Staff Duty Analysis

[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"