered to you by your local education center before you transition. Even if you have not been able to participate in voluntary education, they can provide some critical information and advice as you prepare your transition plan. State level benefits vary, so if you plan to relocate to another state, make sure to do your homework on these opportunities well in advance. Also, make certain that you are familiar with the timelines associated with admission and financial aid. I have seen a number of people who unwittingly lost a semester of work because they were unaware of important deadlines and the time required to compile and submit an application.
Q: What kinds of impacts are you seeing from the new GI Bill?
A: I think the bottom line here is that enrollments are up significantly. The new bill is very generous and servicemembers and veterans are using it in increasing numbers. While there have been some glitches in fielding the new entitlement, those are rapidly being sorted out. Features such as the Yellow Ribbon Program are opening up opportunities at institutions that would not have been options several years ago. There are still a few adjustments that are needed, a monthly housing stipend for online learners being one, but overall the new GI Bill provides a wonderful opportunity for veterans.
Q: What kinds of advocacy and support programs have you been most encouraged by over the years?
A: I guess I would categorize these into national, state, and local or institutional efforts. At the national level, there are many organizations that support the military in a general way through efforts to influence policy and legislation. These include service specific organizations like AUSA and the long standing veterans’ organizations like the American Legion, the VFW and the Military Officers’ Association of America to name a few.
At the national level, the two most important non-government organizations that advocate specifically for voluntary education are CCME and the National Association of Institutions for Military Education Services [NAIMES]. Both have been active participants in policy development. CCME has different types of memberships, while NAIMES offers membership to institutions who have large commitments to military education. As a home for the ACMEs, I think CCME advocacy can be expected to increase significantly in the future, as ACMEs bring their influence with their state and national representatives into play. The American Association of State Colleges and Universities [AASCU], through Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges, also plays a significant advocacy role, expanding opportunities through their workshops and briefings. Of course the linkages and exchange of information with DoD, DANTES and the services remain critical. Their advice and support help guide the overall effort.
At the state and local levels, the ACMEs remain the main advocate for voluntary education in most cases. Their efforts are increasingly augmented at the grass roots level by the establishment of veterans’ success centers on campuses across the nation and the creation of special programs at the state level such as the Troops to College initiative in California. There are also a number of new veterans groups on campus like Student Veterans of America that provide support to vets who have transitioned to the college environment. Collectively, these efforts are making a huge difference.
Q: Distance learning and online education has come a long way in the past decade. Do you see this as a win-win for both students and faculty?
A: I do, with some caveats. Alternative delivery means are essential to meet work force education needs including the military. They provide opportunity where the nature of work schedules or geographic location limit access to traditional means. With the accelerated pace of technological innovation, we can expect this and other technology based delivery methods to increase.
This also provides a great opportunity for faculty who are willing to take on the challenge of on line delivery, especially of asynchronous courses. For faculty, it can also provide some additional income during these difficult economic times. Faculty members are increasingly accepting of this approach. The University System of Georgia, as an example, has produced a complete online core curriculum [eCore] which is taught by professors across all 35 institutions. This same collaborative approach across institutions has resulted in the Georgia ONmyLINE program, which provides fully and partially online degree programs for working adults. North Carolina has a similar initiative. Even for traditional institutions, online delivery used in conjunction with regular in the seat classes as a hybrid approach can free up classroom space and increase facility capacity without adding brick and mortar facilities. Since location of the professor is not an issue, it also makes a worldwide talent pool available to even the most remote universities, though time zones can present an issue.
There are a few pitfalls to this good news story. One is quality assurance. Online is not a venue for the taped lecture and it certainly should not be used as a replacement for survey classes with large numbers of students in a single section. Smaller classes and more thorough preparation are essential to effective online instruction. The other caution involves faculty taking on too many sections of online courses. Since professors can easily moonlight as adjunct faculty for other institutions, this can be a real issue that impacts quality of both the online classes and their traditional faculty load. We interviewed a prospective faculty member for our online international affairs degree several years ago. Our policy is that all faculty members must reveal any external academic employment. The prospect was carrying five or six online classes with a major provider and insisted that this would not impact his work. Needless to say he did not get the position. All this having been said, an increase in alternative delivery of courses and programs is not only necessary it is inevitable.
Q: What are some of the biggest lessons you’ve learned during your career?
A: Education pays off, and not just for the individual. I never lost any capability by keeping a soldier in the unit when he had an opportunity to attend school whether that was a post school, a career course or a civilian college class. I always got back a better member of the unit who was even more devoted to the organization that took the time to help advance his education, and in most cases he brought an enhanced skill set to the mission.
The second greatest lesson I learned is that mission accomplishment requires effective teamwork and collaboration among leaders. The authoritarian top down approach can be effective in some situations and in fact essential in certain circumstances. However, effective information sharing and cooperation among leaders at various levels, laterally in the organization with peers, and even externally with leaders of other related organizations can and will have the greatest positive impact. The more senior the leadership, the more important this is to unity of effort. This, in essence, is what ACMEs are supposed to do; network and collaborate with all parties involved in the military education effort in order to provide the best possible higher education opportunities to the servicemembers in their states.
Q: Any closing thoughts?
A: Yes, there are many gaps out there in the state level effort to support military education. Of the top 10 states with military populations, several do not have organizations devoted to advancing voluntary military education. Beyond the top 10, there is another layer of states with a significant military presence with no advocacy group. I think that in the coming months you will see some significant outreach to these states by CCME and the established ACMEs to get these states engaged in the effort. ♦