Author(s)McDonald, Ralph E.
Contributor(s)AIR UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL
KeywordsAdministration and Management
Government and Political Science
Humanities and History
Personnel Management and Labor Relations
Military Operations, Strategy and Tactics
AIR FORCE TRAINING
JOINT MILITARY ACTIVITIES
AIR FORCE PLANNING
AIR FORCE OPERATIONS
LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT.
*SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES
SOF(SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES)
JOINT SPECIAL OPERATIONS DOCTRINE
AIR FORCE SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
Full recordShow full item record
AbstractCohesion is not something that just happens or can left alone once it is developed. Cohesion must be continually nurtured. The questions is-has special operations forces (SOF), particulary the air component, developed the cohesiveness required to meet the short notice contingencies likely to confront the US in current and future political situations? Further, are the mechanisms in place to continuously improve cohesion in this period of shrinking resources and joint tasking? SOF has been and will continue to be used throughout the world on short notice contingencies in flexible joint packages to minimize national risk and maximize strategic advantage. This report will explore what cohesion is and how it can be nurtured. Chapter 1 begins with definitions of four types of cohesion that are important to the military. Chapter 2 examines how doctrine, education, and training are used as the building blocks of cohesion. Current joint special operations doctrine has stressed the importance of small, highly trained, joint-tailored units. Education ensures that doctrine is 'growing and evolving. Chapter 3 begins by examining the idea of war games, finding it to have many different conotations. This report distinguishes war games from simulations and exercises. Chapter 4 presents recommendations which are reasonably achievable and will increase cohesion with SOF.
Copyright/LicenseApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
The Middle School Principal and Special Education: Are Principals Prepared to Support Special Education Teachers in Leading their Students in Achieving Ayp?Jones, Paula Kaye (DigiNole Commons, 2006-09-15)The purpose of the study was to investigate the differences in the type and amount of principal administrative support offered to special education teachers in middle schools achieving Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and middle schools not achieving Adequate Yearly Progress for students with disabilities. Principal and special education teacher perceptions of principal administrative support were investigated and compared. The extent of preparation/prior knowledge in special education (university preparation, inservice training, prior experience in special education and exposure to persons with disabilities) and principals’ perceptions of preparation were also analyzed. Furthermore, the special education support provided by the district level to principals, teachers and students with disabilities, were examined (Figure 1.1). A Review of Literature was conducted to determine needs of study in the area of educational leadership in special education, and to formulate the research questions. Key issues arising from the review were: Principals are finding it difficult to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress with students with disabilities and face “Corrective Action” for lack of achievement over time; Principals receive very little preparation/training for leadership in special education in Educational Leadership graduate studies; and lack of administrative support for special education teachers is linked to increased teacher attrition and related factors. The Twelve Domains of Administrative Support were established and provided structure for investigating the type and amount of administrative support given by middle school principals. The study included three instruments used to investigate the research questions. First, the Administrative Support of Special Education Teachers (ASSET) (Appendix A) was constructed and administered to 180 principals to measure their perceptions of the principal administrative support given to their special education teachers. The ASSET also questioned principals on their preparation/prior knowledge/experiences in special education, and their perceptions on the usefulness of such methods to their leadership of special education. Second, the Perception of Administrative Support of Special Education Teachers (PASSET) (Appendix B) was developed and administered to 360 special education teachers to measure their perceptions of the principal administrative support given to them by their principal. Third, the Interview of District Administrative Support (IDAS) questionnaire (Appendix C) was created and administered to 10 Special Education (SE) directors, in districts showing greater success in achieving AYP for middle school students with disabilities, to gain a deeper understanding of what special education preparation/training/support school districts were providing principals. Results of the ASSET revealed the majority of principals had no educational background in special education including special education teaching experience and certification. A majority (53.1%) of the responding principals had taken at least one college level special education course, but the majority (55.3%) indicated no special education courses being required in their administrative coursework. Descriptive statistics indicated that the two methods ranked highest as being “critical to leadership in special education” or “very useful” by the principals were District Professional Development and Special Education District Support, both relating to district level support. Colleagues were also considered important methods of special education information as 67% ranked this as “critical” or “very useful.” Interviews, with special education directors from districts having greater success in achieving AYP, indicated that special education support given to principals from the district included heavy support in curriculum and instruction, as well as legal support. Districts perceived people and material resources at the school sites as very important in supporting the middle school principals. On the other hand, principals did not consider University Coursework to be as useful, as it was reported as “critical” or “very useful” by only 27.1% of principals. Principals were asked questions related to their perceptions of college level preparation for administration. A little over 75% of principals felt university administrative coursework had prepared them “very little” or “not at all” for leadership over special education. However, 90.1% of principals reported “somewhat” or “much more” special education training should be included in administrative coursework; and 70.6% of principals responded that college level training in special education would benefit administrators in leading students with disabilities in making AYP “somewhat” or “extremely.” Survey responses indicated that the majority of university preparation focused on legal issues in special education. The Twelve Domains of Administrative Support (Figure 3.1) was established through an extensive review of literature. Descriptive statistics were used to describe and compare principal and special education teacher perceptions of principal administrative support given to special education teachers. Results of data indicated that principals perceived themselves providing support to special education teachers much more frequently than special education teachers perceived receiving support, in all twelve domains. However, when considering school status (whether or not participants were from schools achieving AYP for students with disabilities), no statistically significant difference existed in perceptions of principal administrative support. Further ANOVA testing was conducted to investigate whether or not perceptions of administrative support changed with the level of principal experience. Results indicated no statistically significant difference, in perceptions of principal administrative support, between principals with experience in special education and those without except in one domain. In the domain of Special Education Teacher Empowerment, principals with no special education experience rated themselves as providing greater support than principals with special education experience. Conclusions drawn from the study were formulated and presented. Recommendations based on conclusions were established for universities, districts, and principals. Recommendations for further research were also presented.
Strategy for the Long Haul. Special Operations Forces: Future Challenges and OpportunitiesCENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS WASHINGTON DC; Martinage, Robert (2008)Special Operations Forces (SOF) are elite, highly trained military units that conduct operations that typically exceed the capabilities of conventional forces. They have figured prominently in US military operations since 2001 and have become central to the implementation of US national defense strategy with respect to the war against violent Islamic radicalism. During the unconventional war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom, SOF played a pivotal role by integrating US precision air power with the operations of irregular Afghan opposition forces to achieve rapid regime change and eliminate al Qaeda's primary sanctuary. Since the fall of the Taliban, SOF have played a critical role in training and advising elements of the Afghan National Army, providing personal security for senior Afghan officials, and capturing or killing scores of senior Taliban and al Qaeda leaders and lower-level operatives. They are also currently conducting operations along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and training elements of Pakistan's Special Service Group. In the early phases of the war with Iraq, SOF again played a central role in a special-operations-intensive campaign, providing the primary ground force element on two of three fronts, and performing a number of special reconnaissance, direct action, and unconventional warfare missions in support of the conventional campaign. Over the past five years, they have been instrumental in training and advising Iraqi security forces, as well as in hunting down high-value al-Qaeda targets in Iraq. In the broader war against violent Islamic radicalism, to the extent their constrained capacity allows, SOF are building partner capacity, collecting intelligence, hunting high-value targets, and conducting other counterterrorism operations in multiple countries across several continents. The operations tempo currently being sustained by SOF is the highest in its history.
Support to Special OperationsNORTH CAROLINA UNIV AT CHAPEL HILL; Rogers, Thomas J (2011-05-01)Today's Special Operations Forces are the best trained, educated, and equipped Soldiers in the world. The technological advances provided for their operations are unmatched. Since the 9/11 attacks, the mission and deployment of Special Operations Forces has doubled in frequency and location. To meet these demands, the size of all Special Operations Forces is growing to meet their global commitments. The growth of operators has out-distanced the Special Operations support structure by over 75 percent. The DoD assignment and tracking process has failed to monitor, grow, and develop the support personnel necessary to keep pace with Special Operations. Logistics Soldiers are assigned with limited training and usually for one tour of duty, creating a lack of continuity and consistency of support provided. To eliminate the discovery learning and relearning for support to Special Operations, a program must be developed that provides a career path to track, educate, train, and assign support Soldiers to Special Operations in a structured format. Working with Special Operations Command, subordinate units, DoD, and HRC, a program of assignment and career management must be developed to keep pace with the future growth of Special Operations.