Multiple CAPRs, Forms, Pamphlets, VAs regarding the Cadet Program in preview

Started by Holding Pattern, September 08, 2021, 05:08:39 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Holding Pattern

Of significance includes a NEW CAPR 60-3 for school programs along with several other changes to the cadet program.

Suggest all cadet program officers start reading.

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/members/publications/regulations-for-preview

Spam

A little more research might be in order before sending these publications live:

Ref: the New Cadet Guide, https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P_6020_760BB4AD4BE66.pdf

"But do the Core Values really matter?"
"Someone scrawled a hideously vile word onto the Air Force Academy's campus. Big deal? The superintendent gathered everyone together and made the Air Force's view about racism crystal clear. "If you can't treat someone with dignity and respect," declared Lt Gen Jay Silveria, "then get out." Truly, making a commitment to the Core Values is the price of admission at the Air Force Academy"

The referenced incident was not in fact a racist harassment incident, but rather was revealed in short order in 2018 as a hoax by the "targeted" student. The lesson learned here wasn't Respect ("raaaacism") - but Integrity (lying/trying to weasel out of responsibility). It is disingenuous of Civil Air Patrol to present this as if it was an actual racist attack, when in fact it was a complete hoax.

We need to have some fact checking here!

Reference:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/us/air-force-academy-racist-message-trnd/index.html
and
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/03/06/i-wasnt-myself-culprit-who-wrote-racial-slurs-at-air-force-academy-blames-concussion/

V/r
Spam

Spam

Also, perhaps some quality control before going live. Same pub page 16:

"THERE IS ONLY 1 RIGHT WAY the to WEAR the UNIFORM: the RIGHT WAY"

[then proceeds to depict the male cadet uniform on the left with two (2) Basic Ground Team badges]


:o
- Spam

Eclipse

Spam, I would think by now that you'd know you should never let facts get in the way of
the narrative.

The 60-98 is far too subjective to be of value.  Every item on that list has a
specification that could have been a check box with an objective score vs.
a subjective assessment that still results in what would appear to be, but actually isn't,
an objective final tally.

As to the 60-97...um, what?

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: Spam on September 08, 2021, 07:23:28 PMAlso, perhaps some quality control before going live. Same pub page 16:

"THERE IS ONLY 1 RIGHT WAY the to WEAR the UNIFORM: the RIGHT WAY"

[then proceeds to depict the male cadet uniform on the left with two (2) Basic Ground Team badges]


:o
- Spam



So...no one checked this then?

This is a "new guide", yet it still contains what are now prohibited uniforms and uniform items,
a number of uniform problems that will surely become the "but the guide shows", not to mention
isn't there anyone at NHQ that knows how to properly mask an image?


"That Others May Zoom"

Spam

On a more positive note, I do like the updates to R60-2 Cadet Protection Program. This is standing the test of time, I feel, as we continue to update it based on lessons learned. The current policy/guidance is light years beyond where we were. I remember in 1989 when we first began discussing the topic, and did the first screenings.

I've pulled the new Scouting safety guide, and will be reading it for content, but I like that we're using youth program "Industry" benchmarks here.

V/r
Spam

PHall

So this maybe why they're in the "Publications for Review" section, so the mistakes can be found?
So in addition to your snappy replies here on CAP Talk did you give your feedback to the CP Section so they can fix them?

Ned

Quote from: Spam on September 08, 2021, 07:17:31 PMA little more research might be in order before sending these publications live:

Ref: the New Cadet Guide, https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P_6020_760BB4AD4BE66.pdf

"But do the Core Values really matter?"
"Someone scrawled a hideously vile word onto the Air Force Academy's campus. Big deal? The superintendent gathered everyone together and made the Air Force's view about racism crystal clear. "If you can't treat someone with dignity and respect," declared Lt Gen Jay Silveria, "then get out." Truly, making a commitment to the Core Values is the price of admission at the Air Force Academy"

The referenced incident was not in fact a racist harassment incident, but rather was revealed in short order in 2018 as a hoax by the "targeted" student. The lesson learned here wasn't Respect ("raaaacism") - but Integrity (lying/trying to weasel out of responsibility). It is disingenuous of Civil Air Patrol to present this as if it was an actual racist attack, when in fact it was a complete hoax.

We need to have some fact checking here!

Reference:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/us/air-force-academy-racist-message-trnd/index.html
and
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/03/06/i-wasnt-myself-culprit-who-wrote-racial-slurs-at-air-force-academy-blames-concussion/

V/r
Spam

I'm on it.  Thanks for pointing it out.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Team

Spam

Quote from: PHall on September 08, 2021, 09:56:36 PMSo this maybe why they're in the "Publications for Review" section, so the mistakes can be found?
So in addition to your snappy replies here on CAP Talk did you give your feedback to the CP Section so they can fix them?

Since you ask, yes I did in fact go looking for the old "Proving Grounds" section of the CP website. I cannot find it any more, at https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/programs/cadets.  I found the Proving Grounds to be one of the very best things that the CP Team has done in the past ten years, and I have a past record of providing feedback to nascent pubs via that route.

If you can show me where the link is on the "Regulations for Preview" page cited, to actually provide review comments, I would be more than happy to do a sterile academic write up, with citations. NOTE: the current page is titled, regs for PREVIEW - not "review", indicating that these may be already saucered and blown, and in some cases signed where appropriate. Thats not the same 1:1 process as the old peer review Proving Grounds process, I would like to note.

I did make an attempt to find a path to do it the old way, and there doesn't appear to be a new way via this section. I want to note that I also gave praise in addition to criticism in my product review, and feel that it was balanced if possibly too cursory due to available time.

Fair enough? This is bringing forward the relevant issue of how to conform to a peer review process, and compile results, perhaps for action. We once had a great process, which I would recommend reviving.

R/s
Spam

skymaster

Has anyone else noticed in the new visual aids for the Cadet Program, that apparently Achievement 5, currently the Lindbergh Achievement, is to be an "unnamed" Achievement?

baronet68

Quote from: Spam on September 08, 2021, 07:36:03 PMI've pulled the new Scouting safety guide, and will be reading it for content, but I like that we're using youth program "Industry" benchmarks here.

I've spent the last couple of hours reading the Scouting safety guide (yes, it's that riveting) and I have to say, I'm impressed! 

It's well written and contains a ton of useful information and they've broken activities down based on age-appropriate guidelines.  The GSA Cadette, Senior, and Ambassador levels encompass the age range of the CAP cadet program.
Michael Moore, Lt Col, CAP
National Recruiting & Retention Manager

Fubar

So the CPP is trying to make everyone in CAP a mandatory reporter:

Quote from: undefinedThis requirement applies to abuse allegedly occurring in CAP and apart from CAP,
such as a cadet disclosing to a trusted CAP adult abuse occurring at school, home, sports, etc.

I can appreciate trying to ensure any incidents of abuse, regardless of where it occurred are handled in some way. The problem is with most cases of abuse, you really don't want more people knowing about it than absolutely necessary to protect the privacy of the victim. If a cadet came to me and reported that they were abused by the coach on their sports team, I should be reporting this to the local authorities and not my squadron commander who is no more empowered to deal with the incident than I am.

Perhaps the regulation should simply direct adults to contact local authorities regarding any incidents that do not involve CAP, it's essentially what anyone trying to do the right thing would do anyway.

dwb

Quote from: skymaster on September 09, 2021, 03:33:21 AMHas anyone else noticed in the new visual aids for the Cadet Program, that apparently Achievement 5, currently the Lindbergh Achievement, is to be an "unnamed" Achievement?

Yes, this was explained in the "News and Innovations" pamphlet that NHQ/CP publishes for the national conference every year.

Edited by Moderator

Jester

Quote from: Spam on September 09, 2021, 01:58:38 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 08, 2021, 09:56:36 PMSo this maybe why they're in the "Publications for Review" section, so the mistakes can be found?
So in addition to your snappy replies here on CAP Talk did you give your feedback to the CP Section so they can fix them?

Since you ask, yes I did in fact go looking for the old "Proving Grounds" section of the CP website. I cannot find it any more, at https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/programs/cadets.  I found the Proving Grounds to be one of the very best things that the CP Team has done in the past ten years, and I have a past record of providing feedback to nascent pubs via that route.

If you can show me where the link is on the "Regulations for Preview" page cited, to actually provide review comments, I would be more than happy to do a sterile academic write up, with citations. NOTE: the current page is titled, regs for PREVIEW - not "review", indicating that these may be already saucered and blown, and in some cases signed where appropriate. Thats not the same 1:1 process as the old peer review Proving Grounds process, I would like to note.

I did make an attempt to find a path to do it the old way, and there doesn't appear to be a new way via this section. I want to note that I also gave praise in addition to criticism in my product review, and feel that it was balanced if possibly too cursory due to available time.

Fair enough? This is bringing forward the relevant issue of how to conform to a peer review process, and compile results, perhaps for action. We once had a great process, which I would recommend reviving.

R/s
Spam

Proving Grounds still exists: https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/programs/cadets/cpofficer/provinggrounds

It's under the Adult Leaders section of the CP area.

jeders

This thread has been pruned heavily of off-topic posts. Remain on topic or the post will be locked again and the offending parties will be disciplined.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

TheSkyHornet

I would propose that we also review CAPR 60-2 regarding the age of cadets.

Not every cadet in CAP is a minor. There are two parts to cadet protection: the protection of minors against abuse by adults; and the protection of cadet members against inappropriate and potentially abusive relationships with/by their adult leaders and mentors.

I'm not too keen on the housing/hygiene activities permitted. Why can a 20-year-old cadet be in the same dormitory or the same shower as a 12-year-old cadet, yet an 18-year-old senior member Flight Officer cannot? Personally, I think we should include some specificity regarding the separation of legal age adults from minors (and maybe we just go with a standard 18 years of age).

When a senior member engages with any cadet, enforcement of CPP regards abusive relationships of the individual being trained/mentored. Both the senior and cadet, in this case, may be of legal age. So this is not a matter of abusive of a minor but abuse of a protégé.

It may be difficult to add into a program as complex as this, but I do think we need a little more specificity in this regard, and separate when we're talking about protections of minors versus protections of trainees. 20-year-old cadets are not little kids, and they are often older than their senior member counterparts. I have seen units where the squadron commander (senior member) is 19-years-old.

SarDragon

I have seen this frequently explained as a Student-Teacher relationship, where age doesn't matter. An 18 yo cadet and an 18 yo SM are not, in the eyes of CAP, peers. The latter has a position of authority and responsibility; the former does not.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Eclipse

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on September 09, 2021, 07:40:21 PM20-year-old cadets are not little kids, and they are often older than their senior member counterparts. I have seen units where the squadron commander (senior member) is 19-years-old.

OK, that's an edge case that was probably "a good idea at the time" and ended badly, not the kind of thing to craft a policy about (other then to prohibit CC's under 21).

I don't disagree with the sentiment, I've struggled with what to do with the in-betweeners as well, but at the end of the day, the Cadet / Senior bright line provides an easy to understand and difficult to fudge idea of who is the caretaker and who the the cared-for.

As soon as you adjust that, you will inevitably wind up with either "mini-Senior Members" or "Uber Cadets" either is an idea more difficult to characterize but both are much easier to fudge for the sake of expedience.

In the Grande Scheme this issue doesn't really affect that many people year over year due to the college factor.

"That Others May Zoom"

Ned

Quote from: Spam on September 08, 2021, 07:17:31 PMA little more research might be in order before sending these publications live:

Ref: the New Cadet Guide, https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P_6020_760BB4AD4BE66.pdf

"But do the Core Values really matter?"
"Someone scrawled a hideously vile word onto the Air Force Academy's campus. Big deal? The superintendent gathered everyone together and made the Air Force's view about racism crystal clear. "If you can't treat someone with dignity and respect," declared Lt Gen Jay Silveria, "then get out." Truly, making a commitment to the Core Values is the price of admission at the Air Force Academy"

The referenced incident was not in fact a racist harassment incident, but rather was revealed in short order in 2018 as a hoax by the "targeted" student. The lesson learned here wasn't Respect ("raaaacism") - but Integrity (lying/trying to weasel out of responsibility). It is disingenuous of Civil Air Patrol to present this as if it was an actual racist attack, when in fact it was a complete hoax.

We need to have some fact checking here!

[ . . .]


V/r
Spam

In the spirit of the first week of the NFL season:

"Upon further review, the call on the field stands."

Here, the quoted excerpt is factually correct.  Someone did write the vile words, and the superintendent saw the slur and acted decisively as required by the Core Values in response.  The lesson is in the response to intolerance.  The source of the slur is immaterial to the lesson:  "The Core Values Matter."

What lesson would have been taught if there had been no public response?



"Spam is charged a time out."

Seriously, thank you for the opportunity to review the materials posted for review.  See my next response or two for additional information.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Team

Ned

Quote from: Spam on September 08, 2021, 07:23:28 PMAlso, perhaps some quality control before going live. Same pub page 16:

"THERE IS ONLY 1 RIGHT WAY the to WEAR the UNIFORM: the RIGHT WAY"

[then proceeds to depict the male cadet uniform on the left with two (2) Basic Ground Team badges]


:o
- Spam

"The call on the field is reversed.  Coach Spam is correct and the 2 Ground Team Badges are improperly depicted. Spam will not be charged a time out."

Seriously, we can't figure out how that happened.  Many pairs of eyes, including mine, either did not see it, or some echo in the machine produced a double image post review.  In any event, we will fix it before publication.

Score a point for CT, and that's why we generally post pubs for review.

My sincere thanks.

Ned
National Cadet Team