I'm real pressed for time, but will offer the following....

1) the satellite ILE curricula is based on the common core ILE content by design and purpose

2) Reason being that the intent was to use this resource a the ILE experience for those who didn't need the "warfighting" portion of the curricula (e.g. the school population would be non-basic branch officers)

3) Conditions have changed since... plenty of capacity to educate basic branch MAJ at leavenworth, availability of students has been the issue for the past 5 years

4) Leavenworth was directed (should be finished, but I'm a little dated) to build web-based version of warfighter course for those officers (basic branch types) who attend satallite sites due to time constraints

5) Intent is to go back to all basic branch officers attend Leavenworth (with some exceptions for advanced civil schooling, and to work down a significant backlog)

6) Will this impact promotability of satallite site, basic branch officers? Initial evidence emphatically points to NO! For a couple of reasons.... Promotion rates are so high to LTC that it makes no difference, because of PERSTEMPO of the past 5 years - several officers were promoted on waivers for no ILE experience (that number has grown each year) Just don't think its an issue

Perhaps larger question is the relevance of ILE to future success as FG Officer. Seems to be plenty of examples of officers who have succeeded just fine as a MAJ without the benefit of ILE. I don't really believe this the case, but its the question that CGSC ought to be asking itself because someone else will when Rep Skelton move on.

Live well and row