CAP Talk

General Discussion => Membership => Topic started by: culpeper on January 31, 2020, 02:53:40 PM

Title: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: culpeper on January 31, 2020, 02:53:40 PM
Got word via Wing that PD standards are changing this mid year.  Looks like SLS, CLC, and NSC will be gone.  Legacy level completion will expire early 2021.

Personally, I hope it is a compromise between the previous and current requirements.  I appear to be the only working Senior in my squadron  that is actually going through the motions.  18 months in CAP and only need a couple of conferences to complete Level III.  All my peers have completed nothing towards Level II.  Is there something wrong with the current PD structure that scares new members.  I've been told people have a tendency to fear taking a test but almost every test I have taken, no matter what it applies to, has been open book. 
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: kcebnaes on January 31, 2020, 03:42:28 PM
Honestly, from what I've heard, we're in for something MUCH better, and much more accessible to members who can't spend a week in a different city or state for courses like Region Staff College or National Staff College. It looks like everything will be offered online now (from Levels 1-5.) Also, it's going modular now, meaning that each level is going to have top complete a series of classes now, instead of one massive one. Looking through the material, it's really well balanced.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: dwb on January 31, 2020, 04:02:52 PM
The Leadership Development Working Group (LDWG) has been churning for a while now on a re-imagined PD program. Frankly we're overdue for such an overhaul. I don't know exactly what the new product will look like, but I would be cautiously optimistic rather than worried. And I am normally a worrier.

Maj Gen Smith has talked at length about how he views leadership in the Civil Air Patrol, and if the new PD program is being developed under his tutelage, I think we have reason to be excited for the results.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on January 31, 2020, 04:28:03 PM
RSC and NSC as non-residence will mean people like me could actually get Lvl4-5 done.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: kcebnaes on January 31, 2020, 04:31:04 PM
Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on January 31, 2020, 04:28:03 PMRSC and NSC as non-residence will mean people like me could actually get Lvl4-5 done.

Yep! My thoughts too!
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 PM
Online training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.  Why, because you don't get to network with your peers from other unit's, both at the local level but also at the regional and national level. An that is an important aspect of the courses that is often overlooked.

Think about it, you got o an SLS or CLC and you find out that your unit is not the only experiencing a problem either implementing the newest changes to the cadet program for example, This starts a discussion on the issue and you hear other members explain how they tackled the issue and the trials and pitfalls they have run into. Then you go back to your unit, and using what you learned from the discussion resolve the issue.

Can you use a chat session to do the same thing. Yes and No, as we need to remember that something like 85% of all communication is non-verbal. Can you do it at Wing Conference break-out session? Maybe, but you re going to get t mot if you are lucky a two hour window to discuss an issue, rather a weekend over dinner and lunch along with classroom time.

Certainly, the material can be improved upon, heck when can material not be improved upon. I joined CAP in January of 1996, and PD material no longer resembles  what it did back then. In many was it has been improved and in other ways, I think it has regressed. My point here is that change is constant, but we still need that interaction, that allows us to build relationships and networks of people we can reach out to for ideas and help.

Just my two-cents.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: THRAWN on January 31, 2020, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 PMOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable. 

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: PHall on January 31, 2020, 06:11:15 PM
Yeah, the Guard and the Reserves have been using Distance Learning for a number of years now with pretty good success.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: NEBoom on January 31, 2020, 06:18:50 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 31, 2020, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 PMOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...

Larry,
I had thought the same thing, but then I took a degree program from a local University all on-line (which even included group projects).  I didn't know what to expect from it, but while the interaction with my peers was very different from a face-to-face class, it was still effective.

If it is set up so that you take the classes as a cohort with other on-line students, it will work out fine.  If it's strictly self-study format though, then you would be correct that you would lose that interaction.

I for one am looking forward to this.  NSC has been out of reach so this should open a door for me to finally complete L V!
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: arajca on January 31, 2020, 09:48:58 PM
I wonder if those of us who completed SLS, CLC, etc back the overhead projector days will be able to take these new versions...
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on January 31, 2020, 10:00:46 PM
Quote from: arajca on January 31, 2020, 09:48:58 PMI wonder if those of us who completed SLS, CLC, etc back the overhead projector days will be able to take these new versions...

It appears the answer is "no".

I did RSC in 2009, which apparently was GLR-RSC of the "old" curriculum, and it still involved
an overhead (somewhat inexplicably as they had PC projectors), and that was over ten years ago.

The "new" version of SLS/CLC is something like 13 years old.  If you haven't gotten your
PD done in that time, you probably don't care.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Capt_Redfox30 on January 31, 2020, 10:07:05 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2020, 10:00:46 PM
Quote from: arajca on January 31, 2020, 09:48:58 PMI wonder if those of us who completed SLS, CLC, etc back the overhead projector days will be able to take these new versions...

It appears the answer is "no".

I did RSC in 2009, which apparently was GLR-RSC of the "old" curriculum, and it still involved
an overhead (somewhat inexplicably as they had PC projectors), and that was over ten years ago.

The "new" version of SLS/CLC is something like 13 years old.  If you haven't gotten your
PD done in that time, you probably don't care.
Yes that was the most disorganized course I have ever been a part of, glad it was just a week!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on January 31, 2020, 10:17:46 PM
Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on January 31, 2020, 10:07:05 PMYes that was the most disorganized course I have ever been a part of, glad it was just a week!

Agreed, but you have to admit, that was "$1.00's worth of strange"!
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: NIN on January 31, 2020, 10:29:09 PM
Not only will the training change, but once you reach level 2 there will be different training tracks and qualifications based on certain experience.

CAP only: you go this way and jump through these flaming hoops with some potential equivalencies due to civilian experience.
Former Military: this is your track, with these flaming hoops, and these equivalencies based on your AFSC/MOS/rate.
Certain professions: here are your equivalencies based on degrees or certifications, and another set of flaming hoops to leap through.
Former cadet: here is what you get credit for, the hoops you get to avoid, and the ones you still have to jump through

I'm not explaining that 100% correctly, but there is basically a lot more weight being put on the experience you bring to the table by the time you get to level two.

If you were a logistics NCO in the military and you are going to do logistics in CAP you get some logical equivalencies to completion of the training levels in the specialty tracks, for example.

it's going to take into account a lot more of the practical realities surrounding our membership and the things they already know when they join us as a senior.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Capt_Redfox30 on January 31, 2020, 10:33:00 PM
Very true.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on January 31, 2020, 11:40:28 PM
It will be "interesting" to see how objective qualifying will be done
for members who have real-world industry experience but didn't choose to
blow 100K on a piece of paper.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Spam on February 01, 2020, 12:10:31 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2020, 11:40:28 PMIt will be "interesting" to see how objective qualifying will be done
for members who have real-world industry experience but didn't choose to
blow 100K on a piece of paper.

You, ah, could have phrased that a little more politely.... "members who have real world industry experience but were unable to afford a college degree". Or similar.

I hear what you're saying but really, there's no need to attack college education and achievement, as an item, here (even when it bears little relevance to suitability for service in many CAP roles).

Since the thrust of your comment was regarding the objectivity of those who would review future equivalency claims, well, it sounds like maybe you should mod that post to include a "/SARC", if you meant it that way.
 

R/s
Spam
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: etodd on February 01, 2020, 01:11:31 AM
Will the new online courses be "open book" like the FEMA courses?  You have your choice with those, of really studying and learning the material, over days or weeks, and then taking the tests. Or, just opening two windows on your screen, materials in one and test on the other, using search, and knocking out each test in under two hours, and retaining none of it.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on February 01, 2020, 01:22:14 AM
Quote from: Spam on February 01, 2020, 12:10:31 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2020, 11:40:28 PMIt will be "interesting" to see how objective qualifying will be done
for members who have real-world industry experience but didn't choose to
blow 100K on a piece of paper.

You, ah, could have phrased that a little more politely.... "members who have real world industry experience but were unable to afford a college degree". Or similar.

I hear what you're saying but really, there's no need to attack college education and achievement, as an item, here (even when it bears little relevance to suitability for service in many CAP roles).

Since the thrust of your comment was regarding the objectivity of those who would review future equivalency claims, well, it sounds like maybe you should mod that post to include a "/SARC", if you meant it that way.

Except I didn't mean it sarcastically.  For the vast majority of people, college is a spectacular waste of time and money which haunts them with debt during their best earning years.

AWC, SOS and ACSC,  have nothing to do with CAP anyway, so whatever, but increasingly CAP benefits and alternatives need big asterisks,
when what NHQ should have been doing was to provide relevent alternatives to in-residence PD.  One could conjecture that's the intent now,
after a decade or so of lost members and initiative.  I personally know several active and effective members who lost steam because between
their professional lives and their significant, multi-week commitments to actual CAP activities, in-residence stuff was a non-starter, and they
had been counting on the LDI stuff, then the rug was pulled and NHQ followed up with raising the bar, resulting in people parked at Capt or Maj
for what they perceived as permanently.

They saw their much less active peers, with either degrees in basket weaving or plenty of free time (because they don't do much of anything)
passing them up and said "ok, I'm out".
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: etodd on February 01, 2020, 01:47:30 AM
What "job" could I do in CAP as a Lt. Col. that I cannot do as a 1st Lt.?  I'm doing quite a bit, as you can see in my Sig.

Required for those who want to be a Wing Commander maybe? IDK
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: PHall on February 01, 2020, 01:54:29 AM
Quote from: etodd on February 01, 2020, 01:47:30 AMWhat "job" could I do in CAP as a Lt. Col. that I cannot do as a 1st Lt.?  I'm doing quite a bit, as you can see in my Sig.

Required for those who want to be a Wing Commander maybe? IDK

Nothing says that you need to advance beyond Senior Member if you don't want to.
Unless you want to be a Commander of some sort. It's your call.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: jjmalott on February 01, 2020, 02:08:29 PM
The new PD, in the end, plans on having both online and onsite.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: culpeper on February 01, 2020, 03:23:02 PM
In the real world 16 years of education with papers was a minimum requirement for my career entry level.  I don't expect CAP to promote me based on that but I do credit it for actually being able to study CAP material and pass the tests, which are incredibly simple and yet people have difficulty opening a book but have no problem climbing into a plane and be nothing more than a weight and balance problem for somebody else to solve. I blame that partly on lack of related education, which CAP provides in-house and yet people ignore.  So, it is on them and us.

Then there are those with no military experience and it shows because they have no desire for that large part of CAP.  That is what PD is for, so take it, you're paying for it. 

These are the people that show up once in a while, act motivated and then proceed to do nothing.  Seriously, the only good they are doing is paying dues and get added to total membership stats.  Not that there is anything wrong with that? 

But back to the degree thing.  It is still an entry level education to an actual field grade position in the military and if you get passed over for promotion enough you're out.  There is a reason for that and the least a CAP member can do is exhibit a little progress once in a while to show a little respect.  You might learn something.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Larry Mangum on February 03, 2020, 01:49:53 PM
Quote from: NEBoom on January 31, 2020, 06:18:50 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 31, 2020, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 PMOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...

Larry,
I had thought the same thing, but then I took a degree program from a local University all on-line (which even included group projects).  I didn't know what to expect from it, but while the interaction with my peers was very different from a face-to-face class, it was still effective.

If it is set up so that you take the classes as a cohort with other on-line students, it will work out fine.  If it's strictly self-study format though, then you would be correct that you would lose that interaction.

I for one am looking forward to this.  NSC has been out of reach so this should open a door for me to finally complete L V!

Dan, I also have an on-line degree, through WGU, and while it was a good program, it did not truly provide for the interaction between student's you get in-person. Does it have a place, absolutely, which is why I finished my degree on-line, I just did not have the time to do program, while working full time, and all the other activities, that your normal married adult has.  But if I have the time, I still think any opportunity in which you can train interact face to face with fellow students, beat purely on-line training hands down, at least in most cases.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: catrulz on February 03, 2020, 02:57:02 PM
Different people, absorb academic material in various media.  Some people learn better hands on, some people learn better visually, some learn better verbally.  Most people learn best with a combinations of delivery methods. Some people need the classroom peer and instructor feedback, while some find it distracting.

One of the weaknesses of the old system, and possibly the new: they both assume everyone learns in the same way. On the NCO thread next door, there were people that said "I work full time (don't we all, unless your retired), I can't do a full weekend resident class."  I'm going on 32 years with the same tech company, still a few out from retirement, I went to SLS, CLC, TLC, TTT, RSC, NSC, multiple encampments, multiple NCSAs.  I am not saying the complaint about weekends is not valid, but personally, I'm glad I went to the resident courses

One of the issues with RSC and NSC although they were both excellent courses, is the cost to attend.  Training needs to have value, but also needs to be realistic in expectation to attend.  I know a Major in MOWG that just can't afford to attend these courses.  NSC was really expensive, IMHO opinion worth it, but still, training needs to be affordable to the membership.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: THRAWN on February 03, 2020, 04:02:11 PM
Quote from: culpeper on February 01, 2020, 03:23:02 PMThere is a reason for that and the least a CAP member can do is exhibit a little progress once in a while to show a little respect. 

No. There is no requirement for it. One of the very best ICs I ever worked with, and this is inside CAP and in the real world of EM since 1994, never "promoted" beyond SM. Respect? He did his job better than anybody. That means a lot more than a bottlecap that means next to nothing.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: THRAWN on February 03, 2020, 04:05:38 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on February 03, 2020, 01:49:53 PM
Quote from: NEBoom on January 31, 2020, 06:18:50 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 31, 2020, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 PMOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...

Larry,
I had thought the same thing, but then I took a degree program from a local University all on-line (which even included group projects).  I didn't know what to expect from it, but while the interaction with my peers was very different from a face-to-face class, it was still effective.

If it is set up so that you take the classes as a cohort with other on-line students, it will work out fine.  If it's strictly self-study format though, then you would be correct that you would lose that interaction.

I for one am looking forward to this.  NSC has been out of reach so this should open a door for me to finally complete L V!

Dan, I also have an on-line degree, through WGU, and while it was a good program, it did not truly provide for the interaction between student's you get in-person. Does it have a place, absolutely, which is why I finished my degree on-line, I just did not have the time to do program, while working full time, and all the other activities, that your normal married adult has.  But if I have the time, I still think any opportunity in which you can train interact face to face with fellow students, beat purely on-line training hands down, at least in most cases.

When did you do the program? When I did SOS it was alone. ACSC had some interaction. NWC had weekly Skype meetings and in addition, a few of use had a study group a couple times per week. There's a lot of technology out there to make use of. In my day job, my unit is made up of people over 5 times zones. We have a lot of interaction....
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on February 03, 2020, 04:40:15 PM
Quote from: catrulz on February 03, 2020, 02:57:02 PMOn the NCO thread next door, there were people that said "I work full time (don't we all, unless your retired), I can't do a full weekend resident class."  I'm going on 32 years with the same tech company, still a few out from retirement, I went to SLS, CLC, TLC, TTT, RSC, NSC, multiple encampments, multiple NCSAs.  I am not saying the complaint about weekends is not valid, but personally, I'm glad I went to the resident courses

One of the issues with RSC and NSC although they were both excellent courses, is the cost to attend.  Training needs to have value, but also needs to be realistic in expectation to attend.  I know a Major in MOWG that just can't afford to attend these courses.  NSC was really expensive, IMHO opinion worth it, but still, training needs to be affordable to the membership.


Actually, for a lot of active members, the issue becomes "do I take my week of vacation for Encampment or this RSC course". Most folks don't have much past 2 weeks of PTO in this country, giving up a week for an encampment leaves them 1 week for any family events/illnesses.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Larry Mangum on February 03, 2020, 06:52:56 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 03, 2020, 04:05:38 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on February 03, 2020, 01:49:53 PM
Quote from: NEBoom on January 31, 2020, 06:18:50 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 31, 2020, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 PMOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...

Larry,
I had thought the same thing, but then I took a degree program from a local University all on-line (which even included group projects).  I didn't know what to expect from it, but while the interaction with my peers was very different from a face-to-face class, it was still effective.

If it is set up so that you take the classes as a cohort with other on-line students, it will work out fine.  If it's strictly self-study format though, then you would be correct that you would lose that interaction.

I for one am looking forward to this.  NSC has been out of reach so this should open a door for me to finally complete L V!

Dan, I also have an on-line degree, through WGU, and while it was a good program, it did not truly provide for the interaction between student's you get in-person. Does it have a place, absolutely, which is why I finished my degree on-line, I just did not have the time to do program, while working full time, and all the other activities, that your normal married adult has.  But if I have the time, I still think any opportunity in which you can train interact face to face with fellow students, beat purely on-line training hands down, at least in most cases.

When did you do the program? When I did SOS it was alone. ACSC had some interaction. NWC had weekly Skype meetings and in addition, a few of use had a study group a couple times per week. There's a lot of technology out there to make use of. In my day job, my unit is made up of people over 5 times zones. We have a lot of interaction....

I finished a BS in Software Development late last year. I really did not need the degree, but wanted it. I also manage a team of six developer, spread across three locations, that is developing and maintaining Kubernetes in AWS. So I do multiple conference call, both with video and without on a daily basis. But I still spend at a minimum one week a month, traveling between Massachusetts and Alabama, to be in front of the team, and to meet with my counterparts and business owners. Why, because relationships and connections are important, and easier to build in person, then purely on-line. Could I probably do so, sure, but I am not sure, I would be as effective as I am, if I did not make the in-person connections.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 07:48:50 PM
Yeah, that's the ticket remain a SM in an ICC forever... 
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: THRAWN on February 03, 2020, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 07:48:50 PMYeah, that's the ticket remain a SM in an ICC forever... 

What's the incentive to "promote"? You can do all the PD you want. You can be a well recognized IC. You can be a well known SME and leader. None of that requires promotions.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 08:39:21 PM
What sort of impression does a person like this give a cadet?  That the cadets really don't have to work the program.  And since when do we need a personal incentive to provide an image of leadership without even getting to the part of exhibiting leadership. We can't ask our young leaders to follow the values when selfish is more important than selfless within the ranks of adult members.   
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: baronet68 on February 03, 2020, 09:19:28 PM
Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on February 03, 2020, 04:40:15 PMActually, for a lot of active members, the issue becomes "do I take my week of vacation for Encampment or this RSC course". Most folks don't have much past 2 weeks of PTO in this country, giving up a week for an encampment leaves them 1 week for any family events/illnesses.

This was my problem.  It took about 12 years to complete Level IV because timing, location, and cost of the nearest RSC made it unworkable for me.  Luckily I was finally able to attend RSC this past year when it was (literally) hosted down the street from my house... but it was a couple months too late for the grandfathered promotion to Lt Col.  Hopefully the new Level V requirements won't require another decade for me to complete.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: THRAWN on February 03, 2020, 09:21:13 PM
Quote from: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 08:39:21 PMWhat sort of impression does a person like this give a cadet?  That the cadets really don't have to work the program.  And since when do we need a personal incentive to provide an image of leadership without even getting to the part of exhibiting leadership. We can't ask our young leaders to follow the values when selfish is more important than selfless within the ranks of adult members.   

Did you miss this part? "One of the very best ICs I ever worked with, and this is inside CAP and in the real world of EM since 1994, never "promoted" beyond SM. Respect? He did his job better than anybody." Service before self. There is no requirement or incentive other than personal desire to complete or even participate in the SMTP. Leaders are more than what they wear on their collars.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 09:46:23 PM
I hear you, Thrawn.  And you haven't convinced me that this guy is any more important than the local beach bum people admire for a while  and then grow up and move on.  Seriously, he has completed level 1 whether he cares to admit it or not.  Personally, if I told him he was getting butter bars and he told me, no, I wouldn't renew his membership.  I don't care how good he is at one thing and that alone.  What your Wing has is somebody that thinks he is a Nomad but doesn't actually go anywhere and people like you admire that.  This isn't the Bandidos MC.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: THRAWN on February 03, 2020, 10:03:25 PM
Quote from: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 09:46:23 PMI hear you, Thrawn.  And you haven't convinced me that this guy is any more important than the local beach bum people admire for a while  and then grow up and move on.  Seriously, he has completed level 1 whether he cares to admit it or not.  Personally, if I told him he was getting butter balls and he told me, no, I wouldn't renew his membership.  I don't care how good he is at one thing and that alone.  What your Wing has is somebody that thinks he is a Nomad but doesn't actually go anywhere and people like you admire that.  This isn't the Bandito MC.

Since your new, I'll educate you on a couple of things:

1. Rank in CAP means nothing. The guy I'm talking about finished his Wilson a decade before I joined. Just because he didn't promote, and didn't have to, doesn't mean that he wasn't active in the program.

2. CAP has 3 missions. The SMTP isn't one of them. Don't want to take the classes? You don't have to. Don't want to advance in "rank"? You don't have to. Still want to put in 60+ hours per week on top of your job supporting the program and being an incident commander, or like etodd spend piles of time and treasure flying
Cadets? Welcome aboard...

3. Burning through the program like you're making the Kessel Run doesn't equal leadership. Mentoring, coaching, getting to know your cadets is much more effective than getting your L3 in 18 months or wondering what you're going to pin to your uni. Take some time and learn the program. Service before self. That includes serving the organization before you start whipping through the Levels with nothing to back it up. Cadets do not care about the SMTP. They care that there is someone there dedicated to and focused on the success of the Cadet Program. That's the mission. Learn the program, learn the missions.

Good luck. 
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 10:10:00 PM
Now, you sound like your pulling rank and with that a big, Yes, sir.
Title: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Mitchell 1969 on February 04, 2020, 08:15:10 AM
Quote from: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 09:46:23 PMPersonally, if I told him he was getting butter bars and he told me, no, I wouldn't renew his membership. 

<<SNIP>>

 This isn't the Bandidos MC.


I'll betcha a buck you would NOT do that, fail to let him renew. Because, as you pointed out, this isn't the Bandidos MC.

You don't have ultimate membership power over members based on your personal standards. We have personnel regulations, membership committees and higher levels of command specifically so that individuals don't just "wing it."

Your unilateral decision to not renew a productive member has no basis in regulations. You might want to reconsider your personnel practices, and soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: culpeper on February 04, 2020, 02:10:20 PM
Major, you know people are rarely expelled for the most obvious reason.  And all those internal controls are there for exactly that.  And I'm not referring to a productive member. 
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: catrulz on February 04, 2020, 03:43:26 PM
The part of PDTP that really needs updating is the specialty track portion.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: abdsp51 on February 04, 2020, 05:38:30 PM
Quote from: culpeper on February 04, 2020, 02:10:20 PMMajor, you know people are rarely expelled for the most obvious reason.  And all those internal controls are there for exactly that.  And I'm not referring to a productive member. 

You need to throttle back some Francis.  Your post said nothing about a productive member in any aspect.  You need to listen and observe more and then speak. 
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Phil Hirons, Jr. on February 04, 2020, 07:10:33 PM
Let's try to keep this on topic.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: MSG Mac on February 04, 2020, 09:10:25 PM
When can we realistically expect the new 50-17 to hit the street?
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: kcebnaes on February 04, 2020, 09:26:48 PM
Quote from: MSG Mac on February 04, 2020, 09:10:25 PMWhen can we realistically expect the new 50-17 to hit the street?
I don't know about the reg itself, but 4 August 2020 is when the whole new program is supposed to drop. I'd guess that it all ties together though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: jjmalott on February 05, 2020, 03:46:33 AM
We're running our last online SLS/CLC in April, and UCC in May.  All to be completed by 1 June
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: KASSRCrashResearch on February 10, 2020, 12:19:43 AM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 PMOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.  Why, because you don't get to network with your peers from other unit's, both at the local level but also at the regional and national level. An that is an important aspect of the courses that is often overlooked.

Bingo. 

Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Fester on February 10, 2020, 06:12:07 AM
Quote from: KASSRCrashResearch on February 10, 2020, 12:19:43 AM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 PMOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.  Why, because you don't get to network with your peers from other unit's, both at the local level but also at the regional and national level. An that is an important aspect of the courses that is often overlooked.

Bingo. 



My work schedule prevents pretty much ANY weekend activity.  Because of this, I've now taken SLS, CLC and am now taking UCC online.  I have met plenty of peers through these online courses.  From all over the country.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: culpeper on February 10, 2020, 05:52:25 PM
I'm discovering that PD is important to prevent mediocrity being thrust upon us at the risk of partly quoting Joseph Heller slightly out-of-context.

  Professional Development is obviously not for everyone.  But I hope the upcoming changes will make it more available to those that have been wanting it but couldn't due to time constraints. 




Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Spam on February 11, 2020, 02:11:09 AM
If we were paraphrasing Heller here, it should be more like:

Some members are born to do PD (where the goal is often the box checking itself), some members achieve PD (as a means to an end), and some members have PD thrust upon them.


Professional development is no panacea for mediocrity; it is entirely possible to end up with a well educated, credentialed idiot who, having gained the complacency of advanced training, has grown a correspondingly large blind spot as to the diverse needs of the volunteer team.

Ideally, we would structure a PD revamp upon a goals based, top down training focused critical task analysis (CTA) resulting in KSAs for R20-1 position descriptions. Then a secondary set of short studies to map out delivery methodologies, skills decay and recurrency training requirements, et al. There's an ample body of guidance to help structure a Training Needs Analysis, and there are probably a couple of dozen professionals in our membership who do training program development every day for pay, but likely CAP won't do that and won't ask for experienced volunteers. I've almost never seen CAP have any kind of deliberative study to come up with a plan before pushing someone's pet project idea.

V/r
Spam
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: KASSRCrashResearch on February 11, 2020, 05:10:33 AM
Quote from: Spam on February 11, 2020, 02:11:09 AMSome members are born to do PD (where the goal is often the box checking itself), some members achieve PD (as a means to an end), and some members have PD thrust upon them

There it is ladies and gentlemen, the reality of CAP summed up in one snarky sentence.

*slow clap*



Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: catrulz on February 11, 2020, 01:06:01 PM
Quote from: Spam on February 11, 2020, 02:11:09 AMIf we were paraphrasing Heller here, it should be more like:

Some members are born to do PD (where the goal is often the box checking itself), some members achieve PD (as a means to an end), and some members have PD thrust upon them.


Professional development is no panacea for mediocrity; it is entirely possible to end up with a well educated, credentialed idiot who, having gained the complacency of advanced training, has grown a correspondingly large blind spot as to the diverse needs of the volunteer team.

Ideally, we would structure a PD revamp upon a goals based, top down training focused critical task analysis (CTA) resulting in KSAs for R20-1 position descriptions. Then a secondary set of short studies to map out delivery methodologies, skills decay and recurrency training requirements, et al. There's an ample body of guidance to help structure a Training Needs Analysis, and there are probably a couple of dozen professionals in our membership who do training program development every day for pay, but likely CAP won't do that and won't ask for experienced volunteers. I've almost never seen CAP have any kind of deliberative study to come up with a plan before pushing someone's pet project idea.

V/r
Spam

I have directed many SLS and CLC (and taught in many more).  The box checker instructors compound the experience of the box checker students.  Meanwhile, those that are really excited about the information, are hurt by both non-box checker and box checker seminar instructors who don't bother to prepare for their seminar.  I said years ago, they should remove instructor requirements from advancement criteria.  It hurts the membership.

And perhaps that will be a positive of distance learning.  It doesn't make sense to overhaul the PD requirements without simultaneously overhauling the Promotion Reg. 35-5 & 50-17 should almost always have concurrent changes.

This is not going to stop box checking.  But it would prevent box checkers from hurting the development of those that are interested and want to learn. 

Edited: Spelling
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Spam on February 11, 2020, 06:20:10 PM
Catrulz,


In general, I fully agree with your suggestion to remove the "must instruct" elements of the program. While doubtless initiated to help grow the business, so to speak, with respect to a pool of instructors, it seems to have had a very negative impact in some areas due to the resulting lack of quality control in PD instruction.

In specific, I would want to keep a "must instruct" course of progressive understudy trainer/mentoring/primary trainer flow as part of a new "PD Train the Trainer" course.  I'd rather see a professional PD track instructor, who is jazzed about training and is a specialist with some hands on mentoring, giving the same course material time after time, with an understudy or two, than to see a continuous flow of clock-watching, chart-flipping guys who just need to get Level III finished. Being a bit limited by the availability of that small PD trainer community would be an acceptable trade off, I feel.

However, even the best motivated presenter/facilitator (of either a resident or distributed/online method of delivery) still is hindered when the training material is the result of a spasm, rather than actual deliberative instructional system design.  That, really, is the revamp that I'm (probably in vain) hoping for this year.


Going all online either as a panacea for poor instructorship, or doing so without a training needs analysis, is a mistake.


PS
I also would be remiss if I didn't mention the need to integrate CP PD training (the TLCs) into the system. I've had literally dozens of students complaining over the past five years about lack of TLC credit because we still rely on manual credit entry at NHQ (only). Slow, inaccurate, and lost .PDF Form 11s. No online F11 option exists there, which is sadly easy to fix.


R/s
Spam
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: catrulz on February 12, 2020, 01:03:26 PM
Spam,

I had a concept that SLS should be changed to SSS (Squadron Staff School).  SSS would be 4 hours CAP programs and background, and then every student would do a 12 hour directed look at their Tech Specialty.  This would be an in depth dive into the S-Track Guide (Pamphlet), and an look at the regulations for that rating. Throw in some best practices and Wing Supplements, and perhaps area M&Ps.

Instructors, would be primarily mentors for this part of the class.  But have a workbook that must be approved at the end of the class.  And have some exercises in the workbooks to ensure immersion.  There will still be pencil whipping and box checking, not sure of any system that will totally eliminate this.

Keep CLC, and make it completely CAP focused.  But focus Level II completely on attaining a Tech rating.  And even if the individual shows up for the course with their tech rating complete, going back through the steps (re-immersion) might help make for training oversights at the unit level.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: KASSRCrashResearch on February 12, 2020, 06:29:30 PM
Quote from: catrulz on February 11, 2020, 01:06:01 PMI said years ago, they should remove instructor requirements from advancement criteria.  It hurts the membership.

Once more, for the people in the back of NHQ.

Either you want to be an instructor or you don't.  Forcing people to teach who do not want to or who lack either the pedagogical skills or a firm grasp on the topic to teach no only waste time it drives people away. 

I remember when I first joined and they assigned me a former mission pilot (a guy in his late 70s) to "teach me" how to read a VFR chart. Even after pointing out that I have about 800-900 hours of flight time (mostly in ultralights but also tons of dual), he spent three HOURS going over it.  Actually, he spent about 30 minutes going over it.  He kept either zoning out or falling asleep.  It became readily apparent why he was no longer a pilot (obviously medically unfit) but the squadron still kept him on the books out of courtesy because he had been with them so long. Super nice guy....just not doing great medically (I seem to recall that he passed away a year or so later).

I can only imagine the sort of impression that would have left with someone who wasn't aware of why this guy was still part of CAP. 
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on February 12, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
No one is "forced to teach" - further if the various directors allow poor instructors
to waste members' time, that is a failure of local leadership and the director, not NHQ per se.
For the last 8+ years, the progression requirement has been "Serve as director or staff member of a CAP
course or educational activity or national, region, or wing conference..."

When I have a say in activities and PD, I only choose instructors who are knowledgeable on
the topic they are assigned, and filter those who are either wives tale factories, or slide readers
to non-instructor roles, or simply disinvite them. The person taking roll and going for the pizzas is
just as much a "staff member" as the instructors, and when you actually read Att 3, the list of activities that
qualify insures is pretty much everything a member would ever do, with the majority literally being unrelated to PD.

Further to this from the member side, while we all have to occasionally endure an unforeseen
waste-of-time briefing, no one is nailing shoes to the floor.  In the example cited about chart reading,
why would an adult endure a 3-hour root canal about something they already know, and presumably could demonstrate?

Just leave.  It's really simple, and feels pretty good when you do it.

CAP is no different then any other situation an adult finds themselves in, if you let people
waste your time, that's on you, not them, and frankly nothing will change until someone says "enough".

So much of CAP would be fixed overnight it, instead of trying to change the regulations, people just actually read them.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Spam on February 12, 2020, 08:42:42 PM
Quote from: catrulz on February 12, 2020, 01:03:26 PMSpam,

I had a concept that SLS should be changed to SSS (Squadron Staff School).  SSS would be 4 hours CAP programs and background, and then every student would do a 12 hour directed look at their Tech Specialty.  This would be an in depth dive into the S-Track Guide (Pamphlet), and an look at the regulations for that rating. Throw in some best practices and Wing Supplements, and perhaps area M&Ps.

With respect Catrulz, your proposal seems logical in general terms but is an example of what I'm trying to point out; we need NHQ people to follow good Instructional Systems Design (ISD) principles and not just do off the cuff course design.

First, (and I agree with you on the need to redesign SLS and like your objectives), your first proposal already segments off hours (4, 12, etc.) as if the hours are the first order of business. The right way to do ISD isn't to set off saying "we need a 4 hour block here" or "we need 3 online courses there". Could be 2... might be 16... depends depends.

What I'm pointing out is that using a correct top down approach, we would start with defining the strategic PD framework (what KSAs are required at various volunteer career points, for approximately how many students to meet notional Wing needs). Then make some realistic assumptions about the methods of delivery needed (in resident RSCs, etc. vs. local in person vs. online cooperative vs. self study online, etc.). Then, in context, we get to the PD segment which would focus on what is currently addressed by SLS.

For SLS (or your SSS), we could start by documenting learning objectives to meet a desired outcome (for students including A - N specialties with a minimum ___ proficiency, by the end of the course of training they will have mastered the following material:  <list, perhaps broken down by specialty track>). Based on those objectives, we could do a quick records based analysis of the potential specialty track members in each Wing who'd be potential SME instructor pool members (it makes no sense to select in-person led local training if half our Wings have no Masters levels in one track or another). From that, it may become apparent that we need a combo of delivery methods (e.g. online cooperative mentored/led with chat rooms with Masters level people from other Wings, for example) plus an in-residence element. The current IG specialty track schools would be a good model (my mentor for online IG school was from Montana or somewhere and he was sharp)! Lastly, THEN we talk about size and duration... not first! Let's not get blocked into thinking that all training has to be in two, four, and eight hour blocks!  Training should be to the skill levels and KSAs desired, NOT merely to fill up a two day weekend!

In principle I like your approach to focus on A school, Squadron focused tech level training at what is now SLS. Notionally following up with a B school, Group and Senior rating focus school and a C level Masters school would be an interesting approach (I know I'm extrapolating a bit from what you've suggested here). I would suppose that we'd probably end up with a mix of training delivery methods, as I've mentioned. Also, I'd strongly recommend thinking carefully about linking/de linking schools from promotion requirements. Also, I'd strongly recommend against a blanket approach to class admission prerequisites based on college degrees, as opposed to meeting CAP specialty track KSAs/experience/ratings. These are all training and PD strategic goal issues that I'd hope (but don't expect) to be looked at now, as part of a systematic review for the nascent regulation now in formation.

Am I making any sense, I hope? I am not an ISD professional, but I've worked with them in producing training packages for aerospace and defense engineering, and I know we have them in CAP (under used and un consulted of course much like many of our organic professionals).

But, I am less than sanguine regarding the potential that we'll get the approach right, based on past results and the "not invented here" trend at NHQ.  Sigh... with all the pros out there to help on a process action team, NHQ continues to waste our talent pool. They put ads out for volunteer staffers to do stuff and in some cases never even send a follow up email... so we'll get what we get and continue to look amateurish as we make the best of what we've pasted together amateurishly. I expect that much like our AD big brothers we'll hack it, and continue to be-yeatch continually, here.

#decadesofCAPfatalism
#lackofprocessadherence
#stillnouniformmanual
... grin.

V/r
Spam
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: catrulz on February 13, 2020, 12:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2020, 08:05:18 PMNo one is "forced to teach" - further if the various directors allow poor instructors
to waste members' time, that is a failure of local leadership and the director, not NHQ per se.
For the last 8+ years, the progression requirement has been "Serve as director or staff member of a CAP
course or educational activity or national, region, or wing conference..."

Well maybe, I attempt to offer opportunity to new and established members.  I generally only have a single staff person to do all the admin work.  This is usually filled bu someone who refuses to instruct.  One has to wonder, if the idea behind the Level III requirements, was possibly for mid level members to show new members that they know what they are doing?  Maybe not!  Myself, not being as omnipresent as one that can hide celestial bodies, don't have knowledge of all applicants.  By the way I taught at Scott and they didn't know my knowledge level.

One of the 13 principles of leadership:  Be technically and tactically proficient.

I think technical proficiency is more important in CAP.  Tactical if your a ground team member (tactical proficiency speaks to physical fitness the ability to perform your mission without being a hinderance to the team).

Not sure why I always take the bait, and just don't let it go!

Spam:

I agree with you completely.  My time example was pulled from my third point of contact.  My overall point being, SLS should concentrate primarily on making knowledgeable technicians.  I think we're on the same page.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Spam on February 14, 2020, 10:09:51 PM
I agree, Cat! Its worth the time to game this out well before dropping the new regs and classes as we will be living with this until approx AD2035.

Vday hugs and love to all y'all.
Spam
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: culpeper on February 22, 2020, 02:36:00 AM
Day 1 Block 1 required prerequisite reading for UCC states that I'm wrong.  Not that there is anything wrong with that in itself.  I was going to get myself killed in the process or die trying.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: CadetProgramGuy on February 23, 2020, 09:12:32 PM
So I just re-joined and in 2010 when I left I just made Major.  When I came back I had to drop to Captain because of the Level changes made a while ago.  All I need is RSC.

Or so I thought until I asked the question.

In August 2020 there will not be a RSC or NSC anymore.  It will turn into modular classes.  Such as for RSC it will be 25, 1 hour classes that will need to be completed.  These classes will be tracked in a similar fashion to SQTR for ES work.  Once completed you will have met that requirement.  It will be the same for NSC as well.

There will be an option for these classes to be online or taught in class at the squadron level.  There is also an aggressive Level 3 complete in 24 months taking 3 classes a month. (if I read that right)  All of this information was presented to the Command Council last year and to my knowledge was accepted to move forward.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: catrulz on February 24, 2020, 01:45:49 PM
I'm curious what was cut from both curriculum?  RSC was pretty much a 40 hour course, although about 5 hours of that was team project time.  NSC was probably a 45 hour course, although some of this was social time, and some was field trip time.  Have never taught at either so not really sure what could be eliminated without dumbing down the experience.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: slicek38 on March 10, 2020, 04:50:12 PM
Here's the link to the new PD Program. https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/ET_Program_Overview_ED87ACD6B8981.pdf

Note: In order to achieve Level-5, the new requirement is that a member must be in a staff position for at least 3 years, with a minimum of ONE YEAR AT THE GROUP-LEVEL OR HIGHER.

(https://imageshack.com/i/pmg7noIwp)
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Stonewall on March 11, 2020, 09:43:38 AM
Quote from: PHall on January 31, 2020, 06:11:15 PMYeah, the Guard and the Reserves have been using Distance Learning for a number of years now with pretty good success.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 31, 2020, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 PMOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...

I disagree. Find someone who has taken the same course (ALS, NCOA, SNCOA, etc) online AND via distance learning and tell me the one without human interaction was better. It's not, period. The only people who think taking something via CBT over in-person learning are introverts, people who prefer to wear their pajamas to class, or, the rare legitimate ones in CAP who just can't make it to a class (RSC/NSC) due to life/work.

As someone who has been forced to take distance learning courses in lieu of real life classes, in person, I'll argue all day every day that DL lack a true, genuine education.

I'll further argue that airmen (in the Air Force) who attend in residence courses over DL are far better prepared leaders.  My airmen who attend PME in residence show obvious signs of retaining information and display improved confidence over the ones who do it online.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: THRAWN on March 11, 2020, 11:00:20 AM
If you aren't interacting with humans, you're doing it wrong. Are there benefits to in person classes? Sure. Are there benefits to DL? Sure. Chief among those are schedule flexibility. Sometimes the cat herding to try to get to a live class just can't be done.

There is also a big difference between CBT and DL. CBT is done in a vacuum. There are lectures or assignments and that is the extent. DL requires group and individual activites and feedback. It is no longer just chatrooms and email. I spent hours on Skype with people all over the planet during NWC. I spent even more time interacting than I would have in the classroom when I did the DSS CDSE programs. DL isn't just for those that can't get selected or those pajama wearing introverts. It carries weight.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: dwb on March 11, 2020, 11:49:41 AM
To be clear, Volunteer University isn't just mindless CBT. You'll be placed in cohorts with other remote students and with "VU" instructors. There are also in-person options for wings and groups to run training locally.

They're trying to meet people where they actually are in 2020. If you can attend the live events that's ideal, but if you can't a close second is an online cohort where you're still interacting with other students and instructors. Even if it is in your pajamas. :)
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: etodd on March 11, 2020, 09:00:28 PM
 I get the whole thing about training together as a group at a location is indeed better for a whole host of reasons.  But it just so limits us as to the number of members who are able to attend.  In today's ever increasing busy society, most members have lives outside of Civil Air Patrol that take priorities.  I'm not in management/leadership, but in just the things I do, I end up spending anywhere from 15 to 20 hours a week on CAP.  I can get away for a full day SAREX, Training day, or mission.  The three day or seven day schools just are not feasible with my work schedule and family obligations. NESA is a very successful program, for example, but percentagewise it's a very small group indeed, able to attend every year.

 So good or bad, online options are good, if we want to continue to grow new leaders in the program. Otherwise the pool will really start shrinking
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Brit_in_CAP on March 12, 2020, 02:04:26 PM
My few cents, and YMMV.

I've attended in person and DL classes with CAP, and I also took DL classes for my Masters (Management, if you're interested).  They were not the same as the CBT used by my employer for the required training modules (online slide decks that you step through and then answer questions).

During my time as Squadron/CC, my guidance to the Seniors was:

Do The Training


...but do the training!

I thoroughly enjoyed the in-person classes / conferences but, for example, the on-line CLC was the only option available to me at the time I took it.  My then Sq/CC went to the in-person class, and we compared notes.  He got it done more quickly than the DL version, and had the better 'experience' but the DL version enabled me to do the class when both $$ and time were seriously constrained.

YMMV, as always, but we really need to make the most use of all the available means to provide training.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: slicek38 on March 12, 2020, 03:44:22 PM
I completed SLS and RSC as in-classroom training, and CLC & UCC were done online. Not unlike Brit_in_CAP, I too completed my Master of Arts in Organizational Leadership online with an accredited university. My undergraduate work was done traditionally in the classroom. Each (classroom vs. online) has its pros and cons. However, after participating in some online programs I must say the benefits outweigh the negative things. For me personally, if I have to do more intensive PD training for CAP, I'd much rather do it online. When I took RSC, it involved a trip out to Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, and I was out of state from my other responsibilities for nine days. The USAF SOS course is also provided in an online format. I think the philosophy behind Volunteer University is great. Making quality training programs more readily available to the membership is a worthy goal. When I complete NSC (hopefully, next year), it will more than likely be under the new online format.

Here's a summary of major changes to the new CAP PD program:

1. All members must complete the first part of Level 2 before being promoted (professionals, former/current military, former cadets, etc.).
2. Members will earn the Yeager, choose a duty assignment, and choose a specialty track in Level 2.
3. The names change for the levels, and courses change to modules.
4. Members must serve one year in a duty position at the group or higher to complete Level 5.
5. Members can serve as faculty at Volunteer University instead of serving on staff at a course.

The one and only thing I have heartache with is item # 4. Some wings (like AZ and a few other states) do not have groups. Obtaining a staff position at the wing-level can be difficult as positions are limited. Thus, this new requirement may make one's goal of achieving "Level-5" unattainable. Just my two cents. Now, let's hear your thoughts.
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmg7noIwp)
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on March 12, 2020, 03:52:30 PM
If you don't serve at the Wing level, then you dont'
Quote from: slicek38 on March 12, 2020, 03:44:22 PMThus, this new requirement may make one's goal of achieving "Level-5" unattainable.

Yep - by design. CAP would be / will be better served if it moved away from this idea
that everyone can be an LV Lt Col.

They can't, shouldn't be, and it's unnecessary. That's thinking brought over from the
cadet program, and doesn't fly in the real world or the military. It's also why there are so many clueless
members with advanced grade who spent 10-20 years sitting quietly and getting boxes checked,
yet can't spell eservices (etc.).

A members' goals should be to serve with purpose and satisfaction, with progression being
a natural symptom of service, not a means of it's own.

That way, at some point, seeing someone with silver bottle caps and / or a Master or LV ribbon
would actually mean they did something, and people would potentially attend PD to learn about
their job, move to larger scope instead of "to get promoted", which is a waste of time.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: slicek38 on March 12, 2020, 04:27:25 PM
I get it. I really do. I was in an executive management position when I retired and later became a squadron/CC in CAP as I had more free time to volunteer (plus there was a real need in the sq.). A command is a sacred trust, but it is not all that it is cracked up to be at times; especially in a volunteer organization. To me, serving in ES and ops is more rewarding, but that's just me. Having served in a profession where rank and promotion was earned, I view CAP "promotions" as honorary based on one's PD training and length of service/time-in-grade (TIG). Yes, they are called "duty performance promotions," but they don't always have their feet held to the fire for their "promotion." CAP rank/grade holds no juice unless the member is in a command position. I've seen some very disengaged, 25 year plus lt cols throughout our membership. I think the revised promotion requirements that NHQ implemented five or six years ago was good. It made it more difficult to achieve 1st lt and capt by increasing the TIG requirements and more difficult to make maj and lt col by increasing the PD requirements. Members had to work harder for it. When the long-tenured members start leaving the organization (either via death or "retirement"), we will probably see a lot less of our membership running around with silver oak leaves.   
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: catrulz on March 12, 2020, 06:15:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 12, 2020, 03:52:30 PMIf you don't serve at the Wing level, then you dont'
Quote from: slicek38 on March 12, 2020, 03:44:22 PMThus, this new requirement may make one's goal of achieving "Level-5" unattainable.

Yep - by design. CAP would be / will be better served if it moved away from this idea
that everyone can be an LV Lt Col.

They can't, shouldn't be, and it's unnecessary. That's thinking brought over from the
cadet program, and doesn't fly in the real world or the military. It's also why there are so many clueless
members with advanced grade who spent 10-20 years sitting quietly and getting boxes checked,
yet can't spell eservices (etc.).

A members' goals should be to serve with purpose and satisfaction, with progression being
a natural symptom of service, not a means of it's own.

That way, at some point, seeing someone with silver bottle caps and / or a Master or LV ribbon
would actually mean they did something, and people would potentially attend PD to learn about
their job, move to larger scope instead of "to get promoted", which is a waste of time.

I had viewed earning LtCol and your Wilson award as two separate accomplishments.  And it was until the 2015 change.

Anyone have a expected change date for CAPR 50-17?
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: kcebnaes on March 12, 2020, 06:21:55 PM
Quote from: catrulz on March 12, 2020, 06:15:21 PMAnyone have a expected change date for CAPR 50-17?

According to Col Aye, 4 Aug 2020 is the drop date for everything. There is a draft that is being circulated to NHQ department heads, and then I'm assuming to other people in the PD field to take a gander at it.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on March 12, 2020, 06:23:31 PM
Quote from: catrulz on March 12, 2020, 06:15:21 PMI had viewed earning LtCol and your Wilson award as two separate accomplishments.

That's fine, but the point remains the same.

There is no reason (and NHQ should not be making the insinuation) that the average
member who wants to serve with satisfaction at the unit level should expect to
make it to Lt Col or Level V, anymore then the average airman or officer is going to be a Chief
or an FGO, or the average worker is going to be a director or VP.

If you want those things, the path is there, and it's not supposed to be easy.
If you don't care, then don't care.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Capt Thompson on March 12, 2020, 07:34:48 PM
Why not split Level 5 and Lt Col like it used to be, and make the command requirement specifically for Lt Col? Then if someone wants to complete the Wilson to complete the program, they can do so but stay a Major, but the Wilson + command experience at Group or higher would make them eligible for Lt Col.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: NovemberWhiskey on March 12, 2020, 08:02:55 PM
Quote from: 1st Lt Thompson on March 12, 2020, 07:34:48 PMcommand experience at Group or higher

Where does it imply command experience? The column header says "Command or Staff Assignment". I don't think it's particularly unreasonable for the higher professional development grades to require a staff assignment above the squadron level.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Fubar on March 12, 2020, 11:29:52 PM
There are a few Lt Cols in my wing who have never held anything more than a staff position in a squadron. They either lacked the drive, talent, or time to do more than that, but when it was suggested by the region commander that more is expected of a Lt Col, holy mackerel did the tantrums start.

So they got promoted.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: PHall on March 13, 2020, 12:58:10 AM
Quote from: Fubar on March 12, 2020, 11:29:52 PMThere are a few Lt Cols in my wing who have never held anything more than a staff position in a squadron. They either lacked the drive, talent, or time to do more than that, but when it was suggested by the region commander that more is expected of a Lt Col, holy mackerel did the tantrums start.

So they got promoted.

Wimpy Region Commander. They're the approving authority for promotion to Lt Col and if they say that they expect someone going for Lt Col to step up then they need to back up what they say.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on March 13, 2020, 01:28:01 AM
The problem is, there's no allowance for the "stepping up" in the regulations.

No service requirements, you can't add objective criteria, and if you do, you
are asking for a sustainable IG complaint or even a lawsuit if someone has
more dollars than sense.

I've also seen the opposite - hard chargers who served at the unit level full-speed
for a couple decades, but never moving to a different echelon, or worse, doing the
"everybody before me dance" (which I don't really buy), and then when they finally have time
for their own PD, they are told "you're clearly stepping back".

So then they either get disgruntled, or they take a ticket-punch / empty seat job at
Wing or region just to get promoted, which also helps no one.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: catrulz on March 13, 2020, 11:48:21 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 12, 2020, 06:23:31 PM
Quote from: catrulz on March 12, 2020, 06:15:21 PMI had viewed earning LtCol and your Wilson award as two separate accomplishments.

That's fine, but the point remains the same.

There is no reason (and NHQ should not be making the insinuation) that the average
member who wants to serve with satisfaction at the unit level should expect to
make it to Lt Col or Level V, anymore then the average airman or officer is going to be a Chief
or an FGO, or the average worker is going to be a director or VP.

If you want those things, the path is there, and it's not supposed to be easy.
If you don't care, then don't care.

I agree with you, and wasn't getting snarky.  Once again, various things motivate people to do certain things which includes training, promoting, and ticket punching versus learning, etc.  Even the on line specialty track testing (being open book) is counterproductive.  How do you fix it, I have some suggestions, but the bottom line there is no system that will not be able to be manipulated.

Some of the behaviors are bad, but there are good behaviors as well.  This board is a good example of good behaviors.  There are knowledgeable sources on here including yourself, and I do respect that even if I don't always agree with your point of view. 
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: catrulz on March 13, 2020, 11:55:30 AM
Quote from: Fubar on March 12, 2020, 11:29:52 PMThere are a few Lt Cols in my wing who have never held anything more than a staff position in a squadron. They either lacked the drive, talent, or time to do more than that, but when it was suggested by the region commander that more is expected of a Lt Col, holy mackerel did the tantrums start.

So they got promoted.

Like Eclipse says above, I can see working at Squadron and Group levels, and still adding value to earn LtCol.  Did the person run an encampment, host senior and cadet Wing training activities, are they operationally active (take part in communications nets, regularly attend practice missions, and can reliably be expected to respond to actual missions). 

So, under the current training philosophy, I can see a squadron staffer with lots of Wing level contribution being promoted to LtCol.

Personally, I would still rather see rank tied to positions held.  Change the paradigm on promotion altogether.  You all have seen my previous posts, so won't lay it back out.  Also, it would be more efficient is 35-5 and 50-17 were either always changed together, or combined.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on March 19, 2020, 03:42:40 PM
There were a lot of people scrambling to get into the last (insert class here), especially RSC
before the sundowns and changes, I would guess that for most that plan is now "adjusted",
since even activities in later months are going to be impacted by this.

It will be interesting is NHQ extends the "pumpkin" date.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Hawk200 on April 13, 2020, 08:14:44 PM
Quote from: slicek38 on March 10, 2020, 04:50:12 PM....
Note: In order to achieve Level-5, the new requirement is that a member must be in a staff position for at least 3 years, with a minimum of ONE YEAR AT THE GROUP-LEVEL OR HIGHER.

That feels like a lock out. Don't go higher than squadron, you don't promote.

Higher level does not necessarily grant some type of education or experience that can't be gained otherwise. Dealt with a number of useless types at group and wing before that shouldn't have even been there. Of course, knew a few that wanted to get out of there, but couldn't and were too dedicated to leave. (Eventually, they burned out and did.)

Oh well. Guess I'll try an upper job for a year, go back to a unit.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on April 13, 2020, 08:59:10 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on April 13, 2020, 08:14:44 PMThat feels like a lock out. Don't go higher than squadron, you don't promote.

Yes is does, probably by design.  That's how it works in the military services
of which the grade is an affectation.

Serve at the unit, rise to Captain, smile for your retirement photo.
Why is this a problem?

Aspire to more?  Wave goodbye to the squadron, serve at a larger scope,
smile for your retirement photo.

Miss your buds at Flyover Composite?  You're welcome to come back, just without the
bottle caps.

The only thing still broken is CAP doesn't have "up or out", which is why the
grade model makes no sense, and never will.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: NovemberWhiskey on April 13, 2020, 09:21:17 PM
Even under the current framework, it was already tacitly the case that you had to operate above squadron level to reach Level 4 / promote Maj.

You have to staff a wing-level conference, and the requirement for the Master rating in a specialty track often brings in similar requirements. e.g. Communications specialty track requires planning and conducting a group-or-higher level exercise; ES specialty track requires an 18 month wing-level staff assignment in an ES role.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: dwb on April 13, 2020, 09:24:27 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2020, 08:59:10 PMThe only thing still broken is CAP doesn't have "up or out", which is why the
grade model makes no sense, and never will.

It's not broken! In what universe does "up or out" make sense for CAP?

There is a window of time you can enter the armed forces, and there is a window of time where you can serve. Once those windows have passed, it's over. The modal case is people entering between ages 18-25.

You can become a CAP senior member on your 18th birthday and stay until you're 108. Or you can discover it and join for the first time in your 60s. Or anywhere in between. Up or out doesn't make sense for our use case, but it hardly means CAP's rank system is broken.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: etodd on April 13, 2020, 09:54:30 PM
Imagine a CAP without a ranking system. Where we just have duties and positions. Want to be a Squadron manager? Here are the experience requirements and training it takes to be one. Start off as assistant manager. Would be simpler.  Wing Manager? must be a Squadron Manager first. Etc.

Imagine a CAP without uniforms. Would eliminate 90% of the online bickering and threads. What we would talk about? Missions and jobs?

Simplicity.

But yes, none of you would like it.  Just pondering for a moment. LOL
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Holding Pattern on April 13, 2020, 09:55:11 PM
Quote from: etodd on April 13, 2020, 09:54:30 PMImagine a CAP without a ranking system. Where we just have duties and positions. Want to be a Squadron manager? Here are the experience requirements and training it takes to be one. Start off as assistant manager. Would be simpler.  Wing Manager? must be a Squadron Manager first. Etc.

Imagine a CAP without uniforms. Would eliminate 90% of the online bickering and threads. What we would talk about? Missions and jobs?

Simplicity.

But yes, none of you would like it.  Just pondering for a moment. LOL

It's called CERT. Go for it.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Holding Pattern on April 13, 2020, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on April 13, 2020, 08:14:44 PM
Quote from: slicek38 on March 10, 2020, 04:50:12 PM....
Note: In order to achieve Level-5, the new requirement is that a member must be in a staff position for at least 3 years, with a minimum of ONE YEAR AT THE GROUP-LEVEL OR HIGHER.

That feels like a lock out. Don't go higher than squadron, you don't promote.

Higher level does not necessarily grant some type of education or experience that can't be gained otherwise. Dealt with a number of useless types at group and wing before that shouldn't have even been there. Of course, knew a few that wanted to get out of there, but couldn't and were too dedicated to leave. (Eventually, they burned out and did.)

Oh well. Guess I'll try an upper job for a year, go back to a unit.

FWIW, I know plenty of people that have sat at wing and done absolutely nothing for a year. You could literally choose something like Assistant to X and have to send 10 emails and attend 3 web meetings.

There is no requirement to be PRODUCTIVE, sadly.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on April 13, 2020, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: dwb on April 13, 2020, 09:24:27 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2020, 08:59:10 PMThe only thing still broken is CAP doesn't have "up or out", which is why the
grade model makes no sense, and never will.

It's not broken! In what universe does "up or out" make sense for CAP?

The same one where Bird Colonels are reporting to Captains, and NCOs exist for "reasons".

Quote from: dwb on April 13, 2020, 09:24:27 PMUp or out doesn't make sense for our use case, but it hardly means CAP's rank system is broken.

The lack of "up or out" literally defines the reason why CAP's grade structure was broken
the day they disconnected it from any actual authority.

Perhaps "up or out", per se isn't a workable model when the organization intends for people to
join when they are 12 and literally never leave, but frankly I can see from this side of the 20-year fence
why "up or out" isn't such a bad idea.  It puts limits and time pressure on performance, reduces the
irrelevant but still bizarre appearance of 60 year old butter bars, and would force recruiting and
refreshment of the ranks.

With that said, perhaps the proper model is "up if you want promotion" (and demotion if you want to
go back down).  Yes, there would be ADY abuses, deal with the edge cases, but on the mean, everyone
would have something on their shoulder that at least kinda made sense.

With that model, members would be free to ignore PD that was unnecessary for their role, and focus
on Squadron operations and whatever their staff job is.

There is no perfect model because the "Military Affectation Field®" is too strong, but this would at least be better.

"Military Affectation Field®" is a registered trademark of eClipseco Mining and Heavy Machinery Consortium.  All Rights Reserved.  Let eClipseco service all of your rhetoric and propaganda needs!
Note: eClipseco is currently on reduced hours of operation during the Covoid 19 Pandemic, please be patient as we work to serve your rhetorical needs!
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: PHall on April 13, 2020, 11:56:10 PM
Quote from: etodd on April 13, 2020, 09:54:30 PMImagine a CAP without a ranking system. Where we just have duties and positions. Want to be a Squadron manager? Here are the experience requirements and training it takes to be one. Start off as assistant manager. Would be simpler.  Wing Manager? must be a Squadron Manager first. Etc.

Imagine a CAP without uniforms. Would eliminate 90% of the online bickering and threads. What we would talk about? Missions and jobs?

Simplicity.

But yes, none of you would like it.  Just pondering for a moment. LOL
Quote from: etodd on April 13, 2020, 09:54:30 PMImagine a CAP without a ranking system. Where we just have duties and positions. Want to be a Squadron manager? Here are the experience requirements and training it takes to be one. Start off as assistant manager. Would be simpler.  Wing Manager? must be a Squadron Manager first. Etc.

Imagine a CAP without uniforms. Would eliminate 90% of the online bickering and threads. What we would talk about? Missions and jobs?

Simplicity.

But yes, none of you would like it.  Just pondering for a moment. LOL


That's what the Coast Guard Auxiliary does. If that system appeals to you then maybe the Coast Guard Aux may be more to your liking.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: etodd on April 14, 2020, 12:07:54 AM
Quote from: PHall on April 13, 2020, 11:56:10 PMThat's what the Coast Guard Auxiliary does. If that system appeals to you then maybe the Coast Guard Aux may be more to your liking.

Nah. I'm happy to be here.  Just noting that those two things seem to be the most contentious items among membership. Rank and uniform. Nearly everyone has a gripe about those things in one form or another. Imagine not having those two issues in CAPTalk.  It would be quiet ....
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Hawk200 on April 14, 2020, 01:50:54 AM
Quote from: Holding Pattern on April 13, 2020, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on April 13, 2020, 08:14:44 PM
Quote from: slicek38 on March 10, 2020, 04:50:12 PM....
Note: In order to achieve Level-5, the new requirement is that a member must be in a staff position for at least 3 years, with a minimum of ONE YEAR AT THE GROUP-LEVEL OR HIGHER.

That feels like a lock out. Don't go higher than squadron, you don't promote.

Higher level does not necessarily grant some type of education or experience that can't be gained otherwise. Dealt with a number of useless types at group and wing before that shouldn't have even been there. Of course, knew a few that wanted to get out of there, but couldn't and were too dedicated to leave. (Eventually, they burned out and did.)

Oh well. Guess I'll try an upper job for a year, go back to a unit.

FWIW, I know plenty of people that have sat at wing and done absolutely nothing for a year. You could literally choose something like Assistant to X and have to send 10 emails and attend 3 web meetings.

There is no requirement to be PRODUCTIVE, sadly.

Yeah, I did acknowledge those.

NOT being productive goes against my nature. (Which is why I'm slowly going mad right now.)

I'd do the work. I want to do it the right way, according to appropriate publications, and don't want anyone impeding me. I've seen some good people go to wing, and end up quitting because they basically weren't allowed to do the job right. (Which, to be honest, is probably my biggest fear.)

Seems like most groups don't do as much as I feel like they should. The Group commanders I dealt with tried to wield power that wasn't really theirs, or the one who blocked any promotion higher than himself. (He'd been a Captain for over ten years, couldn't promote because he didn't get ECI 13 done.)

Maybe I'm just cautious about the horror stories, but don't see much about higher headquarters making anyone a better officer.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: PHall on April 14, 2020, 02:42:16 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on April 14, 2020, 01:50:54 AM
Quote from: Holding Pattern on April 13, 2020, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on April 13, 2020, 08:14:44 PM
Quote from: slicek38 on March 10, 2020, 04:50:12 PM....
Note: In order to achieve Level-5, the new requirement is that a member must be in a staff position for at least 3 years, with a minimum of ONE YEAR AT THE GROUP-LEVEL OR HIGHER.

That feels like a lock out. Don't go higher than squadron, you don't promote.

Higher level does not necessarily grant some type of education or experience that can't be gained otherwise. Dealt with a number of useless types at group and wing before that shouldn't have even been there. Of course, knew a few that wanted to get out of there, but couldn't and were too dedicated to leave. (Eventually, they burned out and did.)

Oh well. Guess I'll try an upper job for a year, go back to a unit.

FWIW, I know plenty of people that have sat at wing and done absolutely nothing for a year. You could literally choose something like Assistant to X and have to send 10 emails and attend 3 web meetings.

There is no requirement to be PRODUCTIVE, sadly.

Yeah, I did acknowledge those.

NOT being productive goes against my nature. (Which is why I'm slowly going mad right now.)

I'd do the work. I want to do it the right way, according to appropriate publications, and don't want anyone impeding me. I've seen some good people go to wing, and end up quitting because they basically weren't allowed to do the job right. (Which, to be honest, is probably my biggest fear.)

Seems like most groups don't do as much as I feel like they should. The Group commanders I dealt with tried to wield power that wasn't really theirs, or the one who blocked any promotion higher than himself. (He'd been a Captain for over ten years, couldn't promote because he didn't get ECI 13 done.)

Maybe I'm just cautious about the horror stories, but don't see much about higher headquarters making anyone a better officer.

Totally depends on what your position is. Are you the Director or an Assistant?
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Hawk200 on April 14, 2020, 04:25:43 AM


Quote from: PHall on April 14, 2020, 02:42:16 AMTotally depends on what your position is. Are you the Director or an Assistant?

Assistant wouldn't bother me, as long as I'm doing useful work.

Not a fan of going to a Director position immediately, anyway. Got to learn stuff first. Trial by fire is not a good way to start a position. You can wreck a good program pretty quick. I certainly don't want to be one to do that.

Maybe I hate the idea of moving to wing and never going back. I like to be involved where things happen.

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: PHall on April 14, 2020, 06:29:20 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on April 14, 2020, 04:25:43 AM
Quote from: PHall on April 14, 2020, 02:42:16 AMTotally depends on what your position is. Are you the Director or an Assistant?

Assistant wouldn't bother me, as long as I'm doing useful work.

Not a fan of going to a Director position immediately, anyway. Got to learn stuff first. Trial by fire is not a good way to start a position. You can wreck a good program pretty quick. I certainly don't want to be one to do that.

Maybe I hate the idea of moving to wing and never going back. I like to be involved where things happen.

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk



Nothing says you have to move to wing and do wing stuff only.
I would say the vast majority of wing staff positions in California Wing are filled by people who are doing it IOAD, In Addition to Other Duties. And I've seen this in other wings as well too.
They do their wing job and still participate in the local squadron too.
There's only a few positions like Chief of Staff and Director of Operations and jobs like that that are really "Full Time" positions. The rest are at best part time positions.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 02:16:15 PM
Being a squadron commander isn't a prerequisite for any other staff position, just as any other staff position isn't a prerequisite for being a commander. There are always pros and cons to each.

You can go from being a professional development officer to emergency services officer to wing staff to chief of staff to wing commander, just as in the military you can go from being a platoon sergeant, earn a commission, become an operations officer, become an executive officer for a company, move into being the executive officer for a battalion, and be appointed the battalion commander.

There are preferred qualifications and experience, but those aren't necessarily doctrine. You don't want to corner yourself into "Must have" and then you don't have people who have that resume.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Spam on April 14, 2020, 03:56:16 PM
Boy I sure wouldn't pick a Wing Commander (or a BN Commander) who had never held any prior command. I hope I'm not reading that into your suggested experience flow. I would agree with your other points though.

Vr
Spam
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 05:01:18 PM
Quote from: Spam on April 14, 2020, 03:56:16 PMBoy I sure wouldn't pick a Wing Commander (or a BN Commander) who had never held any prior command. I hope I'm not reading that into your suggested experience flow. I would agree with your other points though.

Didn't say I support that notion. But writing it into stone removes flexibility in cases of "We really need someone."
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: PHall on April 14, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 05:01:18 PM
Quote from: Spam on April 14, 2020, 03:56:16 PMBoy I sure wouldn't pick a Wing Commander (or a BN Commander) who had never held any prior command. I hope I'm not reading that into your suggested experience flow. I would agree with your other points though.

Didn't say I support that notion. But writing it into stone removes flexibility in cases of "We really need someone."


And many of those "we really need someone" cases don't end well.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 08:40:42 PM
Quote from: PHall on April 14, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 05:01:18 PM
Quote from: Spam on April 14, 2020, 03:56:16 PMBoy I sure wouldn't pick a Wing Commander (or a BN Commander) who had never held any prior command. I hope I'm not reading that into your suggested experience flow. I would agree with your other points though.

Didn't say I support that notion. But writing it into stone removes flexibility in cases of "We really need someone."


And many of those "we really need someone" cases don't end well.

Major truth. Colonel truth even.

But it doesn't mean they don't exist. Or the person who doesn't meet the normally-expected criteria is a better candidate than those that might.

Being a commander doesn't mean you were a good commander.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Ned on April 14, 2020, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 08:40:42 PMBeing a commander doesn't mean you were a good commander.

Indeed. In CAP, almost half the commanders are below average.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Imouttahere on April 14, 2020, 10:31:56 PM
Does anyone have an official summary if changes or is it still in the works?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: dwb on April 14, 2020, 10:48:18 PM
Tons of info here: https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/members/cap-university/education-and-training

Check out the links under Program Overview for the most salient information.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: jb3 on April 15, 2020, 12:43:02 AM
Thank for the link. I spent some time going over the material and I'm optimistic about the new program. I also noticed that they are looking for instructors so I suggest that more of us volunteer to instruct rather than criticize the program before it has a chance to succeed.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Hawk200 on April 15, 2020, 04:25:47 AM


Quote from: PHall on April 14, 2020, 06:29:20 AMNothing says you have to move to wing and do wing stuff only.
I would say the vast majority of wing staff positions in California Wing are filled by people who are doing it IOAD, In Addition to Other Duties. And I've seen this in other wings as well too.
They do their wing job and still participate in the local squadron too.
There's only a few positions like Chief of Staff and Director of Operations and jobs like that that are really "Full Time" positions. The rest are at best part time positions.

You've got a point there.

I've got to admit I am wondering if it can actually be done that way.

Would doing "wing work" for a year be considered valid? As an example, if you're still on a squadron MML, but working at wing count? Would a letter tasking a person to wing for a year be sufficient? Would you have to be in the Wing charter to count?

All things that should be clarified.

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Eclipse on April 15, 2020, 04:33:20 AM
There's no requirement to be assigned to the 001 charter as your primary.

Lots of people do Wing level jobs while still being at lower lever units
that's what sets up a lot of the circle report structures and conflicts of
interest, but regardless, that's the CAP today, not likely to change.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: SarDragon on April 15, 2020, 05:19:58 AM
Really, all you need is to be assigned on the appropriate PA, regardless of actual unit assignment. I'm on the wing and group PAs in the Comm section, get to do stuff in each capacity as needed.
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Spam on April 15, 2020, 06:08:55 AM
Quote from: Ned on April 14, 2020, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 08:40:42 PMBeing a commander doesn't mean you were a good commander.

Indeed. In CAP, almost half the commanders are below average.

I am recurrently surprised at how many people I meet who take that joke as a debate point and start seriously worrying over it, denying it, et cetera.  Which probably proves as a defining point that half of the world population IS over below average intelligence.

Still funny though. I'll take any humor I can get these days.

Cheers
Spam
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: Spam on April 15, 2020, 06:32:25 AM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 08:40:42 PM
Quote from: PHall on April 14, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 05:01:18 PM
Quote from: Spam on April 14, 2020, 03:56:16 PMBoy I sure wouldn't pick a Wing Commander (or a BN Commander) who had never held any prior command. I hope I'm not reading that into your suggested experience flow. I would agree with your other points though.

Didn't say I support that notion. But writing it into stone removes flexibility in cases of "We really need someone."


And many of those "we really need someone" cases don't end well.

Major truth. Colonel truth even.

But it doesn't mean they don't exist. Or the person who doesn't meet the normally-expected criteria is a better candidate than those that might.

Being a commander doesn't mean you were a good commander.

I fully agree with that last statement, Hornet. Let's say "completion of a successful command tour at the next lower level", would be a valid requirement. That is essentially the existing criteria on record for Region Command screening (see CAPR 35-9, 1AUG17). We have on occasion used a past performance record of success as an evaluation input when screening someone for successively higher slotting (I know I have, when looking at GP/CC candidates) but the skill sets don't always have a fully 1:1 match. We presume that demonstrated Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) used at the lower level will lower the risk of a mismatch at Group, Wing, or Region command level.

Making (*successful, not box checking) prior command experience a desired factor as in 35-9 is a risk management tool, no less.

We do NOT require that members hold command to meet the upper Levels, and I hope we never consider doing that. Here's where my Spidey sense tickles a warning: there's a certain persona type who we've all seen at work and CAP who seeks command or influence purely for self aggrandizement, and making command selection a necessary element of PD advancement could strongly increase the tendency for those types to seek command for commands sake, rather than in the spirit of servant leadership.

If command were a mandatory path to complete Levels, some of the petty tyrants currently enjoying their fiefdoms as comm gurus, supply kings, or cadet programs gate keepers and key masters might pollute us further by setting their sights on command ticket punching. We've all seen people "serving time" uselessly or dangerously at Wing level, punching their ticket, and while we can tolerate these, I would not care to run the corporate risk of pumping more in through the command track.

V/r
Spam
Title: Re: Professional Development Changing Again
Post by: TheSkyHornet on April 15, 2020, 12:58:52 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 15, 2020, 04:33:20 AMThere's no requirement to be assigned to the 001 charter as your primary.

Lots of people do Wing level jobs while still being at lower lever units
that's what sets up a lot of the circle report structures and conflicts of
interest, but regardless, that's the CAP today, not likely to change.

I'm on Wing staff and hold a post with a squadron. My unit ID is listed as my squadron.


And, Spam, I think you and I are on the exact same page. It's all about situational awareness, knowing who your candidates are, and asking around about them.