Satisfactory Cadet Progression

[a2capt]

The previous CAPR 52-16 had a statement that cadets should progress at least two achievements per year. The current revision does not, but does refer to CAPR 35-3, which states "b. Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program."


What is "satisfactory progress"?

[Eclipse]

What is "satisfactory progress"?

A subjective assessment by the respective commander.

You could make the argument that the old definition still holds, but "less then 2 promotions a year" would be on my list.

[a2capt]

I should have added, in the sense that what can be cited, in writing. Otherwise I agree that satisfactory progression is two per rolling 12 month period.

[Eclipse]

I should have added, in the sense that what can be cited, in writing.

Nothing, which is probably the point, but also probably defeats its own purpose, since this isn't likely to
be trotted out unless a cadet is being disciplined or even terminated, at which point mom is likely to ask the same question.

CC's looking to head that off should probably have an OI.

The old verbiage about 6 months, which was optional, at least provided a national guideline, even if it was mostly ignored.
I can't imagine why they pulled that out.

[lordmonar]

They pulled it out because it was not necessary.

35-3's verbiage is fine.   It leaves it subjective.   Mom want's to fight it......then up the chain it goes.  If wing supports the appeal....okay then there you go.

If 52-16 is going to have a hard date (two promotions per year is a lot of wishy washy room in it too), Once every six months is better....because then the clock starts there instead of at 10 months (in theory you could still get promoted twice in a year at that point).

Also....subjective.....what is "a year" in this context?  Cadet A gets promoted Jan 1 2012 and then March 2012......now it is Oct 2013 in theory he can still get promoted twice before the end of this year.....even though it has been more than 12 months since his last promotion.

[Eclipse]

You're assuming a lot of "leadership" up there.

This is how it really goes...

Cadet blows off meetings and generally isn't around for a year, including no promotion.  Or hangs around in the back but
generally does nothing. The fact that it was allowed to go on that long is lost on everyone in the room.

CC makes an effort to discipline or terminate cadet, parent says "You can't, I won't, you can't make me..." and there's no verbiage to
simply show them, CC sees a penny on the floor and stops caring.

Everyone loses.

What is wrong with objective standards for something which is considered a cornerstone of the program and that cadets
regularly swear an oath about?

As usual we make things harder on everyone to no one's benefit.

[lordmonar]

I got no problem with objective standards.....I got no problem with subjective standards either.

But beware of the law of unintended consequences......If you set a standard.....and use it objectively.....you may HAVE TO discipline cadets you did not intend to.

Either way....really......Cadet X can't or won't promote.......is he really going to fight a 2'b?   If he does.....then it is a no brainer that he is going to start progressing......or he is going to step on his own pecker down the road where I can 2'b him for cause....and then everyone is happy.

[ZigZag911]

I think the sqdn CC needs to take the cadet's age, maturity and ability into account.

Effort should also be considered...if the cadet is working diligently but needs to improve further in some area, that's very different than simply slacking off.

Frankly, I see this primarily useful as a 'motivator' for cadets who decide they are going to be "career non-coms", a category that is contrary to the aims of the cadet program.

[RiverAux]

If we have the ability to make something clear and objective, especially in regards to a justification for kicking someone out of the program, then we should. 

Has there been a significant percentage of hard-charging cadets who try, but fail, to promote twice a year?  If so, maybe a change makes sense, but not to something more subjective that will be applied differently in every single unit.  Make it once a year if we think twice a year is kicking out cadets that really should still be in the program. 

If you give a commander a vague requirement then 95% of them are generally going to ignore it.  Why should they take a risk to utilize that justification if they run the risk of gumming up lots of their time defending that decision?  If it obvious that NHQ isn't serious about it, since it is so vague, they're not going to waste their time dealing with it. 

The other 5% are going to use it in stupid ways that cause problems for their superiors.  "Well, I think cadets need to promote every 4 months". 

Just look at some of the vague requirements in the senior member promotion system and you'll know what I'm talking about. 

[SamFranklin]

I've never seen a situation where the right thing to do is terminate a cadet who is not violent or terribly disruptive.

Why toss a cadet who is participating at meetings and generally behaving well? Because he's not promoting?  Well, fix that through motivational techniques, not by kicking him out. That's basic leadership 101. 

Someone will say, What if he's missing meetings and not really participating? Again I say take a positive approach. Don't terminate. 

I know Bob has said we're not a "drop in" rec center. That that's the wrong mentality. I agree. But still if my aim is to serve youth (vs. merely administer a program), then I cAnt write a kid off.

So many squadrons terminate now, perhaps to keep their roster clean and tidy. I say people count for more than admin tidiness, so I'm glad the satisfactory progress thing disappeared.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Its still there. Just not defined.

[RiverAux]

Its still there. Just not defined.

Then its not really there. 

Sort of like the vague requirements to be performing in an exemplary manner to get promoted as a senior member. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Its still there. Just not defined.

Then its not really there. 

Sort of like the vague requirements to be performing in an exemplary manner to get promoted as a senior member.

And I see those applied regularly.

[Eclipse]

Subjective expectations and requirements are a "nice to have" when you have experienced, consistently trained leaders, who, themselves
were held to, and are held to the same standard as that of their subordinates.

Objective expectations and requirements are a necessity in any organization that doesn't have the above.

Since the former doesn't exist in CAP, we need to have the latter as tools to make commanders' lives easier and set expectations for members.

If you tell a person their goal is "some" or "many", both sides of the conversation are free to interpret those words as they see fit,
including bad feelings when the expectation isn't met, and little ramifications for either side for deficiencies.

If you tell a person their requirement is "5", they are free to "not like that", feel it is "inappropriate or unfair", and in the end "quit", but
at least no one is playing games with the number.

One would like to think that the relatively small lane of knowledgeable and experienced leaders would set "5" as a reasonable, make-able
requirement, but regardless, it should almost always be "5" and never "some".  The very fact that cadets in one wing are being pushed
for 2-3 clicks a year, while cadets in another wing (or even a neighboring unit) are allowed to "free range", makes this problem
serious enough to be need immediate correction.  This is the core of why "not all diamonds are created equal".  (BTDT).

"5" is what a good leader uses to move their people forward.  "Some" is what poor leaders use to avoid uncomfortable conversations.

The only thing worse then "some", is "5 + some", which we also have in CAP.

[ZigZag911]

While we're on the subject, I think the minimum  2 months time between achievements is too short.

I'd like to see it raised to 3 months.

[Майор Хаткевич]

While we're on the subject, I think the minimum  2 months time between achievements is too short.

I'd like to see it raised to 3 months.

Agreed from a BTDT perspective as well as current experience. Maybe some cadets can hack it, but a vast majority simply cannot do so with minimum time. Check boxes? Sure. Learn and apply the material? Not quite.

[lordmonar]

Hence the subjective criteria.

Please define an object standard for "apply the material".

I'm pushing 11 years in the cadet program now.....and about 20 years in the BSA program......most cadets are not pushing the minimum time.  If you got some book smart kid who can knock out the test and meet all the objective requirements.....and you don't think he needs to promote....right now.....CAPF50 is your tool and you need to set SMART goals for him.

[Alaric]

While we're on the subject, I think the minimum  2 months time between achievements is too short.

I'd like to see it raised to 3 months.

Agreed from a BTDT perspective as well as current experience. Maybe some cadets can hack it, but a vast majority simply cannot do so with minimum time. Check boxes? Sure. Learn and apply the material? Not quite.

Raising the minimum is unnecessary, if the adults are doing their jobs then they will not promote just because the boxes are checked.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Hence the subjective criteria.

Please define an object standard for "apply the material".

I'm pushing 11 years in the cadet program now.....and about 20 years in the BSA program......most cadets are not pushing the minimum time.  If you got some book smart kid who can knock out the test and meet all the objective requirements.....and you don't think he needs to promote....right now.....CAPF50 is your tool and you need to set SMART goals for him.

11 years in, and I'm sure you've seen plenty of C/SNCOs who shouldn't have gone to their Wright Brothers, not to mention nearing Mitchell. Some units simply don't have strong programs, or a CP staff that equate checkbox to completion.

[MacGruff]

Raising the minimum is unnecessary, if the adults are doing their jobs then they will not promote just because the boxes are checked.

We recently had this done in my squadron with negative results.

A cadet had gotten every requirement checked off for promotion within the two month time frame and came up to a promotion board. The cadet's promotion was rejected because the board felt they were not ready for the increased responsibility of the new rank. Our squadron holds promotion boards monthly. The same thing took place the second month, and even the third. Cadet was very upset.

The cadet's parent, who is a Senior Member and active in the unit, complained to the commander and others several times over this time span, asking why the cadet is not being progressed when they did everything they're supposed to have done. Things got a bit difficult with the end result that the cadet was promoted, but neither the cadet, nor the parent has been seen since.

Clearly there is a "helicopter parent" situation here, but also many other things that went wrong in this situation. Was it a leadership problem with the commander? Some sort of vendetta against the cadet? Any ideas on how to avoid such a situation?