Senior member training

[arajca]

As has been discussed, there is an incredible lack of specialty training for senior members. A couple of questions:

1. Can this lack be rectified?

2. For a minimal amount of funding - both CAP and member provided?

3. If so, how?

[arajca]

Since I put this up, I'll start.

1. I think it wouoldn't be too hard or complicated to fix this problem.

2. The costs would be minimal, but the accessibility to the members would have to be great.

3. A couple of ideas.
    a. Assign each region to develop three specialty training courses, one for each level of an assigned specialty track, per year. Each region is assigned a different specialty track. Within three years, each track has a training course. Each is tied to the appropriate pamphlet for the position.
    b. Get AFIADL to put the courses in the Professional Development - Civil Air Patrol section like the PAO, ES, and Safety courses are now.
    c. Assign each set of courses to a department at National to make sure information is current.
    d. If AFIADL won't host the courses, make them available through download and have tests online similar to Comm, CO, and AEO. Provide hardcopy tests for those units whose members don't have internet access.

[dwb]

I don't know that a standard curriculum would be applicable in all cases.

For example, finance.  In order to do finance, one must not only understand the national requirements, but also how we locally keep track of funds, process receipts, update the "books" (which are actually in Quicken), publish the periodic reports, etc.  We fulfill the national requirements, but we do it in our own way.  Furthermore, our way, while it meets our need, isn't necessarily how other units would do it.

I can think of some other examples as well, but finance jumped out at me.  Obviously, there will be great disparity apropos to cadet programs.  When you're dealing with a very mature program (officers, NCOs, planned succession, review boards, etc.) you manage it very differently then if you're starting a new unit, or dealing with gaps in cadet progression.  That assumes everyone is implementing the cadet program the same way, which isn't true.  Some units tend to do more AE, some do more ES, others build drill teams.

Although I used to strive for "common implementations" or "best practices", I've come to realize that there is no One True Way, and trying to train for that is a mistake.  Each unit will develop with its own strengths and weaknesses.  And that's okay.  Just in my group, for example, we have one composite squadron that has an excellent flying program, but its cadet program is not as strong.  Another composite squadron has (what I consider to be) a benchmark AE program, but no ES capability whatsoever.  My squadron has had an up-and-down senior program, which fortunately is on the up right now.

If there is any training provided, it should be on what the national mandates are (although sometimes, it's the "middle management" echelons that insert all kinds of funky additional rules).  That, and management training.  Lots of it.  How to set goals within a unit and how to implement them, care and feeding of volunteers, how to take in new members and assimilate them, how to train staff, mentoring, training one's replacement, etc.  That, in my mind, is where the useful training would apply; not so much any kind of job training materials.

[arajca]

National has already set up standard requirements for each specialty track - the CAPP 200 series. These are applicable CAP-wide.

The pamphlets leave alot to be desired as to how to get the information to meet the requirements listed in each. My idea is to provide a uniform base from which to grow. Yes, there will be wing and unit specific things that neeed to be done, but they are based on detail, not the overall picture.

Look at Cadet Programs. To progress you need to take a test for each level online. Each squadron executes the Cadet Program slightly differently, but they all follow the same general requirements outlined in CAP regs. Safety, ES, and PAO already have their own AFIADL courses. Why not the rest?

The problem with everyone doing their own thing is the National requirements may not be covered. I'll pick on Admin. I know several Admin folks who have their Senior and Master ratings who couldn't tell you how to fill out a CAPF 2 or where to find information on maintaining CAP regulations. They got their ratings because their commander decided they were meeting the local needs and the heck with the National requirements. Also, trying to find out how to perform some of the jobs can be very frustrating. Asking someone from another unit didn't help because they followed their own plan and had no idea what National required.

You mentioned "how to train staff". Let's face it - there ain't squat out there to train most staff positions with. This idea provides that.

[SarDragon]

National is currently working on an instructor training program, which is currently in beta testing. This, IMNSHO, is a key part in functional training at all levels. There is a serious lack of qualified instructors in CAP, and this in turn, hampers serious training programs and efforts.]

Not just anyone can be an instructor. We have folks out there, at all levels, trying to pass on their knowledge and wisdom to others in a totally haphazard and unorganized fashion, with no regard or knowledge of proper teaching techniques.

I have asked instructors if they have ever read, or even seen the AIR FORCE MANUAL 36-2236, GUIDEBOOK FOR AIR FORCE INSTRUCTORS, and have gotten these responses: "Huh?", or "That's only for the AF; CAP doesn't need that." Pretty sad that the AF instructor bible isn't used where needed most.

Another response to a different question: "Lesson guide? What's a lesson guide?" They exist for Level I, SLS, CLC, and other nationally developed courses, but aren't properly used in many instances. For those courses where no lesson guides exist, the situation is even worse. Yet, we blunder on, and wonder why the training is ineffective.

[arajca]

I was one of the beta testers for the CAPIP.  Not a bad course, but it needs to be broken down into three courses. The planners broke it down somewhat into Technician, Senior, and Master portions.

There is no set practical portion, which I understand can be somewhat difficult to implement as the course is set up, but is needed to help tie everthing together. I have taken several Train The Trainer and adult instructing classes and everyone had a practical application of the material.

[Major_Chuck]

Let me share with you a project that I am working on in my MER Safety Capacity. 

Last year when I was asked to serve as Assistant Director of Safety I was asked to give some candid opinions of where I thought the Safety Program as a whole sat.  I felt (and still do) that beyond the initial Safety Officer training that is provided via AFIADL/ECI there  is not much in the way of continueing education.

While I am speaking specifically about Safety, we as a group recognize that beyond the basics in our specialty tracks there is not much in the way of developing our people.  I suggested last June that we needed to look at developing some sort of continueing education training modules for the safety officers and we should not limit ourselves to what the AF could provide.

Fast forward to the appointment of a new National Safety Officer a few months later.  One of his objectives has become additional  continueing education.  How it is evolving is yet to be seen and my project here in MER is hinged on what National develops.  It does not mean that I am stopping my efforts.  They have the resources and $$$ to do it, I don't and that gives them a leg up on it.

Right now it is going to take initiative and desire on the parts of our officers to seek out additional training to make themselves better at their chosen specialities.  We've all seen what happens when we sit back and wait for NHQ to do it on their own.  In my humble opinion it is going to take some effort on our parts to see that our specialty tracks evolve and our training improve.

-CC

[arajca]

At least safety has a basic course. That's more than most of them do.

I am starting to write an Admin Off Tech course (since it is one of my ratings). Probably will take a while - just finished the outline and I am starting to get the details figured out. Then, I'll send it off to be reviewed by some Admin folks who I know know the right way to do things.

I'm also going to be writing the proposal I detailed above up as a Proposed Agenda Item for the NEC or NB. Couldn't hurt.

[CAPSGT]

I am starting to write an Admin Off Tech course (since it is one of my ratings). Probably will take a while - just finished the outline and I am starting to get the details figured out. Then, I'll send it off to be reviewed by some Admin folks who I know know the right way to do things.

Feel free to send it my way.  I did a stint as a wing admin officer, and know a thing or two about admin.

[pixelwonk]

If there is any training provided, it should be on what the national mandates are (although sometimes, it's the "middle management" echelons that insert all kinds of funky additional rules).  That, and management training.  Lots of it.  How to set goals within a unit and how to implement them, care and feeding of volunteers, how to take in new members and assimilate them, how to train staff, mentoring, training one's replacement, etc.  That, in my mind, is where the useful training would apply; not so much any kind of job training materials.

I wholly agree with that.  That describes one of the points I made in Senior member Professional Development/Grade advancement

I strongly believe that we need to restructure how leadership is applied at the local level, and training is a big part of that.

[arajca]

As it turns out, there is a CAP PDO group on Yahoo. I joined it and posted my suggestion. The group admin has said he'll bring it to the Development Committee at their next conf. call. He said they probably won't have a decision on it at that call, but at least the ball is rolling...

[arajca]

Since it has been a while, here is where I am on this project.

I realized how much I still need to learn about Admin and in talking (and trying to talk) to several other admin officers - incl. wing level, I got individual answers that are more confusing than helpful. Appearently everyone does things different and no one can help anyone else out. As a result, I am letting this project fall by the wayside.

I feel this is the kind of project that really needs to come from National, but they aren't interested in it because there is no money for it.

[shorning]

Status quo...