Staff Duty Analysis

[DakRadz]

Am I crazy for thinking these could be fun?

I get to interview my Lt Col or 2d Lt, give a speech to the cadets, and talk about 5 common uniform discrepancies. Only 5?

CADETS- Use the search function. I've eliminated many of the questions I had by doing that and checking regs.

Does anyone have suggestions for cadets in smaller squadrons? If not all of the positions required for the staff service are filled, then what does the cadet do?

No recurring deadlines (suspenses)

From the sample SDA report, so suspense means deadline?

I just want to confirm a few things; I will be speaking with the leadership, but I've found helpful and diverse viewpoints on here before- that's why I ask here as well.

[tsrup]

even at a smaller squadron, all staff positions have to be "filled". 

   There are multiple smaller scope staff duties that are part of a larger one i.e. the ES officer also has SAR officer and a few others.  Basically the ES officer is a accountable for the jobs below him, as with all other positions.  Just because you don't have a person appointed to that spot, doesn't mean that the work doesn't get done. 
On the larger scope, if there is no "admin" officer in your squadron, it is probably being filled by your squadron commander. 
If this is the case then work with your commander on this. 

   As far as they staff service requirements, serving as a flight commander with the DCC as your mentor will also fulfill your Phase III requirements (you only have to do one of either flight commander, PAO, or admin)

Clear as mud? 

And yes, Suspenses mean deadlines.

There are reports that certain staff positions have to submit monthly, yearly, etc..

[DakRadz]

Okay, that actually does clear up a few things.

Now, since it says CC is not the OPR for any publication, do I need to find the Unit Commander's Handbook to find the CC's role in managing his staff's suspenses?


My EDIT: Actually, your EDIT addresses the exact question I had earlier (not the one in this post), and I was thinking the same end result.

[tsrup]

glad to help,

Im the DCC at a pretty small squadron and have had to go through this with a couple cadets in the last year. 

If cadets really knew how easy the SDA is to complete, it wouldn't be such a stopping point for a lot of Mitchell cadets.

[DakRadz]

Agreed. The thing that kicked me into gear is one cadet I went to encampment with as a Chief now outranks me, and on here Daniel L is nearly there, Fly Boy is there, and a few more who I know in person are trying to move up on me.

It's not that difficult if you set your mind to it..

[Майор Хаткевич]

I did my 3 reports ib one day + a PAO article. Then I just submited them and did the actual. Discussions/mentorships. Really not hard, just takes innitative.

[CAPC/officer125]

What I did for my SDAs was use the Indices (plural of Index), to figure out the code for whatever OPR I was on (say the 52-series is all Cadet Programs). Then, I just went down the list and input it into the document. Another easy thing to do, is format it the very first time (this is, I think, the hardest part), save the format and just copy and paste or type it into the pre-saved format. It saved me a lot of time, up until I had to redo it because my computer crashed (which also took the first 4 SDAs with it).

Don't be afraid to ask, but be prepared for them to tell you to get back to them later or they have no idea what you are talking about. I was my squadron's first officer in over 4 years and I think I was the first one they actually made do the SDAs.

After you do enough of them, you see they are a necessary evil and are actually informative and helpful in the long run. If you were to look at my first SDA and my last, I am sure you would see an improvement in the writing. Now, this may be only from the fact that I started doing them the summer before my sophomore year and did my last at the beginning of my senior year.

[tsrup]

Now, since it says CC is not the OPR for any publication, do I need to find the Unit Commander's Handbook to find the CC's role in managing his staff's suspenses?

The staff member should be your resources for "what is submitted when" questions, if that position isn't filled ask the CC. 

Someone in your squadron has to know when these are submitted because someone has to be submitting them.

The index is a great way to check out the regulations pertaining to that position, but I also recommend looking up the pamphlet series for the specialty track associated with the staff position.  They also have a list of pertaining regs and it might give you some more insight into what they do.


It's easy to try and gather a lot of information from regulations, but the spirit of the SDA is to work with these staff members and gain their insights.
Not saying that a reg isn't a great source of information to "fill in the blanks".

[DakRadz]

Don't be afraid to ask, but be prepared for them to tell you to get back to them later or they have no idea what you are talking about. I was my squadron's first officer in over 4 years and I think I was the first one they actually made do the SDAs.

I do believe our last C/officer was... My 30 yr old DCC. So.

The staff member should be your resources for "what is submitted when" questions, if that position isn't filled ask the CC. 

Roger that sir, thank you. And by his staff, I'll take it to mean Admin, Operations, and the other Dept. head-type staff jobs.

[Eclipse]

even at a smaller squadron, all staff positions have to be "filled". 

   There are multiple smaller scope staff duties that are part of a larger one i.e. the ES officer also has SAR officer and a few others.  Basically the ES officer is a accountable for the jobs below him, as with all other positions.  Just because you don't have a person appointed to that spot, doesn't mean that the work doesn't get done. 
On the larger scope, if there is no "admin" officer in your squadron, it is probably being filled by your squadron commander. 
If this is the case then work with your commander on this. 

No they don't, though I am assuming that you know that because of the "quotes".  I am further assuming that you meant that
any duties or reports mandated by regulation must be done regardless of whether a staffer is appointed.

Comms and LG are not required staff positions, if you have radios or property w/o a DC or LG, the CC does the paperwork
(though YMMV depending on wing).

The only currently mandated positions:

Commander
Aerospace Education Officer (can be the CC but must still be appointed)
Safety Officer (should not be the commander {note "should" vs. "will"} but still must be appointed and the member must meet the other requirmements.
Finance Manager - (will not be the commander)

That is all, everything else is optional depending on what the unit is doing.

ES is not a program mandate, and therefore an ESO is not required, and a unit can participate without one.

[tsrup]

^^
You assume correctly,

I was just conveying that, even though there may not be someone appointed, the work is being done by someone. 

While ESO is not a required position it was just a micro-example of the concept.

Our squdron only has 3 senior members (including myself) who regularly show up, so the majority of the work is carried out by us.  We have multiple staff positions formally assigned to us, and we have other jobs that are "assigned" to us. 
Admin was one of the postitions that had no one formally filled, however the tasks required  of it were being carried out by the CC, so when I had a cadet do her SDA for admin, I pointed her in the direction of the CC and gave pretty much the same advice as I did above.

The work gets done, the paperwork gets done, and wing stays happy.

[coudano]

If not all of the positions required for the staff service are filled, then what does the cadet do?

You know that you only have to do one of the staff services per phase right?
You don't do that for every achievement.

So in phase 3, you do the staff service for 9, 10, or 11.
And in phase 4, you do the staff service for 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16

Surely out of those 3 (or 5) available, your squadron has one...
If that doesn't work, then yeah, just work with the commander or whoever you can get.

From the sample SDA report, so suspense means deadline?

Yes.  It's pretty amazing how that isn't spelled out anywhere, yet you are expected to know it or figure it out, eh?  Some suspenses are 'recurring' like "submit AEO of the year by jan 15' (every year).  Others may be one time, or event based, 'conduct a financial self assessment within 60 days of taking command' for example.

They are always a specific action bound by a specific time/date deadline.

Now, since it says CC is not the OPR for any publication, do I need to find the Unit Commander's Handbook to find the CC's role in managing his staff's suspenses?

Or just... you know...   talk to your commander.  Ask him/her

[DakRadz]

"I pledge to remain motivated, despite the fact that NEC is addressing the elimination of SDAs by 2011...."
-The Creed of new C/2d Lts in CAP

Thanks for all the feedback!

[DBlair]

"I pledge to remain motivated, despite the fact that NEC is addressing the elimination of SDAs by 2011...."
-The Creed of new C/2d Lts in CAP

Thanks for all the feedback!

I'm sure many Cadet Officers are anxiously awaiting that decision. hehe

[CAP Producer]

even at a smaller squadron, all staff positions have to be "filled". 

   There are multiple smaller scope staff duties that are part of a larger one i.e. the ES officer also has SAR officer and a few others.  Basically the ES officer is a accountable for the jobs below him, as with all other positions.  Just because you don't have a person appointed to that spot, doesn't mean that the work doesn't get done. 
On the larger scope, if there is no "admin" officer in your squadron, it is probably being filled by your squadron commander. 
If this is the case then work with your commander on this. 

No they don't, though I am assuming that you know that because of the "quotes".  I am further assuming that you meant that
any duties or reports mandated by regulation must be done regardless of whether a staffer is appointed.

Comms and LG are not required staff positions, if you have radios or property w/o a DC or LG, the CC does the paperwork
(though YMMV depending on wing).

The only currently mandated positions:

Commander
Aerospace Education Officer (can be the CC but must still be appointed)
Safety Officer (should not be the commander {note "should" vs. "will"} but still must be appointed and the member must meet the other requirmements.
Finance Manager - (will not be the commander)

That is all, everything else is optional depending on what the unit is doing.

ES is not a program mandate, and therefore an ESO is not required, and a unit can participate without one.

Actually a PAO is required as per CAPR 190-1

[CAPC/officer125]

"I pledge to remain motivated, despite the fact that NEC is addressing the elimination of SDAs by 2011...."
-The Creed of new C/2d Lts in CAP

Thanks for all the feedback!

I'm sure many Cadet Officers are anxiously awaiting that decision. hehe

And I just got done with them...dang-flab it. Why must they do things like that?

[coudano]

And I just got done with them...dang-flab it. Why must they do things like that?

not the first time they have attempted to axe the sda
don't believe it until you see it.

i favor killing the sda if and only if it is replaced suitably (compulsory activity planning and execution each achievement gets my vote)

[tsrup]

I sincerely hope the SDA doesn't get the axe.  Seems in the minutes that the only reason that the SDA is proposed to get the axe is that the cadets don't like it, however even the NEC realizes how important it is that the cadets get some familiarization with staff duties. 

The proposals on the table for replacements are just obtuse in comparison to what it would be replacing. 

[coudano]

I sincerely hope the SDA doesn't get the axe.  Seems in the minutes that the only reason that the SDA is proposed to get the axe is that the cadets don't like it, however even the NEC realizes how important it is that the cadets get some familiarization with staff duties. 

The proposals on the table for replacements are just obtuse in comparison to what it would be replacing.

What is on the table to replace it?

[Nathan]

They've tried removing SDA's for years. I've never stopped saying that it would be a terrible idea to remove them. I've never understood the justification for trying to take them out.

But they should stop using the word "suspenses." I have never heard the word used outside of the SDA instructions. The spell-check doesn't even understand it.

[tsrup]

I sincerely hope the SDA doesn't get the axe.  Seems in the minutes that the only reason that the SDA is proposed to get the axe is that the cadets don't like it, however even the NEC realizes how important it is that the cadets get some familiarization with staff duties. 

The proposals on the table for replacements are just obtuse in comparison to what it would be replacing.

What is on the table to replace it?

it's in the NEC agenda, basically some 2 page technical writing exercises.

[Nathan]

I sincerely hope the SDA doesn't get the axe.  Seems in the minutes that the only reason that the SDA is proposed to get the axe is that the cadets don't like it, however even the NEC realizes how important it is that the cadets get some familiarization with staff duties. 

The proposals on the table for replacements are just obtuse in comparison to what it would be replacing.

What is on the table to replace it?

it's in the NEC agenda, basically some 2 page technical writing exercises.

...? Why would they replace it with something even MORE mind-numbing...?

[coudano]

booooo...  and  hisss...

also, not really of the opinion that this rises to NEC for implementation,
it's hardly an 'emergency' it should be done by the whole NB.


Talk about taking something bad and making it worse...

[tsrup]

booooo...  and  hisss...

also, not really of the opinion that this rises to NEC for implementation,
it's hardly an 'emergency' it should be done by the whole NB.


Talk about taking something bad and making it worse...

Which is why the proposal seems to have no support according to the agenda.

It seems that the proposal for the removal of the SDA and to implement the replacement was done without taking in to consideration what the SDA was really supposed to do.
They saw the SDA as many cadets see it: a writing exercise, when in reality its much much more.

edit: reread the agenda

[Ned]

Which is why the proposal seems to have no support according to the agenda.

It seems that the proposal for the removal of the SDA and to implement the replacement was done without taking in to consideration what the SDA was really supposed to do.
They saw the SDA as many cadets see it: a writing exercise, when in reality its much much more.

Non-concur.

First, the agenda item has the full support of the professional CP staff at NHQ as well as the National Cadet Adviser and the volunteer CP staff.

Argueably the folks who know the CP best.

And I had the opportunity to speak with the original author of the SDA program (Jack Sorensen), and he told me that it was one of the last areas developed for the New Cadet Program and he was not able to articulate a great deal of rationale or doctrine to support it.  IOW, I'm not sure there ever was a sufficiently delineated purpose that the SDAs "were supposed to do."



I understand that this, at best, is an area that only affects 15% of our cadets.  But they deserve a well-developed curriculum that is intergrated with and reinforces the other parts of our successful program.

Ned Lee
#356

[AirAux]

As much as it irks me, I must concur with Ned 110% on this one. 

[tsrup]

I don't,

He was correct that there was more support than I had stated,

however the current proposal only serves to further cadets from working with their Senior counterparts.

The SDA is nice because it gives cadets a chance to see what really goes on to run a squadron. 
The "professional communications" program as proposed (and I can only see what's in the agenda) only gives a name to what cadets are already doing outside of the SDA.

Not saying that the proposal wouldn't be a welcomed augment to the current plan, but as a replacement I just don't see it.

The proposal to remove the SDA hinges on complaints of the SDA being unpopular.  When has popularity ever been a factor in making policy. 
The cadets in my squadron think that the FEMA courses are lame and is unpopular with them, should we remove that requirement from the GES ratings then?

The Phase III and IV process is not supposed to be easy, if you're a cadet and you want to progress past mitchell you are going to have to put in the extra effort.

The only reason the "SDA" is difficult to execute is because it does actually take effort to do.

You gotta want it.

[Ned]

The proposal to remove the SDA hinges on complaints of the SDA being unpopular. 

Hardly. 

While the background information does indicated it is unpopular, it goes on to list at least  three specific reasons why that is so, essentially boiling down to the fact that the SDA program does not meet its stated goals.

Intent of the SDA Program:  The SDA program is fundamentally an exposure to leadership and teamwork as seen through the the lens of a working CAP squadron staff.  The program is not a memorization drill in CAP policies and procedures, or even an effort to train cadets to fulfill responsibilities to CAP senior members. Rather, it is an opportunity for cadets to learn to think critically, develop communications skills, and improve their understanding of teamwork.

The proposal points out that current SDA program advances memorization of admisitrivia over leadership skills and is difficult for typical units to administer due to a lack of adequate standards to evaluate staff service and analyses.

In contrast, the proposed replacement will be a tightly focused Professional Communications Program that will be integrated with the new Learn to Lead volumes 3 & 4 to be released concurrently.  Indeed, since we already updating and modifying the leadership curricula for Phases III & IV, it simply makes sense to revist and upgrade the non-functional SDA program.

Every single comment on the agenda is positive.   CAP-USAF concurs, NHQ concurs, the volunteer Senior Advisor concurs, even the volunteer CAP Chief of Staff said "I think this agenda item is well-taken" (and then suggests some amendments).

Can you tell us why we are all wrong, other than saying "we should just try harder to make the current program work"?


Ned Lee

[SarDragon]

SDAs were the brick wall that stalled my progress in the Cadet Program. I joined during the transition to the current program, and no one in the unit had a clue about how to do the SDAs. The guidance was poor at best. It seems like every cadet in my unit who got into Phase III, ended their career there by conveniently going off to college, military service, etc., before jumping into the SDA mire. Back then you had to complete the first Phase III achievement before becoming a cadet officer. Then they added C/WO (C/FO), which was still only the Mitchell Award. So a lot of cadets got stuck right there.

[jimmydeanno]

Sure, cadets should *really* want to advance through the program.  However, do you want a program that cadets are going through just in spite?

If only ~1% of cadets reach the end, with 10% reaching the middle point, I would argue that there is a serious disconnect, and in many ways, not on the end of the cadets motivation, or desire to do well.  To me, that says that we have a program that 99% of cadets never get full use of, or get exposed to.

To me, the CoS' comment about the SDA being there to teach how to be a good support staff officer is the only thing that may have some merit.  However, as pointed out, the SDA program is focused around "list the regs and reports you have to do."  Cadets serve in support staff positions unless they are the cadet commander or flight commander.  We shouldn't be trying to teach our cadets how to be good senior members - it's not the point of the program.

[tsrup]

It doesn't change the fact that this proposal is just trading one brick wall for another.

If cadets don't want to write what a staff job's duties are, what is going to make them want to write anything else?

As for the SDA being hard to implement, I can't understand that.  Especially with CAPP 52-14 laying everything out step by step.

And no not all comments were positive

National CoS

I think this agenda item is well-taken. However, I believe it misses the fundamental purpose of the SDA...
...I agree that all of the suggestions in this agenda item are necessary skills that cadets must master – but the roles and responsibility of service as staff officer is being lost in the proposal.

CAPP 52-14

The objectives for SDAs include:
1) Improve critical thinking skills by identifying problems and imagining solutions that make use of basic technical knowledge of a given specialty .
2) Improve communication skills through active listening on the job and by describing in oral and written briefings staff position duties and procedures.
3) Comprehend leadership and teamwork by explaining how squadron staff functions interrelate and add value to the team and by describing the qualities leaders need to succeed in those specialties.

If the SDA truly is dead on its feet I would agree with this as a suitable replacement

Perhaps, the SDA could be replaced with the requirement of achieving a technical rating in two specialty tracks before the award of the Eaker.

even if the requirement was only technician rating in one specialty track outside of cadet programs.

[Ned]

It doesn't change the fact that this proposal is just trading one brick wall for another.

If cadets don't want to write what a staff job's duties are, what is going to make them want to write anything else?

Please go back and re-read the proposal and the comments.

Nothing in the proposal is suggesting that the problem is that the cadets "don't want to write."

As for the SDA being hard to implement, I can't understand that.  Especially with CAPP 52-14 laying everything out step by step.

Indeed, our terrific CP staff has done everything in their power to write the 52-14 to try to make the legacy SDA program workable.

But the universal feedback from the field is that the SDA system does not function well, regardless of the good faith efforts of some excellent CP volunteers in the field.  One need only look at the feedback provided by the NCAC for confirmation.

And no not all comments were positive

National CoS

I think this agenda item is well-taken. However, I believe it misses the fundamental purpose of the SDA...
...I agree that all of the suggestions in this agenda item are necessary skills that cadets must master – but the roles and responsibility of service as staff officer is being lost in the proposal.

Clearly the volunteer COS believes that learning the roles and responsiblity of staff officers is a "fundamental purpose" of the SDA program. 

Reasonable minds differ on that point, but neither is his comment in any way negative.

If the SDA truly is dead on its feet I would agree with this as a suitable replacement

Perhaps, the SDA could be replaced with the requirement of achieving a technical rating in two specialty tracks before the award of the Eaker.

even if the requirement was only technician rating in one specialty track outside of cadet programs.

The SDA program has always been part of the Leadership component of the cadet program.  The proposal to earn technician ratings may be a nice thing, but it is not leadership training - the whole point of the cadet program.

Earning technician ratings is "technical training" in areas outside of the cadet program.  I'm not saying that cadets should not work in areas outside CP.  After all, many cadets play a vital role in ES.

But we should not get involved in calling ES (or any other techincal speciality in CAP) a form of leadership training.

Which is what the proposal is about - correcting a portion of the CP's leadership training.

[coudano]

Can you tell us why we are all wrong, other than saying "we should just try harder to make the current program work"?

Sure, here you go...
Reason #1 that it's wrong:  You CAN NOT implement a professional communications program at the locality level.
You can't even implement effective armstrong essays and speeches at a quality level at local units, let alone a consistent level.  Who is going to evaluate professional communications?  Fine for units that happen to have an expert on hand.  It aint most units.

Reason #2 that it's wrong:  The products that the proposed replacement creates are MORE empty and useless than the current SDA regime.  I"m not saying that the SDA is the *BEST* way to accomplish what we want out of cadet officers, but the proposed replacement is a step away from what we want, not a step toward it.

Reason #3 that it's wrong:  The product doesn't make better leaders anymore than the current SDA program does.  It might make better policy wonks, but that's hardly effective leadership, without the punch for implementation.  This strikes me as a great big "CAC class".  CAC is already irrelevant (though this whole discussion might aruge that, let's say below the national level...)  Teaching people how to write proposals better isn't going to make them more effective at influencing a group of people to accomplish a task, even at a policy and administration level.

Reason #4 that it's wrong:  There is no basis of experience from former cadets having been there or done that, nor of existing guidance on how to DO the proposed replacement activities, let alone how to evaluate them.  That said, I would also add that the current SDA has not been in place long enough to evaluate its effectiveness compared to its predecessor.  I doubt any data exists anyway.

Reason #5 that it's wrong:  I have an option that is so much better than the SDA and its proposed replacement that they don't even belong in the same league:
Don't just propose activities, or write AAR's on them...
ACTUALLY PLAN AND EXECUTE A SQUADRON GROUP OR WING ACTIVITY EVERY PHASE 3 or 4 ACHIEVEMENT.
1.  Exposes cadets (hands on) to every core staff function in CAP (admin, finance, public affairs, safety, ops, logistics, etc)
2.  Requires analysis, planning, and procedure, problem solving
3.  Requires formal writing
4.  Requries public speaking
5.  Is consistent with stated 'elements' of the cadet program (activities)
6.  *INCREASES* cadets' buy in to CAP and to their unit
7.  *IMPROVES* the local program for cadets (how many cadets quit for lack of activities?  this makes more!!!!)
8.  *IMPARTS* skills and experience to cadets that is invaluable to CAP, and to the cadet personally in ANY career endeavor that they move on toward
9.  Is a definable, repeatable, teachable process
10.  Comparatively easy for 'joe blow' senior member in 'podunk squadron 123' to teach advise counsel, and evaluate

win. win. win. win. win. win. win. win. win. win.  vs at least 4 pretty major "loose's"

We shouldn't be trying to teach our cadets how to be good senior members - it's not the point of the program.

What exactly is the output of a (any) cadet program if not an officer???

I think if you look at cadets that stick to be highly effective senior members, it is the ones that go through the staff based SDA process.  those that never made officer or stagnate at the mitchell aren't (generallly speaking) our high calibur ex cadet senior members.  I'm sure there is an exception or two, but generally speaking...

Now WIWAC, the SDA process was much more poorly defined.  I had a deputy for cadets that made me write multiple pages on EACH LISTED TASK in the old SDA guide (some of those task lists had 20-30 tasks in them).  I became *proficient* in the minute details of 7 core squadron staff positions.  Technician and Senior qualification level proficient.  And when I became a senior member, for it, I was able to hold down *multiple* jobs right out of the gate.

I'm not suggesting that is what the SDA *should* be, but it was a more pure and ultimately more useful real-world application of the program than most people get.



Personally as I grade my cadet officers' SDA's, I don't really care about their reg citing and suspense listing.  I'm interested in the *CONTENT* of the section B questions.  What are the core skills and impacts?  How does this position affect the squadron's mission?  How does this position affect the cadets.   Learning and demonstrating the understanding of these key things is invaluable...  Learning HOW TO IDENTIFY these things, and proving it by articulating it in a short paragraph is an invaluable general skill in life outside of CAP.  I have seen very bright lights switch on when cadets "get it" about this stuff.  Position papers, (mere) activity proposals, AARs, and PLPs are never going to reach that level of substantive impact.  They are just going to be some meaningless empty busy work.  Incidentally that's exactly what people THINK the SDA is now, and are trying to get away from; in reality, they are running toward it, not away from it.

With regards to the NCAC and COS, quite frankly I wouldn't *EXPECT* them to see the value in it.  That's not meant as a dis on cadet officers (remember I was one, once).  I don't expect a cadet airman to fully understand all of the underlying principles behind drill, customs, and uniform excellence either...  Nor do I expect a cadet in phase 2 to fully comprehend the self confidence and assertiveness that comes with GIVING proper drill commands, and executing task teams (even if the task is 'get the latrines clean' or 'take out the trash').  I would expect that AFTER MASTERING those skills, upon reflection, the value lessons become more apparent than they are while you are simply 'enduring the suck' in the moment.  I think if you talk to most former cadet officers that actually did their SDA's you're going to hear that story...


Of courses all of this is for naught, this thing looks like it's going to pass pretty much unopposed in a few days.
But I can still rant and gnash my teeth and tear at my clothes anyway...  so I will

[tsrup]

Please go back and re-read the proposal and the comments.

Nothing in the proposal is suggesting that the problem is that the cadets "don't want to write."

No, your right that it isn't mentioned in the proposal, and if it were my proposal I wouldn't mention it as a reason either.  However it has been my experience involved with cadet programs (and I'm sure there are others in CP who agree with me) that this is the case. 
Sit down and get to the core of it, it's just the extra work that makes it difficult.  The steps are outlined very well, it's just taking the extra time to do the interview, do the research, and write the report that turns some people away.  It's easily cured with some pep talk and convincing that it really isn't that hard and they'll be better off in the long run.

Maybe I'm not giving all the Mitchell's out there their due credit, but that has been my experience thus far.

Indeed, our terrific CP staff has done everything in their power to write the 52-14 to try to make the legacy SDA program workable.

No arguments there.  CAPP 52-14 is an excellent resource, I wish there were more manuals written like it.

But the universal feedback from the field is that the SDA system does not function well, regardless of the good faith efforts of some excellent CP volunteers in the field.  One need only look at the feedback provided by the NCAC for confirmation.

fair enough, and I for one don't think that the SDA is a perfect system, however nothing truly ever is and I don't think this is a cause to abandon it.  Augment, update, and continue to grow the system, don't replace it with something that is truly a waste of a cadet's time.

Clearly the volunteer COS believes that learning the roles and responsiblity of staff officers is a "fundamental purpose" of the SDA program. 

Reasonable minds differ on that point, but neither is his comment in any way negative.

Why?  If there is one thing a student asks all the time is "where am I possibly going to need to use this?"
Learning the staff jobs that go into running a squadron gives that cadet a chance to see all of the things that they have learned put in to action, and also things that they may need to improve on. 

The SDA program has always been part of the Leadership component of the cadet program.  The proposal to earn technician ratings may be a nice thing, but it is not leadership training - the whole point of the cadet program.

Earning technician ratings is "technical training" in areas outside of the cadet program.  I'm not saying that cadets should not work in areas outside CP.  After all, many cadets play a vital role in ES.

But we should not get involved in calling ES (or any other techincal speciality in CAP) a form of leadership training.

Which is what the proposal is about - correcting a portion of the CP's leadership training.

And aren't each step of these achievements in phase 3 named after a staff position?  Isn't part of being a good leader properly utilizing your staff?  Aren't some of these cadets expected to serve in staff positions within their squadrons? 
How does the new program plan on doing it better?

The way I see it, we have two similar imperfect systems on the table.  One of them has the benefit (intended or not) of familiarizing a cadet with the way things run on the senior side, or at the very least, forces them to sit down and talk with a senior member in their squadron that they may have had little to no interaction with in their squadron.  This has the benefit of opening a cadets eyes to something new, and a senior member feeling a little bit more important because someone is taking the time to ask them about their job.

It seems silly, but it's one more silly thing that the SDA has over the current proposal.

But in keeping an open mind, sell me this new program.  Tell me why it's going to make all of my cadet's wildest dreams come true.  Tell me exactly where it's going to succeed where the SDA has failed.  Tell me what this program is going to do to develop the leaders of tomorrow that the SDA isn't doing.

If things are going to change, then it's going to change.  I'll have a new manual to read, and I'll salute and execute; and make sure my cadets know how to do it.  But it will be a sad day to see a program with much potential abandoned for another program that will surely be just as unpopular in the years to come.

[RiverAux]

I don't really have an opinion one way or another on the current program or the proposed change, but I do wonder why if the SDA was effective it hasn't been incorporated into the senior member program? 

Or, you could look at it from the opposite point of view and say why should cadets officers do it when the seniors (who hold the actual leadership positions being studied) don't? 

[jimmydeanno]

What exactly is the output of a (any) cadet program if not an officer???

Since our published goal for the program is to: "...provide the youth of our nation with a quality program that enhances their leadership skills through an interest in aviation, and simultaneously provide service to the United States Air Force and the local community."

Does learning how to be a Civil Air Patrol Administration Officer develop their leadership skills through an interest in aviation?

We may want cadets to become senior members, but the objective of the program certainly shouldn't be to do so anymore than it should be the goal of the Boy Scout to become a Scout Master.

[Eclipse]

Does learning how to be a Civil Air Patrol Administration Officer develop their leadership skills through an interest in aviation?

Maybe, but learning to be an OPS officer certainly would.

[lordmonar]

What exactly is the output of a (any) cadet program if not an officer???

Since our published goal for the program is to: "...provide the youth of our nation with a quality program that enhances their leadership skills through an interest in aviation, and simultaneously provide service to the United States Air Force and the local community."

Does learning how to be a Civil Air Patrol Administration Officer develop their leadership skills through an interest in aviation?

We may want cadets to become senior members, but the objective of the program certainly shouldn't be to do so anymore than it should be the goal of the Boy Scout to become a Scout Master.

Learning the real jobs of the organisation helps the cadets learn responsbiilty, time management, organsiation, attention to detail and other general management skills.

The admin officer is one of the key players in any squadron.  Expanding the cadet's horizons makes him/her a better leader.

The whole point of the SDA's is to get the cadet out of the "troop leading" role and into the "buisness managment" role.

[Eclipse]

Learning the real jobs of the organisation helps the cadets learn responsbiilty, time management, organsiation, attention to detail and other general management skills.

The admin officer is one of the key players in any squadron.  Expanding the cadet's horizons makes him/her a better leader.

The whole point of the SDA's is to get the cadet out of the "troop leading" role and into the "buisness managment" role.

On more thought I agree with this more than "maybe" - especially for Phase III & IV cadets.  By this point in their lives they should
start to realize just what a herculean effort it is to do things they take for granted - whether it is school, job, CAP, or their driver's license.

Far too many members, even seniors, think the whole thing runs itself and then complain then their 101 card is approved a day later than
they expected.

[jimmydeanno]

It seems to me that "general management skills" would be more effective if taught in the management portion of our cadet program.  Being a "manager" is certainly not within the scope of what cadets in Phase IV should be learning.  Strategic leadership is a bit further than "we have to turn in the CAPF 73 by the 5th of each month so that it can be entered into the system."

We have a tendency to keep our thinking down to the tactical/operational level, because that's where most of us live.  Remember that being a good manager doesn't equate to being a good leader, which is the actual goal of the cadet program.

If anything, I think you could only really argue that the SDA is an important development tool to Phase III cadets, and that Phase IV cadets would certainly need something different.  But, I think the whole SDA program stinks, badly.  At least with my cadets, by the time they write them, they already know what the person does and how it affects the cycle.  Practical application of those skills, in my opinion, would be far better than more book learnin'.

[Eclipse]

We have a tendency to keep our thinking down to the tactical/operational level, because that's where most of us live.  Remember that being a good manager doesn't equate to being a good leader, which is the actual goal of the cadet program.

The vast majority of people never reach a position that calls for true "leadership", and for those who do, a common failure of many leaders is that they forget the tactical, or they never recognized it existed to start with.

By the time our cadets get into leadership positions of consequence, they will have had plenty of formalized academic and/or military training in leadership principles, as well as (hopefully) some practical application.

Getting your hands dirty at the tactical level is critical to fundamental understanding of the universe.

[coudano]

Thanks for supporting my cause guys

[A.Member]

The stated objective of the SDA program is to improve critical thinking and communication skills through practical leadership.  Frankly, it achieves none of the above.  As stated in the NEC proposal, it's really no more than an administrative task.   As such, there is little benefit gained from the exercise as it exists currently.  That said, the stated objective is a good one and with some tweaking, the program could be very valuable to a cadet both within CAP and outside of it - and that's ultimately what we want them to achieve; life skills. 

An overhaul of the program is welcomed, although I haven't read the NEC proposal thoroughly enough to say whether it is an improvement.

[Ned]

Can you tell us why we are all wrong, other than saying "we should just try harder to make the current program work"?

Sure, here you go...
Reason #1 that it's wrong:  You CAN NOT implement a professional communications program at the locality level.

Non-concur.

We can, should, and do already teach cadets how to more effectively communicate.

Telling me that we "CAN NOT" (even with such emphasis) does not explain why your typical CP leader cannot effectively teach communications to students in our age group.

No "experts" needed, beyond our terrific local volunteer CP officers like yourself.

Reason #2 that it's wrong:  The products that the proposed replacement creates are MORE empty and useless than the current SDA regime.

Strong statement of personal opinion noted.  Please explain why you think so.

Reason #3 that it's wrong:  The product doesn't make better leaders anymore than the current SDA program does.  It might make better policy wonks, but that's hardly effective leadership, without the punch for implementation.  This strikes me as a great big "CAC class".  ( . . .)

The proposed replacement is communications training.  Are you suggesting that leaders do not need to comminicate effectively?  Or that only "policy wonks" need to do so?

And what is a CAC class?

Reason #4 that it's wrong:  There is no basis of experience from former cadets having been there or done that, nor of existing guidance on how to DO the proposed replacement activities, let alone how to evaluate them.

Hmmm.  That'd odd.  The proposal was written by a Spaatz cadet, working closely with several other Spaatz cadets at NHQ, all of whom had decades of experience working in our CP and with cadets at the local, wing, and national levels.  And with direct input from the NCAC and many other CP volunteers.

Isn't that a "basis of experience from former cadets have been there or done that"?

Reason #5 that it's wrong:  I have an option that is so much better than the SDA ( . . .)

[describing a proposed requirement for PIII and IV cadets to plan and execute activities].

While it's not a bad idea, I would have concerns about scalability for large units or wings with a bunch of PIII & PIV cadets, as well as effective evaluation.

But having said that, I strongly favor cadets planning and implementing CP activities.  Indeed, I think it should be the norm.

But even if your proposal was perfect, logically that doesn't make our proposal "wrong."

I would very much like you to flesh yours out and submit it through staff channels.

No, your right that it isn't mentioned in the proposal, and if it were my proposal I wouldn't mention it as a reason either.  However it has been my experience involved with cadet programs (and I'm sure there are others in CP who agree with me) that this is the case. 
Sit down and get to the core of it, it's just the extra work that makes it difficult.  The steps are outlined very well, it's just taking the extra time to do the interview, do the research, and write the report that turns some people away.  It's easily cured with some pep talk and convincing that it really isn't that hard and they'll be better off in the long run.

Sorry, my friend, but you don't get to tell me what my argument "really is" and then explain how to fix it.

My arguments and proposals are mine alone, and they will stand or fall without your help.

And again, if we agree that the SDAs are systemically flawed, then I don't think just telling hundreds of units to sit down and have pep talks is an effective solution.

But in keeping an open mind, sell me this new program.  Tell me why it's going to make all of my cadet's wildest dreams come true.

I had hoped the proposal and my meager comments would speak for themselves.  But apparently I have not been sufficiently pursuasive to change your mind. 

Hopefully the NEC will review the proposal with an open but critical mind.

Ned Lee

[coudano]

Ned, your mind is made up.  The issue is up in 3 days.
I said my peace lets get on with it.

Activ planning is fleshed out (though i wouldn't call it perfect, it's working in progress)
It's open for review.

[tsrup]

I had hoped the proposal and my meager comments would speak for themselves.  But apparently I have not been sufficiently pursuasive to change your mind. 

Hopefully the NEC will review the proposal with an open but critical mind.

Ned Lee

The proposal lays out what the new requirements would be.

your comments just point out that the SDA is flawed (not what the flaws are).

There is no information on how this will be better.

Seriously, tell me what exactly is wrong with the SDA and how the new program will fix it.  Specifics please.

I am being open about this, but as far as I can tell, all this is is replacing one writing assignment with another.

If you respond with anything, please just answer this question:

    Why is this proposal better than the current program?

[AirAux]

The current program is open to mis-interpretation and varying degrees of implementation throughout CAP.  Some squadrons are not using SDA's at all.  Others are attempting to utilize them but their squadrons are not large enough or they don't understand terms like "suspenses" etc.  There has been no formal training for senior members working with cadets about the SDA's.  The new program wil be very cut and dry.  Write a two page paper on...  Give a 10 minute speech on...  Very little interpretation and very little confusion.  I think it is step in the right direction.  Anything would be better than the current mess..  JMHO, as usual.. 

[tsrup]

The current program is open to mis-interpretation and varying degrees of implementation throughout CAP.  Some squadrons are not using SDA's at all.  Others are attempting to utilize them but their squadrons are not large enough or they don't understand terms like "suspenses" etc.  There has been no formal training for senior members working with cadets about the SDA's.  The new program wil be very cut and dry.  Write a two page paper on...  Give a 10 minute speech on...  Very little interpretation and very little confusion.  I think it is step in the right direction.  Anything would be better than teh current mess..  JMHO, as usual..

I still don't get how much can be left open to interpretation with the current manual for the SDA?

We look to regs for guidance on many subjects but this one just get's overlooked?

Agreed, Suspenses is a vague term that could be easily replaced, but when you put that together with the examples given and in the context it's written in, its meaning is fairly obvious.  But you are right, the ambiguous term is unnecessary and causes more problems than a word is worth.

I do think that if the TLC courses were more often and available in all wings, a lot of the CP programs would be more standardized and the people administering these programs would be better informed.  If you ask me what the root of most of the CP's problems is (at least here), it's the lack of guidance from the wing level and above. (I can't speak for groups, I've never been a part of one)

The tools are all there: SDA familiarization is part of the CP specialty track, CAPP 52-14, and TLC.  They just need to be available and the people in charge of administering these programs at the unit level need to make themselves aware of how they're run.

But I guess "you can lead a horse to water..."

[coudano]

anyone know what happend to this proposal yesterady?

[N Harmon]

Which is what the proposal is about - correcting a portion of the CP's leadership training.

My concern is that cadets completing phase IV will not have a good understanding what the responsibilities are of various squadron positions. This is a very important thing for a CAP officer to know, and is a large part of the senior member SLS curriculum.

If we are going to give former-Eaker cadets credit for SLS without the SDAs to provide them with that knowledge, then those senior members are going to have a hard time operating at the levels they are expected to.

[Ned]

My concern is that cadets completing phase IV will not have a good understanding what the responsibilities are of various squadron positions. This is a very important thing for a CAP officer to know, and is a large part of the senior member SLS curriculum.

If we are going to give former-Eaker cadets credit for SLS without the SDAs to provide them with that knowledge, then those senior members are going to have a hard time operating at the levels they are expected to.

A good point.  SLS certainly does spend some time on "who does what" at the squadron.

But as a practical matter, anyone who has spent 3-4 years at a squadron will have some sense of it, cadet or senior.

But it is a good point.

As I've said, we are not against cadets getting an overview of the various squadron positions, just not dressed up as "leadership training" in a youth leadership program.

After we see the feedback from the NEC, we may well take a look at finding another way to give this kind of "job-specific knowledge" to our P3 & P4 troops.

Ned Lee

[AirAux]

I would hope and recommend that any cadet becoming senior and having SLS waived would still attend for the experience, fellowship and ability to make new friends and share experiences.  I recommend that everyone attend as much training as possible, even when not required.

[coudano]

I would hope and recommend that any cadet becoming senior and having SLS waived would still attend for the experience, fellowship and ability to make new friends and share experiences.  I recommend that everyone attend as much training as possible, even when not required.

that's about to become a nonfactor as sls and clc are CBT's now...

potential exists to open those up to cadets too...  i guess...  although i'm not sure that "another CBT" is the right approach to take toward our cadets.  I think that CBT's are hamstringing the program already, and going further in that direction is going to hurt us, not help us.

[jeders]

I would hope and recommend that any cadet becoming senior and having SLS waived would still attend for the experience, fellowship and ability to make new friends and share experiences.  I recommend that everyone attend as much training as possible, even when not required.

that's about to become a nonfactor as sls and clc are CBT's now...

potential exists to open those up to cadets too...  i guess...  although i'm not sure that "another CBT" is the right approach to take toward our cadets.  I think that CBT's are hamstringing the program already, and going further in that direction is going to hurt us, not help us.

Ok, my brain's nmot fully engaged yet this morning, CBT is...?

[MIKE]

Computer Based Training.

[jeders]

Gotcha. Yeah, I would have to agree that it would be nice to see a little less reliance on computer based training. Especially when they make it where you can't really even do that training as a squadron level class, it has to be done online.

IMHO National Fail.

[JeffDG]

I would hope and recommend that any cadet becoming senior and having SLS waived would still attend for the experience, fellowship and ability to make new friends and share experiences.  I recommend that everyone attend as much training as possible, even when not required.

that's about to become a nonfactor as sls and clc are CBT's now...

potential exists to open those up to cadets too...  i guess...  although i'm not sure that "another CBT" is the right approach to take toward our cadets.  I think that CBT's are hamstringing the program already, and going further in that direction is going to hurt us, not help us.

They're available as CBT, but that's designed for people who simply cannot get to an in-person class for SLS and/or CLC...sometimes there's just not enough people to do them, or the distances are huge (think low-population, large area wings like Alaska or Montana)

[EMT-83]

Not exactly CBT. Expect to wait 12 to 18 months for an on-line class, if you get accepted.

The vast majority of members will continue to take SLS and CLS the old-fashioned way, sitting in a classroom.

[Spaatzorbust]

I'm late to the party here, I hope somebody gets this message.

I'm a cadet and my problem is that the OPRs don't match with have the positions the 52-14 lays out. I spend at least 2 hours for each SDA trying to make the most tangential connection between the position listed and the acronym in the index. Have they changed lately?

That's my only complaint with the SDAs, how darn hard it is to find the regs. Instead of a treasure hunt with no hints at all, some guidance, like the acronym for the OPR.

[DakRadz]

Necroing my thread? Really? Oh no!


Kidding, of course.

Alright, no acronyms and I'll help. I just put OPR into Google (it's late and I can't make connections well) and got "Old People Rock"

[SarDragon]

OPR = Office of Primary Responsibility

This is listed in the online indexes 0-2 and 0-9, in the RH column.

[Майор Хаткевич]

OPR = Office of Primary Responsibility

This is listed in the online indexes 0-2 and 0-9, in the RH column.

^ no egg hunt required.

[SarDragon]

I think I see where the problem is, now.

CAPP 52-14 lists the OPRs by title - Admin Officer, Supply/Logistics Officer, etc.

The indexes use office symbols, which can be cryptic, at best. The best place to translate office symbols is CAPR 10-1, Attachment 5.