Idea: Junior Cadet Program

[Guardrail]

I've long thought of the idea of CAP having a junior cadet program, just like the Sea Cadets.  I think 12 is too young an age for cadets with cadet supervisors who are 17, 18, 19 and 20 years old in charge of them.  The age gap is just too big.   

Instead, I propose that CAP have 2 cadet programs: a Junior Cadet Program, and an Advanced Cadet Program.  The Junior Cadet Program would be for cadets ages 12-16, while the Advanced Cadet Program would be for cadets ages 17-20.  I think this would solve a lot of problems associated with the age gap in the CAP cadet program we currently have.

Any thoughts? 

[arajca]

A better deliniation would be middle school (6 - 8 grades) and high school (9 and up).

[BillB]

Not only has this been discussed recently, but it mirrors previous CAP program called the Eaglet Program. The Eaglet program was for 11 through 13 year olds and Eaglets wore a modified CAP uniform (AF blue shirt and blue jeans.) the only insignia if i remember correctly was a name tag that said CAP Eaglet and last name, plus Wing patch and ribbons. At one time or another there were three levels of the cadet program
Eaglet 11-13 year olds
Cadets 13-18
and Officer Training Corp for 18-21 year olds.
The training materials are available from CAP or AFIDL for the three levels now. But it was suggested that OTC members wear warrant officer metal grade (or sleeves) rather than flight officer grade.

[NIN]

I've long thought of the idea of CAP having a junior cadet program, just like the Sea Cadets.  I think 12 is too young an age for cadets with cadet supervisors who are 17, 18, 19 and 20 years old in charge of them.  The age gap is just too big.   

Instead, I propose that CAP have 2 cadet programs: a Junior Cadet Program, and an Advanced Cadet Program.  The Junior Cadet Program would be for cadets ages 12-16, while the Advanced Cadet Program would be for cadets ages 17-20.  I think this would solve a lot of problems associated with the age gap in the CAP cadet program we currently have.

Any thoughts? 

And you care about this how?

I'm serious: for a non-member, you sure have a lot of ideas, concepts, opinions, comments, etc...  If you're that highly motivated to effect the course of the organization, I suggest you rejoin. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air on an internet message board.

[Guardrail]

I've long thought of the idea of CAP having a junior cadet program, just like the Sea Cadets.  I think 12 is too young an age for cadets with cadet supervisors who are 17, 18, 19 and 20 years old in charge of them.  The age gap is just too big.   

Instead, I propose that CAP have 2 cadet programs: a Junior Cadet Program, and an Advanced Cadet Program.  The Junior Cadet Program would be for cadets ages 12-16, while the Advanced Cadet Program would be for cadets ages 17-20.  I think this would solve a lot of problems associated with the age gap in the CAP cadet program we currently have.

Any thoughts? 

And you care about this how?

I'm serious: for a non-member, you sure have a lot of ideas, concepts, opinions, comments, etc...  If you're that highly motivated to effect the course of the organization, I suggest you rejoin. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air on an internet message board.

Well sir, I joined CAP when I was 12 and stayed in until I was 21.  I chose not to re-join because I feel it's more important to focus on my education.  I also don't want to earn a commission in CAP until I earn my bachelor's degree and either commission in the AF or join my state's SDF (depending on my medical status... I may not be qualified to join the military).  If I can't join the military, I'll join the SDF. 

So with great respect sir, I don't think I'm blowing hot air on this board.  I care about a junior cadet program because I think it would work, and looking back, it would have benefited me more when I was a cadet.  There really is too much of an age gap in today's CAP cadet program.   

[DNall]

I was just talking today with some cadets about this issue. As an example, I got a 12yo C/2Lt & 3 SSgts in their fourth year of AFJROTC. It wouldbe an understatement to call that a challenge, even moreso when recruiting HS aged kids.

On one hand, a seperate program for middle school cadets (and I think that is the best way to break it down) would be able to address content at their age level. On the other hand, it's a whole seperate set of content & programs to run when we struggle mightly to take care of the one we have worth a crap. While there's merit there to be discussed, I tend to shy away form that idea.

As an alternative, and this one gets supported by a lot of the cadets I've mentioned it to, what if the progression were age linked at two stripes per year. In other words, a 12yo can promote to A1C then has to wait till their birthday to promote again, whereas a cadet that joins at 13 can promote to SSgt during that year. Again pros & cons, but that factors in maturity in a big way. How would yall feel about something like that?

[SAR-EMT1]

I would support the age link.

[Guardrail]

I was just talking today with some cadets about this issue. As an example, I got a 12yo C/2Lt & 3 SSgts in their fourth year of AFJROTC. It wouldbe an understatement to call that a challenge, even moreso when recruiting HS aged kids.

How is it possible to have a 12 yr. old C/2d Lt if the joining age is 12 and it takes at least 16 months to advance to phase II?

I agree that having a C/2d Lt younger than his/her cadet NCO's is a problem that must be dealt with.   

On one hand, a seperate program for middle school cadets (and I think that is the best way to break it down) would be able to address content at their age level. On the other hand, it's a whole seperate set of content & programs to run when we struggle mightly to take care of the one we have worth a crap. While there's merit there to be discussed, I tend to shy away form that idea.

I like the idea of a junior cadet program for middle school-aged cadets the best.  Sure it's hard work, but I think it's worth it.  Besides, CAP has already dumbed down the Aerospace curriculum for Phases I and II into something that only someone in middle school could appreciate.  For high schoolers, it's way too simple.  

As an alternative, and this one gets supported by a lot of the cadets I've mentioned it to, what if the progression were age linked at two stripes per year. In other words, a 12yo can promote to A1C then has to wait till their birthday to promote again, whereas a cadet that joins at 13 can promote to SSgt during that year. Again pros & cons, but that factors in maturity in a big way. How would yall feel about something like that?

I don't think that would work very well.  I'm a little confused.  If I read you right, if you could only promote at 2 stripes per year, then someone who joins at 18 could only make it to C/SSgt.  That doesn't sound very fair.  It would work fine for those who join at 12 and 13, but not for the older folks who join the cadet program.

I think a better deliniation for the cadet program would be to keep TIG the same and have a junior cadet program for those cadets who are in middle school and an advanced one for those in high school.  In other words, keep them separate but in the same unit.  Junior cadets have cadet leaders within their part of the program and advanced cadets  have cadet leaders in their part of the program.   

[SAR-EMT1]

No, what he is saying is: for every year past 12 add two promotions: ae a 12 year old can get up to A1C 
a 13 year old can promote to SSgt
a 14 y/o could go to Master Sgt. etc...

[BillB]

The biggest problem facing cadets is the program manuals are written for 11-13 or 14 year olds. Older cadets get bored and drop from the program as shown by exit interviews. You'll find that limiting promotions to age will be a disaster in that the maturity levels of cadets varies. Take two 14 yearolds and you'll find one is ready to be a cadet officer, the other may not be.  I've seen 15 year old C/2Lt that were more mature than a 15 year old C/LtCol. At the same time I've seen 17 year old cadets that were less mature than many 15 year olds.
Peer groups tend to relate to each other and the 16 year olds can't relate to the 11 year old peer group. So Guardrails concept should work by splitting the cadet program into various age groups such as has been done by CAP over the years.
The two stripes per year is fine for 12 year olds but a 16 year old that joins at the end of the year has two stripes while the cadet that joined at 12 is a CCMsgt. No 16 year old will respect a much younger cadet who outranks them and is less mature.

[SAR-EMT1]

OK, new question: when was the last time that the Cadet program was split between age groups?

[BillB]

To the best of my knowledge, the Eaglet program was during the 1960's. The OTC program was in the 60's and 70's.
There was a program in the 50's that split the cadet program but it only lasted a year

[Pylon]

Speaking from the position of a Deputy Commander for Cadets, and a former Group Cadet Programs Officer, I'm not seeing any issues with the age gap in my area.

The younger cadets have much to learn, and they do learn.  They fill out the squadrons and take on the lower positions of responsibility... Element Leaders, helping out staff members, etc.

As they grow older, learn more (both in a CAP context and an educational/real-world context), they take on higher positions of responsibility.  As the cadets near 18, 19, and 20 years old, I consider them to be capable leaders - much like I would treat most any young senior member.  These cadets are helpful for mentoring the younger cadets, assisting the senior members with the implementation and support of the cadet program, etc.

The fact is that an older cadet corps would have a hard time surviving.  Many of the older cadets simply can't dedicate a lot of time to CAP, due to school, extracurricular activities, going off to college, joining the military, or working.  As the cadets get older, more and more of them do these things -- things all young people do when they grow up.    But lucky for us, the way our program is structured, as these older cadets have less and less time to commit, it allows the growing and up-and-coming cadet leaders to slowly take their places.  When the older cadets do have time, we use them as mentors, assistant staff members, and whatever else they can fill in as. 

It works, and probably not by coincidence.

We don't need one more solution in search of a problem.

But hey -- what did Jack Sorenson know after all.   

[RiverAux]

I think it is very difficult to recruit "older" cadets into the program primarily because they soon realize that they would be outranked by kids several years their junior and this is a VERY big deal when you're in that age class. 

The problem is that most squadrons are too small in the first place and further splitting the cadets up into two separate groups would make running a cohesive program quite difficult. 

[Pylon]

The problem is that most squadrons are too small in the first place and further splitting the cadets up into two separate groups would make running a cohesive program quite difficult. 

That's the second point I wanted to make.  Bingo! 

In my case, running two programs would not be "quite difficult" --- rather it would likely mean "program closed, everybody go home."   

[RiverAux]

What do you know, the latest issue of the Volunteer (available for download http://www.cap.gov/visitors//news/civil_air_patrol_volunteer/downloads/ has an article highlighting a kindergarten through 5th grade CAP program "pre-cadet school program" in Philadelphia. 

[ZigZag911]

The age separation question  has been a concern for years; I think it needs to be done.

Perhaps allow the junior cadets to earn the Phase 1 achievements (but not the grades); then two months after joining the high school age program, they can get whatever they have earned, up to Senior Airman.

Might result in some 14 year old SSgts....but would almost guarantee no Mitchells much before sophomore year of HS, Spaatzes not happening before senior year (I'm estimating, haven't done the math).

The leadership might come from among the parents, with minimal support from the parent squadron (I think these junior units should be 'flights')

[CAP428]

In the 9 months I have been in CAP so far, I have yet to have problems with the age gap.  I joined the cadet program fairly late (17) and have spent this past year with younger people commanding me.  It really is not a big deal.  In fact, one could argue in favor of such a situation possibly arising due to the fact that it more closely mirrors real life where you could have a boss that is much younger than you, but possibly is more experienced that you have to deal with reporting to.  It provides experience in such real-life situations to cadets.

Not to mention the fact that it can be a self-esteem booster.  Generally society is structured around the idea that the older you are, the more you know/can do and the younger you are, the less you know/can do.  While for some things this is true because of differing levels of life experience, in other situations it is not true.  Having a younger cadet command older but lower-ranking cadets gives them self-confidence and the knowledge that, though they are younger, they can be more experienced at something than an older person can be.

I do not see a strong enough problem to restructure anything.  I am a proponent of a more laissez-faire approach of not fixing something unless it is quite broken.

[DNall]

How is it possible to have a 12 yr. old C/2d Lt if the joining age is 12 and it takes at least 16 months to advance to phase II?

OR sixth grade & he's homeschool to boot. I think we got a 14yo Spaatz running around too. That's pretty stupid. Why would you stay in the program after that for four more years?

I like the idea of a junior cadet program for middle school-aged cadets the best.  Sure it's hard work, but I think it's worth it.  Besides, CAP has already dumbed down the Aerospace curriculum for Phases I and II into something that only someone in middle school could appreciate.  For high schoolers, it's way too simple. 

More than hard work, I think a seperate program becomes unamangeable from a practical execution stand point. We already turn to cadets leading the way on things cause there's not enough adult leadership or support. And we can't always support all our events cause we can't even get adults out to chaperon. Plus most Sqs get 10-12 cadets actively particpating. Split the numbers in half & multiply the work times two w/o increasing personnel that's what you're saying.  

As an alternative, and this one gets supported by a lot of the cadets I've mentioned it to, what if the progression were age linked at two stripes per year. In other words, a 12yo can promote to A1C then has to wait till their birthday to promote again, whereas a cadet that joins at 13 can promote to SSgt during that year. Again pros & cons, but that factors in maturity in a big way. How would yall feel about something like that?

I don't think that would work very well.  I'm a little confused.  If I read you right, if you could only promote at 2 stripes per year, then someone who joins at 18 could only make it to C/SSgt.  That doesn't sound very fair.  It would work fine for those who join at 12 and 13, but not for the older folks who join the cadet program.

No no no, I'm sorry, let me try that again...
Read this Close
12yo maxes out at A1C
13yo maxes out at SSgt
14yo maxes out at MSgt
15yo maxes out at CMSgt
16yo maxes out at 1Lt
17yo maxes out at Maj
18yo maxes out at Col

TIG is still 2mos & you can advance as many grades per year as possible, but cap out based on age. If you join at 18 w/ four years of ROTC so you can do the once a month thing, then you can make Captain or so just based the TIG limitations, the above doesn't restrict you at all. On the other hand if you join at 14 you can promote as normal only to MSgt, then you're frozen till your birthday.

Does that make more sense? You can still amp up the requirements & academic content as you move up in grade because you know there's a minimum age to hold that grade. It's still very possible for a younger cadet with more experience to command an older one that joined later, BUT it reduces the dramatic seperation that can occur now to teh detriment of the program. It also addresses maturity in promotions in a fair objective way rather than leaving it to be pencil whipped right on by.

What do you know, the latest issue of the Volunteer (available for download http://www.cap.gov/visitors//news/civil_air_patrol_volunteer/downloads/ has an article highlighting a kindergarten through 5th grade CAP program "pre-cadet school program" in Philadelphia. 

Oh dear God!!! !2 is already way too young. It should have never let middle schoolers in. That was desperation of a troubled program that wasn't (and isn't) being consistently executed by quality personnel (adults) trained to the task that among other things results in terrible recruiting & retention.

[BillB]

Of course you could go back to the original CAP Cadet program. And leave promotions up to the Squadron Commander without respect to how many achievements have been completed. The cadet would still earn the ribbon but NOT the promotion. Or the Commander could promote up to C/CMSgt even if the cadet has only completed 2-3 achievements. Promotions based on either duty assignment for the cadet or the really gung-ho cadets could earn promotions. All that changes when the cadet earns the Mitchell but Squadron Commanders could promote up to C/Maj again depending on duty asignment. (C/LtCol and C/Col reserved for Earhart or Spaatz)
Jack Sorensen told me once, sitting at the O-club at Maxwell, he made a mistake by tieing promotions to achiecvements. But he said it was to late to change it.

[DNall]

Of course you could go back to the original CAP Cadet program. And leave promotions up to the Squadron Commander without respect to how many achievements have been completed. The cadet would still earn the ribbon but NOT the promotion. Or the Commander could promote up to C/CMSgt even if the cadet has only completed 2-3 achievements. Promotions based on either duty assignment for the cadet or the really gung-ho cadets could earn promotions. All that changes when the cadet earns the Mitchell but Squadron Commanders could promote up to C/Maj again depending on duty asignment. (C/LtCol and C/Col reserved for Earhart or Spaatz)
Jack Sorensen told me once, sitting at the O-club at Maxwell, he made a mistake by tieing promotions to achiecvements. But he said it was to late to change it.

That's bad, and I'll tell you why. The large majority of Sq are just not capable of executing the program well. At best it's highly inconsistent from one Sq to the next. We have Wing level programs here exclusively to act as remedial training to standardize them to a level that can actually function in grade. If you make C/CC a C/Capt or Maj postion then the meaning of that grade on a quality level varries so dramaticaly that it loses all meaning. A discressionary grade system like that CAN work, but it has to be run by absolutely amazing highly experienced officers that run a tight leash on this system to keep people humble. It absolutely does NOT work in CAP where playing favorites & what have you done for me lately are more common than not, and seniors with the training or experience to properly develop cadets thru the varrious stages just aren't in great supply. You just have to have a symple objective system & have to enforce the subjective veto power thru promotion boards.

If anything, one of the deals our CAC is trying to do here locally is set up promotion standards & a Gp level review board for Earheart & higher.

[arajca]

If anything, one of the deals our CAC is trying to do here locally is set up promotion standards & a Gp level review board for Earheart & higher.

Sounds like a waste of time. Group has no say in whether a cadet is ready for the Earhart or higher award. It's the unit commander's responsibility and discretion.

[ZigZag911]

Of course you could go back to the original CAP Cadet program. And leave promotions up to the Squadron Commander without respect to how many achievements have been completed. The cadet would still earn the ribbon but NOT the promotion. Or the Commander could promote up to C/CMSgt even if the cadet has only completed 2-3 achievements. Promotions based on either duty assignment for the cadet or the really gung-ho cadets could earn promotions. All that changes when the cadet earns the Mitchell but Squadron Commanders could promote up to C/Maj again depending on duty asignment. (C/LtCol and C/Col reserved for Earhart or Spaatz)
Jack Sorensen told me once, sitting at the O-club at Maxwell, he made a mistake by tieing promotions to achiecvements. But he said it was to late to change it.

I came in as a cadet in 1970, several years after the 'old' system was replaced by the first version of the current one (we got to the 2nd approach before I turned senior!)

My understanding is that there were problems with squadron CC as determiner of rank as well as promoting authority....in many instances, evidently, there was an inordinate degree of nepotism and favoritism.....giving the upper echelon ranks to their own kids & their staffs' kids (I am deliberately NOT using the term 'cadet' here because of the reasons underlying these promotions -- family connections).

There are squadrons today where the cadet offspring of the unit CC or a senior officer has indeed EARNED the position of cadet commander.

And then there are those units where Mommy or Daddy invests their dear child with supreme power over his/her peers!

Let's at least allow the cadets who, by accident of geography, fall under the command of these "officers" (I refer to the seniors here; I'm not blaming adolescents for being adolescent -- just blaming adults for being adolescents!) receive their grade as well as their awards based on a system that has some semblance of objectivity.

Isn't it bad enough that so many corporate officers are chosen by the "it's not what you know, but who you know" method?

[ZigZag911]

If anything, one of the deals our CAC is trying to do here locally is set up promotion standards & a Gp level review board for Earheart & higher.

Sounds like a waste of time. Group has no say in whether a cadet is ready for the Earhart or higher award. It's the unit commander's responsibility and discretion.

Why do so few of us read 20-1?

Group commanders COMMAND their units and personnel...not just their Group HQ staff! Think of them as 'force multipliers' for the wing CC, making his/her span of control manageable.

Squadron commanders are SUBORDINATE commanders (just as group CC is to wing CC, and wing CC is to region CC).

If the Group says to do something, and is not over-ruled by higher authority, guess what? That's the way it works!

Now, a sensible group CC is going to have discussions with his unit CCs and staff about a radical change like this, and get most of the folks on board with it.

But I know -- from my tenure as Group CC -- that there is always at least one squadron commander who thinks this is the Royal Navy, we're fighting Napoleon, and he is Jack Aubrey or Horatio Hornblower sailing a frigate on an independent command.

It isn't, we aren't, and he's not!!!

[MIKE]

ZigZag, go read CAPR 52-16.

[DNall]

If anything, one of the deals our CAC is trying to do here locally is set up promotion standards & a Gp level review board for Earheart & higher.

Sounds like a waste of time. Group has no say in whether a cadet is ready for the Earhart or higher award. It's the unit commander's responsibility and discretion.

Neither does a Sq, wg, or region promotion board. All they do is advise the commander on the suitability of the candidate.

I do think it's a waste of time though, at least the review board part of it. It might be reasonable to have the promotion authority at some point in the cadet process rise above Sq, but that's a bigger thing. No, I think this along with a handfulof other things is a crew of phase IV cadets that dominate that CAC trying to sieze greater control of everything cadet in the group. They haven't always been kept as in check as I'd think is necessary.

[Guardrail]

OR sixth grade & he's homeschool to boot. I think we got a 14yo Spaatz running around too. That's pretty stupid. Why would you stay in the program after that for four more years?

That's a good point.  There would be little incentive for a 14 yr old Spaatz cadet to stay in, because his/her experience wouldn't be that interesting.  They'd get bored pretty quick.

More than hard work, I think a seperate program becomes unamangeable from a practical execution stand point. We already turn to cadets leading the way on things cause there's not enough adult leadership or support. And we can't always support all our events cause we can't even get adults out to chaperon. Plus most Sqs get 10-12 cadets actively particpating. Split the numbers in half & multiply the work times two w/o increasing personnel that's what you're saying.

I agree.  My plan would not work well because it's hard enough for squadrons to manage the cadet program already.  Last thing they need is something like a split between older and younger cadets.

As an alternative, and this one gets supported by a lot of the cadets I've mentioned it to, what if the progression were age linked at two stripes per year. In other words, a 12yo can promote to A1C then has to wait till their birthday to promote again, whereas a cadet that joins at 13 can promote to SSgt during that year. Again pros & cons, but that factors in maturity in a big way. How would yall feel about something like that?

I like that.  This would get rid of the whole "I'm younger than you and in charge of you" attitude, along with all the psychological issues associated with having a 12/13/14 yr old in charge of someone 18/19/20 yrs old. 

No no no, I'm sorry, let me try that again...
Read this Close
12yo maxes out at A1C
13yo maxes out at SSgt
14yo maxes out at MSgt
15yo maxes out at CMSgt
16yo maxes out at 1Lt
17yo maxes out at Maj
18yo maxes out at Col

TIG is still 2mos & you can advance as many grades per year as possible, but cap out based on age. If you join at 18 w/ four years of ROTC so you can do the once a month thing, then you can make Captain or so just based the TIG limitations, the above doesn't restrict you at all. On the other hand if you join at 14 you can promote as normal only to MSgt, then you're frozen till your birthday.

Does that make more sense? You can still amp up the requirements & academic content as you move up in grade because you know there's a minimum age to hold that grade. It's still very possible for a younger cadet with more experience to command an older one that joined later, BUT it reduces the dramatic seperation that can occur now to teh detriment of the program. It also addresses maturity in promotions in a fair objective way rather than leaving it to be pencil whipped right on by.

This makes more sense.  Thanks, DNall.  I like your idea the best.  Seems like it would be the easiest to implement.  You should propose this to National... I think they may give it a look. 

Another thing I like about your proposed promotion/age idea is that it allows all cadets to progress at a reasonable rate and still meet the 2 achievements per year rule in the 52-16.   

What do you know, the latest issue of the Volunteer (available for download http://www.cap.gov/visitors//news/civil_air_patrol_volunteer/downloads/ has an article highlighting a kindergarten through 5th grade CAP program "pre-cadet school program" in Philadelphia. 

Oh dear God!!! 12 is already way too young. It should have never let middle schoolers in. That was desperation of a troubled program that wasn't (and isn't) being consistently executed by quality personnel (adults) trained to the task that among other things results in terrible recruiting & retention.

Oh yeah, I can see problems with this down the line.  Even if there are CAP personnel who are also faculty (I think the Principal is also a Captain), the 52-16 was never designed for a program like this.  National/PAWG need to rethink this. 

[shorning]

There would be little incentive for a 14 yr old Spaatz cadet to stay in, because his/her experience wouldn't be that interesting.  They'd get bored pretty quick.

Not necessarily.  There is a lot to the cadet program besides simply making rank.  There would still be tons that person could do!

[DNall]

There would be little incentive for a 14 yr old Spaatz cadet to stay in, because his/her experience wouldn't be that interesting.  They'd get bored pretty quick.

Not necessarily.  There is a lot to the cadet program besides simply making rank.  There would still be tons that person could do!

Yeah there is, and this girl is great, but at some point that stuff gets old too. Also, there's a natural cycle to that kind of thing. We want people coming into phase IV & working those top tier postions for a couple years at most while mentoring replacements & then making way. It's nothing against her, and it's a great accomplishment, but there's nowhere or at lest very few places left to go but down.

[SAR-EMT1]

Nonsense...get her to study for her PPL, observer/scanner, ES and comms.
By the time shes ready to become a Senior she'll be trained up and ready to assume command of the Squadron and / or Wing 

[DNall]

There''s no getting a spaatz cadet anything. They take what they want. She's not my cadet, but I do believe she's got glider knocked out & will take care of powered when she's old enough. She's already done every ES thing a cadet is allowed to. She's up against age limits on everything else. I'm sure she'll do her bit a while & be on her way.

[SAR-EMT1]

LOL SHE WILL BE THE YOUNGEST WING QUEEN IN HISTORY!

On a serious note though, who was the youngest Spatzen and the youngest Wing/Region/National Commander?

[ZigZag911]

ZigZag, go read CAPR 52-16.

What's your point?

The very first paragraph says that commanders are responsible for administering the program in accord with 52-16.

Commanders...all commanders, the higher echelon commanders having the oversight duty to make sure this is getting done.

2-4 (d) discusses Promotion Boards, and there is nothing in it that suggests, implies, or infers that a Group or Wing commander could not require such a board for higher milestone awards, provided the required evaluation form is completed at the squadron, and the method is applied equitably and consistently throughout the command.

By the way, I read this regulation in its first (and subsequent) editions, way back when it was 50-16.

[MIKE]

ZigZag, go read CAPR 52-16.

What's your point?

Review boards or other additional requirements imposed by higher headquarters are irrelevant because promotion authority is established by 52-16, unless you have an authorized supplement.

... Supplements and waivers are not authorized, except as specifically noted, or when approved by National Headquarters. ...

[DNall]

ZigZag, go read CAPR 52-16.

What's your point?

Review boards or other additional requirements imposed by higher headquarters are irrelevant because promotion authority is established by 52-16, unless you have an authorized supplement.

... Supplements and waivers are not authorized, except as specifically noted, or when approved by National Headquarters. ...

A Gp CC can require a cadet meet w/ a Gp level review board prior or after taking the test so they can be reviewed & that advice provided to the Sq CC who still makes that promotion decision. The Sq CC is still the prmotion authority & free to ignore that advice, but if they ignore the order to have the cadet reviewed then the Gp CC is free to pick a new Sq CC at his pleasure. Again, I didn't say it was a good idea, I just said they're trying to do it, and not for what I think are the best reasons.

[arajca]

If I were a unit commander and the group commander decided he was going to tell me which cadets I came promote starting at the Earhart, he'd better expect a bunch of CAPF 2A's to tranfer those cadets to group, since their progression will no longer be my responsibilty and I don't want to be in the middle of the fights that will happen when I feel a cadet is ready, but the group cc doesn't or the other way around. If he wants to control promotions, he can have whole thing.

Of course, he'd probably replace me as unit commander, but that's fine. With that level of micromanagement, I'd probably resign as commander anyway.

[DNall]

You understand the Gp CC isn't involved with this. It's an advisory board of phase IV cadets conducting the review & giving a report to the Sq CC to aid in his decision. The Gp CC never sees it or even knows it happened, neither does the Sq CC have to read it much less follow the advice. All they're asking for is the ability to interview the kids & provide their input to ensure standards are being met & deficiencies addressed. That's pretty reasonable really. I still think they're doing it for the wrong reasons & it isn't going to fly, but there is some logic behind it.

[flyguy06]

I'm just curious bt what is the percentage of active cadets ages 18-21?

Most of these folks are either in college, in the military or working and doing young adult things. I was a financial cadet during these years but I was in college and only got to be active in the summer.

[ZigZag911]

ZigZag, go read CAPR 52-16.

What's your point?

Review boards or other additional requirements imposed by higher headquarters are irrelevant because promotion authority is established by 52-16, unless you have an authorized supplement.

... Supplements and waivers are not authorized, except as specifically noted, or when approved by National Headquarters. ...

You are assuming the group in question has not received authorization through channels for such a supplement.

You are also assuming that there is no need for quality control on both cadet and senior training....my experience indicates otherwise.

[ZigZag911]

If I were a unit commander and the group commander decided he was going to tell me which cadets I came promote starting at the Earhart, he'd better expect a bunch of CAPF 2A's to tranfer those cadets to group, since their progression will no longer be my responsibilty and I don't want to be in the middle of the fights that will happen when I feel a cadet is ready, but the group cc doesn't or the other way around. If he wants to control promotions, he can have whole thing.

Of course, he'd probably replace me as unit commander, but that's fine. With that level of micromanagement, I'd probably resign as commander anyway.

Which might be exactly the result desired, if your attitude was in fact 'it's MY squadron and that's the last word'....which is what you seem to be saying ehre

[ZigZag911]

You understand the Gp CC isn't involved with this. It's an advisory board of phase IV cadets conducting the review & giving a report to the Sq CC to aid in his decision. The Gp CC never sees it or even knows it happened, neither does the Sq CC have to read it much less follow the advice. All they're asking for is the ability to interview the kids & provide their input to ensure standards are being met & deficiencies addressed. That's pretty reasonable really. I still think they're doing it for the wrong reasons & it isn't going to fly, but there is some logic behind it.

If this is solely, or primarily, a cadet officer initiative, then it probably is a terrible idea....I WAS a cadet officer, and we came up with some truly ridiculous notions at times...if the phase II/IV cadets are looking to improve the quality of cadet officers, perhaps they could offer to mentor some of their juniors?

[DNall]

Two sides to this & then I want to let it go....

Side1: Regs not only permit, but specifically encourage promotin boards to advise the CC, & make no rule defining how they should be made up or if that structure can be defined or supported beyond the Sq. The same provision covers the promotion boards that exist at Wg/Reg level for adult promotions. It is permited. Now, most Sqs have little experience w/ phase IV cadets, most Sq CCs even less in making those evaluations. What he sees is a kid that does a great job locally, not if that person meets the standards to be a wing-wide leader in cadet programs. It's appropriate to have experts evaluate those people & advise the Sq CC if they are ready or if any deficiency needs to be addressed. The Sq CC can take that advice or toss it in the trash w/o looking at it, but if the Gp CC says the cadet has to meet with the board, then the Sq CC has to send them.

If this is solely, or primarily, a cadet officer initiative, then it probably is a terrible idea....I WAS a cadet officer, and we came up with some truly ridiculous notions at times...if the phase II/IV cadets are looking to improve the quality of cadet officers, perhaps they could offer to mentor some of their juniors?

Side2: I agree with you. I don't think this particular effort is really being done for the right reasons. This is a bunch of cadets that have been given a lot of free reign & think they shouold be able to take steps to consolidate power over the cadet program. This flows from an attitude by some that CP officers are glorified babysitters & should put the wieght on cadets & let them learn from their failures.

While that's true to an extent, it must be practiced w/ a considered approach. Any baseball fan out there can tell you if you bring a pitcher up to the majors before they're ready you can ruin them for life, not to mention losing the game & wasting the effort of everyone else out there. You can't throw a cadet into the fire before they're ready. Not only can you harm their development, but when you let them outright fail it wastes the time & effort of everyone under them & you lose a lot of those people. You have to focus on quality & build people up with individual attention to their development, and move them around thru the process till they are ready to face challenges. You should give them a vision & have them execute it under your guidance. Sorry, sliding off into a little tirad there, BUT this is a case where cadet leaders have been allowed to exceed their authority & they are reaching for more... in my opinion, and I might well get in trouble for saying that, but based on being a cadet programs officer since I joined 13 years ago, and a respectable record of people I've turned around & made something out of, a record of programs I've operated, that's my considered opinion.

With that understanding, I don't think this review board option should proceed, but that's not to say there isn't some legitiamte theory in it & basis in regs to make it happen.

[BillB]

I've seen a Group level cadet promotion board. And the cadet that appears before the Board is on best behavior, uniform follows 39-1 to the letter and makes a great impression on the board. However in his home squadron he causes problems, often on ego trips and in general a pain in the (censored). So the concept didn't work when tried in the past.
Plus what do you do in Wings that don't have Groups? Ship the cadet several hundred miles to Wing Hq?

[Spogden]

I actually have come from a Wing that requires boards for promotion (supplement from WK). And no, they didn't ship cadets 100s of miles for board. They would convene a board close to the cadet(s). Most of the time the boards are held for multiple cadets. And all boards had atleast one sr member. Each board was also required to have a cadet or former cadet of equal grade or higher for the requested promotion.

Each cadet may be on their best behavior and as polished as can be, but if they cannot answer comprehensive questions about what they have learned, not studied to this point, then they are not ready for promotion no matter what their test score may say. A test can be something that is regurgitated and not actually absorbed. The supplement states that the cadet must pass the board for major promotions before the commanders are able to promote.

I don't know of a commander in the Wing that would have recommend the cadet for board if he didn't already feel they were ready. Nor did any of these commanders feel their power or authority was overridden by the WK.

But i think the point has been stated yet missed in this whole thread. Yes they can promote as stated in the regs by completing the necessary requirements and TIG. However, each commander has the right to deny or delay promotion based on maturity. So while we have some 12yo that have completed everything to promote to officer grade, if they don't have the maturity, then they shouldn't be promoted until they do. Therefore, I'm not sure a Jr. Cadet Program would be warrented.

[Dragoon]

Of course you could go back to the original CAP Cadet program. And leave promotions up to the Squadron Commander without respect to how many achievements have been completed. The cadet would still earn the ribbon but NOT the promotion. Or the Commander could promote up to C/CMSgt even if the cadet has only completed 2-3 achievements. Promotions based on either duty assignment for the cadet or the really gung-ho cadets could earn promotions. All that changes when the cadet earns the Mitchell but Squadron Commanders could promote up to C/Maj again depending on duty asignment. (C/LtCol and C/Col reserved for Earhart or Spaatz)
Jack Sorensen told me once, sitting at the O-club at Maxwell, he made a mistake by tieing promotions to achiecvements. But he said it was to late to change it.

I would so go for this - it would allow for the inevitable mismatch between test taking ability and leadership ability (within reason), and allow cadets to be recognized for their strengths while still working on their weaknesses.

[mikeylikey]

They should extend time in grade.  Less time in grade at the earlier achievements and more TIG at the later achievements.

[MIKE]

They should extend time in grade.  Less time in grade at the earlier achievements and more TIG at the later achievements.

I'd argue that cadets need more mandatory time in grade in phase 1 and 2... and 3 and 4.  I also think a manning document/table should be applied to cadet grade.

[CAP428]

Why make more mandatory time in grade?

If the squadron commanders are doing their job, everything should be fine.  At least I'm pretty sure, it's the sqdn. commanders, maybe DCC I'll have to check the regs, but whichever it is doesn't really matter:  they have the authority to hold back promotions from those who are not ready.

So if they are ready, let them go.  If they're not, hold them back.  Just because a cadet finishes a checklist of tasks doesn't mean they should be promoted.

People have different learning speeds.  If someone has the maturity and determination to learn all they need to know for Phase I in the minimum time, more power to them.  There's no reason to hold back somebody that has done the work and knows their stuff.

[MIKE]

If the squadron commanders are doing their job, everything should be fine.  At least I'm pretty sure, it's the sqdn. commanders, maybe DCC I'll have to check the regs, but whichever it is doesn't really matter:  they have the authority to hold back promotions from those who are not ready.

Emphasis mine.

So if they are ready, let them go.  If they're not, hold them back.  Just because a cadet finishes a checklist of tasks doesn't mean they should be promoted.

That's the ideal, but I've seen my fair share of instances where cadets were routinely promoted at minimum TIG.

[CAP428]

I agree, I've seen it too.  But I don't see why a cadet who is learning rapidly should be held back for the faults of a squadron commander.

[MIKE]

I agree, I've seen it too.  But I don't see why a cadet who is learning rapidly should be held back for the faults of a squadron commander.

Two months is not a lot of time to actually learn what's in the achievement, or apply what you've learned for that matter. How much of that time was spent just doing promotion requirements?

[ZigZag911]

They should extend time in grade.  Less time in grade at the earlier achievements and more TIG at the later achievements.

Actually, a standardized 3 months per achievement (instead of the current two) could put the brakes on the real "fast burners" (what, after all, is the rush?)....it would also have the benefit of giving each cadet a little more experience at each level

[Smitty]

I think that having the minimum be two months is correct.  Yes it is a short period of time but as it has been said time and time again.  Individual people learn at different speeds.  A cadet may learn all he/she needs to be capable of performing at the level of the next acheivement in three weeks or in six months.  It all depends on the individual.  Having the minimum TIG at two months allows the fast movers to move on to the next level in a reasonable amount of time while those that are not ready can be held back until they are ready.  I have also been asked why there is a set time if cadets learn at different speeds.  There is a simple explanation for that.  Completeing the requirements for most of the Phase I and II acheivements can take up as little as a single day.

All it would take is a simple weekend bivouac where on the first day the Leadership and Aerospace tests as well as the CPFT could be done in the afternoon with moral leadership being conducted that night.  The next morning cadets could have O-Flights and then go home.  They have just completed all the requirements for promotion.  Under those circumstances it would be possible for a squadron that actively did this to have several Mitchell cadets within a year.  

That said it is the job of the Sq/CC and the Sq/CDC to make sure cadets are ready for promotion.  Sadly many just sign off whenever all the boxes are checked.  If the Sq/CC just signs off on the promotion they are simply harming that cadet, but if the TIG was lengthened it would be unfair to those that would simply be sitting at a lower grade when they are ready for more responsibility.

[CAP428]

I agree, I've seen it too.  But I don't see why a cadet who is learning rapidly should be held back for the faults of a squadron commander.

Two months is not a lot of time to actually learn what's in the achievement, or apply what you've learned for that matter. How much of that time was spent just doing promotion requirements?

That, I am afraid depends solely on the speed at which the cadet learns.  Not whether one thinks it is a "long" or a "short" time, since those are not definitive, quantitative terms, but rather rest on the relative scale of things.  For instance, simply for illustration, if we are talking in terms of milliseconds, an entire day would be a "long" time.  But if we are talking years, a day is a "short" time.


So when you say 2 months is a short time, you must be comparing it to something else.  What are you comparing that to?

For the record, I did in fact earn my first few stripes in the minimum time allowed, and yes I did learn what was needed to know for that acheivement.  No, I'm not talking in terms of promotion requirements;  I mean I took the time to read the pertinent manuals that would affect me at that grade and I learned them.

Your question was how much of that 2 months was just spent on promotion requirements:  relatively very little.  I took my PT test in about an hour, took the leadership test in about 15 minutes, and we have moral leadership about twice a month.  I went to both.  I attended all our squadron's activities for the time period, etc.  I would say in total, the time spent on promotion requirements within those 2 months was about equal to one day.  The rest was spending time in the [then] current grade and learning what I needed to know.

To hold back cadets simply because you don't believe they can learn that fast would not be a wise decision.  People really do learn and catch on to things at different speeds.

Age and school workload can also play a role.  An older cadet will most likely learn more quickly than a younger cadet because usually the older cadet has more experience in school, etc. where they must learn things at a quick pace.  If you then take an older cadet who takes a rigorous school workload, including college-level or concurrent college classes, it is likely that cadet is already used to taking many standardized tests, taking effective notes, and studying well, as well as working under deadlines.

So, in conclusion, I would say the amount of time actually spent on promotion requirements is very miniscule.  All the rest should be learning and applying knowledge.

[MIKE]

So when you say 2 months is a short time, you must be comparing it to something else.  What are you comparing that to?

Let's call it experience.  BTDT.

[Instructor Disbrow]

The Sea Cadets have a younger version and they are called Navy Leaguers.  The age range is between 10 and 14, with Cadets being 13 to 18 years of age.
In the last 2 years the Leaguers are being offered more and more opportunities for training similar to what the Sea Cadets are offered.
They have trainings on Navy bases, Coast Guard stations, and Nat Guard bases now.
I am impressed by the progress that has been made in what they offer.
Last year the Leaguers started a submarine training!  Actual Navy personel have a difficult time getting on board subs and these young kids are now given that chance!  Amazing!

I've long thought of the idea of CAP having a junior cadet program, just like the Sea Cadets.  I think 12 is too young an age for cadets with cadet supervisors who are 17, 18, 19 and 20 years old in charge of them.  The age gap is just too big.   

Instead, I propose that CAP have 2 cadet programs: a Junior Cadet Program, and an Advanced Cadet Program.  The Junior Cadet Program would be for cadets ages 12-16, while the Advanced Cadet Program would be for cadets ages 17-20.  I think this would solve a lot of problems associated with the age gap in the CAP cadet program we currently have.

Any thoughts? 

And you care about this how?

I'm serious: for a non-member, you sure have a lot of ideas, concepts, opinions, comments, etc...  If you're that highly motivated to effect the course of the organization, I suggest you rejoin. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air on an internet message board.

Well sir, I joined CAP when I was 12 and stayed in until I was 21.  I chose not to re-join because I feel it's more important to focus on my education.  I also don't want to earn a commission in CAP until I earn my bachelor's degree and either commission in the AF or join my state's SDF (depending on my medical status... I may not be qualified to join the military).  If I can't join the military, I'll join the SDF. 

So with great respect sir, I don't think I'm blowing hot air on this board.  I care about a junior cadet program because I think it would work, and looking back, it would have benefited me more when I was a cadet.  There really is too much of an age gap in today's CAP cadet program.   

[BillB]

CAP had a "pre-cadet" program in the 1960's. It was called the Eaflet Program for 10-13 year olds. In 2002 a test program was approved totake another look at an Eaglet Program for Keystone Flight FL-202 in Florida Wing. It had a limited membership but worked out very well. The approved uniform was AF blue shirt and blue jeans with a black plastic name tag. Eaglets took part in many unit activities, and were given a modified aerospace education training. They were give O-rides in non-corporaet aircraft (via EAA's Young Eagles) I set up the program and may still have paperork and training materials unless I tossed everything.

[A.Member]

The entire cadet program IS a junior program!  We still have a lot of opportunities left to make that program reach it's potential.  The emphasis needs to stay there before any discussion even begins to occur about expanding to an even younger audience.

[HGjunkie]

CAP had a "pre-cadet" program in the 1960's. It was called the Eaflet Program for 10-13 year olds. In 2002 a test program was approved totake another look at an Eaglet Program for Keystone Flight FL-202 in Florida Wing. It had a limited membership but worked out very well. The approved uniform was AF blue shirt and blue jeans with a black plastic name tag. Eaglets took part in many unit activities, and were given a modified aerospace education training. They were give O-rides in non-corporaet aircraft (via EAA's Young Eagles) I set up the program and may still have paperork and training materials unless I tossed everything.

I'm confused: is it Eaflet or Eaglet?

[BillB]

Eaglet.          My keyboard is confused

[caphornbuckle]

The cadet program is oriented around the Air Force training.

We have 25 year old Lieutenants directing 30+ year old Master Sergeants in the Air Force.  The only differences in CAP is that our cadet officers have had the same experiences the younger cadets have because they wore that grade at one time.

It's all part of learning about life.  Most people will always end up with a boss younger than them sooner or later.

I don't see why age would be an issue.

[Ozzy]

Off Topic...... AHH ZOMBIES ARE ATTACKING THE NIGHT BEFORE HALLOWEEN!!!! (3.5 year thread revival!)

[caphornbuckle]

Off Topic...... AHH ZOMBIES ARE ATTACKING THE NIGHT BEFORE HALLOWEEN!!!! (3.5 year thread revival!)

Wow...didn't even look at the date...was kinda surprised I guess to see so many posts in such a short time!  Should've been the hint I guess!

EDIT:  Even worse...this sentence is horribly written!

[Al Sayre]

Snip

It's all part of learning about life.  Most people will always end up with a boss younger than them sooner or later.

Snip

Agree, in fact most men marry one...

[High Speed Low Drag]

Snip

It's all part of learning about life.  Most people will always end up with a boss younger than them sooner or later.

Snip

Agree, in fact most men marry one...

And, just like the Navy's "Aye, Aye, Sir"  the proper response is .... "Yes, Dear."