I've been thinking a lot about this topic, and trying to put my brain power behind how to fix it. Whatever we are doing, isn't working. But here are a couple of things I think:

1. The best way to learn is the traditional way. In person, required reading, consequences for not grasping the subject matter.

2. On the Job training is central to the proper application of the rules and concepts that are taught in the traditional manner. It has to be prioritized inside each contracting shop.

Is it just that simple?

8 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

The best way to learn is the traditional way. In person, required reading, consequences for not grasping the subject matter.

I agree with this part: "In person, required reading..."

Add: and discussion among other readers of the same material.

Delete the part about "consequences for not grasping the subject matter". That's too high school.

8 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

The best way to learn is the traditional way

I think there is a missing link. The tradition of experiential learning where CO's/1102's actually got up from behind the desk and visited job sites of all kinds to see and understand their contracts and the relationships they did or did not form.

I know people want "maximum flexibilities" in all things work, but I am 100% on board with required in-person training. Gone are the days where after class we would get together and discuss homework. This usually led to further discussions and was fascinating to learn how offices work differently, even though we all have the same guiding laws and principles (for the most part). It forged relationships across Agencies and departments. Think of how many people still talk about a Vern Edwards led FAR Bootcamp course and how it set them up for success because of the way he challenged his students to grasp the basics. Now it's just crickets or the same two people answering everything because they just want the instructor to move the class forward since nobody else is talking. That's not meant to be a shot at DAU professors, but instead at where we are as a learning community.

We don't have leaders though who are willing to force a return to in-person training because of the costs. Instead we would rather waste money on new desks and chairs for the second time in five years.

In person training is already required depending where you're at. 10 weeks of classes in some cases.

In person training can't make up for poor processes (regulatory or artificial/institutional.) and you can only blame the individual rather than the system for so long ,especially when the quality of personnel will only likely decrease as the trend of anti-curiosity continues.

Sending instructors to the students, in locations where most of attending students would not require travel expenses, would be a superior option to distance training, in my opinion.

True, when students are homogeneous, there wouldn’t be the same amount of interaction and cross-talk between students from different organizations or localities.

However, the in-class interactions and synergies are much more effective for both instructors and those students who are serious about the training topics than isolated, on-line learning, with all of the distractions and reduced student accountability.

There should still be some opportunities made available for some students from out of town or different local organizations in Urban areas to fill the classes.

But travel costs could be greatly reduced and still provide the advantages of in-person, face to face training.

Of course, I’m a dinosaur who doesn’t believe that teleworking or “telelearning” improves organizational efficiency or promotes high performance.

---

After I retired, I was a rehired annuitant for a decade, mostly working from home, on a highly important National and International Army program I had been on when I retired. I didn’t have a mandated, regular work schedule. I was only paid for the actual hours worked.

I had to submit time sheets bi-weekly. Being conscientious, I kept detailed daily notes of those hours worked and what I worked on for my timesheets. I didn’t charge for breaks, distractions, other activities, etc. But I made myself available with in my waking hours to Corps of Engineers offices/persons across many time zones. Those are advantages of not having a prescribed telework schedule for an honest, experienced employee.

However, I could easily have falsified my timesheets, if I had been on a mandated work schedule. There are many distractions to a work life from home.

I also missed the synergies of in-person, face-to-face human contact.

9 minutes ago, Self Employed said:

In person training can't make up for poor processes (regulatory or artificial/institutional.) and you can only blame the individual rather than the system for so long ,especially when the quality of personnel will only likely decrease as the trend of anti-curiosity continues.

Emphasis added.

See: Madhu, et al., "Work Curiosity As An Indicator of Employee Innovation", Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (2018)

https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1810A45.pdf

Quote: "Success starts in the mind."

The archaic business processes that focus on procurement-related reviews and approvals tend to beat the curiosity out of even the most curious younger employees. I have found that when a curious employee points out an issue, the higher-ups either ignore it, or laugh it off. It could be a glaring problem, but rarely are these problems addressed. The curious employee then packs it up after 4 years and moved to the private sector, never to be a fed again.

On 11/13/2025 at 9:06 AM, Motorcity said:

The archaic business processes that focus on procurement-related reviews and approvals tend to beat the curiosity out of even the most curious younger employees. I have found that when a curious employee points out an issue, the higher-ups either ignore it, or laugh it off. It could be a glaring problem, but rarely are these problems addressed. The curious employee then packs it up after 4 years and moved to the private sector, never to be a fed again.

That or are demoralized when the “senior” person can’t explain or answer the question and just defaults to “that’s how we do it”

The problem today is that the professional 1102 is caught between an organizational culture that does not value his/her skillsets. On the one hand we get told to take risks, lean forward, use sound judgement and business acumen, but on the other we are reduced to clerks who are told to rinse and repeat. Go to GSA and buy off the schedule because thats what GSA is for. We’re in a world where we are in CRs for atleast the first 1/3 of the FY if we are lucky then it’s a mad scramble to get everything awarded and the measure is not did we meet the requirement and achieve a successful outcome, no the measure of success is did we meet PALT and by the time we figure out if the delivery was made or the service was executed to expectations we are already so focused on the next urgent action we have no time to figure out what worked well and what didn’t and do more of the good and less of the bad.

On 11/10/2025 at 4:33 AM, joel hoffman said:

However, the in-class interactions and synergies are much more effective for both instructors and those students who are serious about the training topics than isolated, on-line learning, with all of the distractions and reduced student accountability.

Emphasis added.

I have been teaching for more than 50 years. Since before I entered Federal service. In my experience what matters most is the students themselves. Are they committed to learning? Do they have the necessary learning skills? Are they willing, even eager, to struggle?

Also in my experience, most do not have those traits. And while most want to know, too many don't like to learn. Learning is hard work. On occasion, it can even involve suffering, which I know because I'm not very smart.  When I got out of the Army and went to a junior college I was shocked to realize that while I understood the mechanics of reading, I lacked the skills. Thank God for a couple of sympathetic professors who helped me, who showed me how.

It has made me very sad late in life, because there are few things more rewarding than teaching those who want to do the hard work of learning.

"Most want to know, but too many don't like to learn."

I'm going to be thinking about that for awhile. How many of us are unwilling to adjust our priors in the face of new evidence? I certainly try to do that but I have an ego and pride too. It's not always easy to learn, but you have to commit to it, I think.

What is the incentive to fix contracting education? Political, operational, personal, etc.

In order to fix something, the decision maker has to decide it’s broken. Who is the decision maker? Each individual can decide for themselves, but fixing federal contracting education as a whole is much bigger.

Not only that, the decision maker has to feel that the pain associated with the broken state is greater than the pain of fixing it. There are a few individuals who have done so. Each level’s decision maker (individual, team, office, agency, etc.) must decide that the current state exceeds their pain threshold.

Now, what organizations can anyone point to that highlight excellence in contracting education (or training)? There are several colleges and universities that have programs (University of Maryland, Webster, George Washington)? What’s the verdict on those? What’s the scorecard on War Acquisition University, Naval Postgraduate School?

2 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Now, what organizations can anyone point to that highlight excellence in contracting education (or training)?

The U.S. Space Force, Space Systems Command, El Segundo, California.

I second Vern's response and add

Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific

15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The U.S. Space Force, Space Systems Command, El Segundo, California.

8 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific

Can you summarize what these organizations do differently or better than others with respect to acquisition training?

At SSC, they conducted special in-house classes for groups of incoming personnel, and gave each person copies of Formation of Government Contracts and Administration of Government Contracts.

I will be leading a 10-week an advance study seminar for select personnel beginning in January. (It was postponed due to the government shutdown, but is now being rescheduled.) Attendees will be assigned about 500 pages of reading, will participate in discussions of the readings, and must prepare background papers.

The command structure in that organization has long been committed to professional education and training.

On 11/21/2025 at 12:23 PM, Vern Edwards said:

At SSC, they conducted special in-house classes for groups of incoming personnel, and gave each person copies of Formation of Government Contracts and Administration of Government Contracts.

I will be leading a 10-week an advance study seminar for select personnel beginning in January. (It was postponed due to the government shutdown, but is now being rescheduled.) Attendees will be assigned about 500 pages of reading, will participate in discussions of the readings, and must prepare background papers.

The command structure in that organization has long been committed to professional education and training.,

Hurray! Those classic Contracting bibles are still being distributed and used for training!

Personally received my first set back in 1980 or ‘81. I read them, studied them, used them and received training on them. Personally purchased the updated versions throughout the years, shared them with our contract admin employees and the principles in them. Wonderful resources for daily use!

You raise a valuable point about the benefits of in-person training, especially when it comes to discussion, collaboration, and building professional relationships. Face-to-face learning often encourages deeper conversations, shared experiences between agencies, and real-time feedback that can be harder to replicate in fully online environments. Many professionals remember influential instructors and training programs precisely because of the interaction and challenge that happened in the classroom.

At the same time, modern professional education is increasingly trying to balance flexibility with engagement. Institutions such as the College of Contract Management use live online classes that still allow students to interact with instructors and classmates while reducing travel costs and scheduling barriers. For many working professionals, this hybrid approach makes it possible to continue developing skills without leaving their jobs.

Ultimately, both formats have value. In-person training can strengthen collaboration and networking, while well-structured online programs can expand access to education and professional development for a wider range of learners. The key is creating learning environments, whether physical or virtual, that encourage participation, discussion, and practical understanding. https://www.theccm.co.uk/

I have spent much of my professional life conducting training courses, both in person and online. (I hate online, but that's the thing these days, and we're probably never going back.)

Training is only as good as the people taking it. In another thread I partially quoted the late great poet/scholar Ezra Pound (an admittedly controversial person) from his book, A B C of Reading (1934), which is about teaching how to read literature. Here is a more complete quote:

THE [STUDENT'] AMBITION may be mediocre, and the ambitions of no two readers will be identical. The teacher can only aim his instruction at those who most want to learn, but he can at any rate start them with an 'appetizer', he can at least hand them a printed list of the things to be learned in literature, or in a given section thereof.

No teacher has ever failed from ignorance. That is empiric professional knowledge. Teachers fail because they cannot 'handle the class'. Real education must ultimately be limited to [those] who INSIST on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding...

Emphasis added.

I have taught government contracting courses for many years, and I have learned this much—that unless people come to class ardently wanting to learn the subject they will not learn much if anything. I have found that when students are assigned to take a class by their boss, most (not all) turn out to be passive learners, and passive learners learn very little. There has to be more than just a requirement attend. There has to be a desire. I have found that in a class of 25, maybe five are ardent learners.

All learning is a struggle (I was a high-school dropout), and many are not up to it. It's not that they lack brains, it's that they lack commitment. The clamor for "group exercises" is often little more than a desire to avoid personal struggle. Get teachers to be honest with you, and most will say the same.

"Active" learners can learn from a bad ("boring" "fumbling") teacher, but good teachers waste time on passive "learners."

Bosses must prepare their people to learn. Last year, as a personal favor, I taught an in-person course to Air Force and DLA personnel in Oklahoma City. Their commander had taken the course from me years before and wanted his people to have the same experience. He personally prepped them in advance by telling them what to expect what he expected of them. They were actively, even aggressively, engaged throughout, and seemed to be having great fun. I did. It's sheer pleasure to teach people who really want to learn. It's why you teach.

Just now, roebelkim23 said:

The key is creating learning environments, whether physical or virtual, that encourage participation, discussion, and practical understanding.

Well, okay. But if you have to encourage would-be professionals to participate and discuss matters bearing on their profession you are probably on a failed mission.

BTW, over the years I have found that military enlisted personnel are the most aggressive at wanting to learn. They are always a pleasure to teach. Maybe its the "mission" thing.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

I have taught government contracting courses for many years, and I have learned this much—that unless people come to class ardently wanting to learn the subject they will not learn much if anything. I have found that when students are assigned to take a class by their boss, most (not all) turn out to be passive learners, and passive learners learn very little. There has to be more than just a requirement attend. There has to be a desire. I have found that in a class of 25, maybe five are ardent learners.

My first contracting class was the old five week basic course at Ft Lee, VA as an intern. I knew nothing about contracting and only started the job for a few weeks before going there. That was my first ever job and I was excited to learn all I could and was determined to do well when I returned from training. Every evening I worked on assignments and read parts of the regulations (then it was the Armed Services Procurement Regulation) while most of my classmates spend their time in the officers club on the inexpensive drinks. I learned so much and still remember things I picked up there in class. I ended up number 2 in the final class ranking and later found out the number 1 spot always goes to a senior military officer. This is coming from someone who took five years to barely graduate from college with a 2.02 GPA. It’s all about desire.

In my experience as an instructor, I've often felt like I'm only teaching to the subset of the class that wants to learn and everyone else is just watching.