So, you think our PD program is weak? What needs to be added?

[RADIOMAN015]

The issue with CAP adult professional development courses is a challenge, primarily for two reasons.  1.  The level of education of individual members and 2.  The "reasonable" time/cost requirements to attend the course.
IF you make a course to difficult, than some of the slow learners in the program won't be able to achieve ANY PD.  I think CAP tries to develop courses that the typical senior/adult member can understand and complete successfully.    IF you make the time or cost requirements to high, than members likely won't expend the effort because they have personal time availability issues OR just don't have the disposable income to participate.

Last year our wing IG made the comment that IF members aren't progressing in professional development, than perhaps we needed to review whether we needed to retain them.  I personally believe that this is too harsh, because I know members that have been in the program a very long time BUT have not completed very much PD training, YET they are VERY dedicated to the squadron and do a lot :clap:
RM   

[RiverAux]

Last year our wing IG made the comment that IF members aren't progressing in professional development, than perhaps we needed to review whether we needed to retain them. 

It depends on what level they are participating in.  If you're working in a squadron, there really is no need to ever go beyond technician rating (though it would be nice).  However, if you're on group or wing staff and haven't progressed to an appropriate PD level, then perhaps there is an issue. 

[PHall]

The issue with CAP adult professional development courses is a challenge, primarily for two reasons.  1.  The level of education of individual members and 2.  The "reasonable" time/cost requirements to attend the course.
IF you make a course to difficult, than some of the slow learners in the program won't be able to achieve ANY PD.  I think CAP tries to develop courses that the typical senior/adult member can understand and complete successfully.    IF you make the time or cost requirements to high, than members likely won't expend the effort because they have personal time availability issues OR just don't have the disposable income to participate.

Last year our wing IG made the comment that IF members aren't progressing in professional development, than perhaps we needed to review whether we needed to retain them.  I personally believe that this is too harsh, because I know members that have been in the program a very long time BUT have not completed very much PD training, YET they are VERY dedicated to the squadron and do a lot :clap:
RM   

We boot cadets for "not progressing in the program", why not seniors?  It's not like seniors have a time limit like cadets do.

[Eclipse]

Last year our wing IG made the comment that IF members aren't progressing in professional development, than perhaps we needed to review whether we needed to retain them.

Listen to your IG.

Stagnated members who don't know the program are one of the core problems of CAP.  Just because they are "active" doesn't mean they are "effective",
or couldn't be more so and have a better time if they understood the program better.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

The issue with CAP adult professional development courses is a challenge, primarily for two reasons.  1.  The level of education of individual members and 2.  The "reasonable" time/cost requirements to attend the course.
IF you make a course to difficult, than some of the slow learners in the program won't be able to achieve ANY PD.  I think CAP tries to develop courses that the typical senior/adult member can understand and complete successfully.    IF you make the time or cost requirements to high, than members likely won't expend the effort because they have personal time availability issues OR just don't have the disposable income to participate.

Last year our wing IG made the comment that IF members aren't progressing in professional development, than perhaps we needed to review whether we needed to retain them.  I personally believe that this is too harsh, because I know members that have been in the program a very long time BUT have not completed very much PD training, YET they are VERY dedicated to the squadron and do a lot :clap:
RM   

We boot cadets for "not progressing in the program", why not seniors?  It's not like seniors have a time limit like cadets do.

The comment from the IG was to review them. I think this is much better than a "progress or leave" rule.

Some examples

• Ima CPA is serving as Wing Finance Officer.  Are you really going to bounce her for not wanting to take SLS? Or do you thank her for the service that would cost hundreds if you had to purchase it?
• 
  Maj Joe CP is on encampment staff every year. He can take 1 week off for CAP. Do you suggest RSC instead for this year?

I might be able to get behind a requirement that if you accept mission or professional advanced grade that you also agree to a time table to catch up to the related PD level. If you fail to meet it then you demote to what you have accomplished.

[Eclipse]

• Ima CPA is serving as Wing Finance Officer.  Are you really going to bounce her for not wanting to take SLS? Or do you thank her for the service that would cost hundreds if you had to purchase it?

Bounce?  No.  However someone who has not even completed SLS has no business on staff at the Wing level in the first place, so there would be
pressure.

• Maj Joe CP is on encampment staff every year. He can take 1 week off for CAP. Do you suggest RSC instead for this year?

Professional appointments notwithstanding, majors looking to Level IV are different from CFI's brought in as Captains who can't be bothered with PD.

[NIN]

Last year our wing IG made the comment that IF members aren't progressing in professional development, than perhaps we needed to review whether we needed to retain them.

Listen to your IG.

Stagnated members who don't know the program are one of the core problems of CAP.  Just because they are "active" doesn't mean they are "effective",
or couldn't be more so and have a better time if they understood the program better.

In business, thats called "The Peter Principle." People rise to the level of their own incompetence.

This happens in CAP a lot: people get into a position that they're marginally qualified for,  and then stay there because they're "willing to do the job." Does not always mean they're the right person, or the most effective.  A captain comm guy becomes the wing director of comm because he's the guy with the time to contribute, knowledge of radios, or is not afraid of climbing the big honking tower the wing repeater is on. But he's "too busy" to go to CLC or whatever else.  Yeah, he has a high degree of technical competence, but his reports to region are always late, his wing-level comm plan is just the one from two years ago with a new date on it, etc.  His "professional officer" competence is lacking.

Not all of that is necessarily fixed by CLC and/or RSC, but eventually, the peter principle thing starts to bite you on the butt when you have a HQ staff full of people who can "sorta" do the job, but not "really" and won't add professional competence to their skillz.

Its the difference between getting a "SAT" on the inspection, and getting a "BENCHMARK."

In the words of Maj Dunkle: "Adequacy is priority one!"

[ol'fido]

Lack of progression does not equal lack of competence in every case. We all have stories about the guys that don't progress and can't pour urine out of a boot without screwing it up. We all have stories about the guy that has level IV or V, is a Lt Col and can't pour urine out of a boot without screwing it up. We all have stories about the guy that has been a Capt since the 80's and does their job as well as anybody if not better. There are a couple of possible ways to handle it.

1. When we recruit new senior members we need to be very up front about our expectations for them and their  progression. Don't recruit on the premise of "easy rank" or "cheap flying".

2. Be clear and concise on exactly what is needed for each promotion and PD level.

3. Make sure that our wings are providing ample training opportunities for each senior that are regularly scheduled and geographically accessible.

4. Incorporate the things that you think seniors lack(D&C, C&C, uniform wear) in a more formal and structured manner. Don't just say that seniors should be taught these things. Spell out exactly what should be taught down to specific drill commands. Then give both written and practical tests in order to pass Level 1.

We have a six month time frame after a senior joins to instill this type of thinking before we give them officer grade. (This is way better than the way we used to do it which was make them a 2nd Lt as soon as they joined.) Let's use this time more efficiently than we are now.

The only other solution might be to institute some sort of Warrant Officer type program that let's those with limited time to offer or those who are uninterested in the traditional senior PD type progression find a niche that works for them and doesn't deny the proram the benefits of what they can contribute.

[Eclipse]

^ Can't argue about that, though I'm a little gray on the boot thing.

One continued failing is an expectation by unit CC's that somehow their people will get training even though their unit has no plan or program.
PD is the direct responsibility of the unit.

[SII-117]

I think changing things just to change things is dumb.
There's already enough red tape to build a duffel bag out of.

[MSG Mac]

I have no problem with careeer Captains or Lieutenants. as long as they're doing the job they were assigned to. I do sit down with every member and let them know what they have to do to get promoted, but at the end it's up to them to meet the requirements.