I'm with Ski.

"This is what we are worrying about in today's Army?"
I'm much more concerned about the goals of ILE, the relationship between content and goals of ILE, and the lack of understanding of the difference between education and training in ILE than the mechanics of the delivery medium for ILE.

On the other hand, the corner-cutting appearence created by these 'other than Leavenworth' ILEs re-enforces the perception that these are the "No Major Left Behind" options.

I stress perception because it may well be only perception; the content may be a perfect mirror of what is taught at the 'premier' ILE souce, Leavenworth. But will board members believe this? Will the peers and leaders of the graduates of these programs viscarally believe this?

I'm in a better position than many to say that the distance-learning, web-based ILE reflects the core curriculum of resident CGSC Common Core (did one, married to someone who just completed the other, and have no vested interest in the perceptions, failure, or success of either program other than its impact on the Army and the Army's future). But when the people going to the outlying ILE programs feel like red-headed step children, it would be easy to come to the conclusion, right or wrong, that the program isn't as good.