TLC - Will it ever be as Important as SLS or CLC?

CadetProgramGuy · April 28, 2007, 02:59:30 AM

The Training the Leaders of Cadets class is a new class for Cadet Program Officers.

The Question is this:

Do you ever think it will become a qualifier for Level Completion like the SLS or the CLC?

My opinion is yes it should be. It is the same length of class, still have to report by CAPF 11, the same as SLS and CLC.

JC004 · April 28, 2007, 03:06:31 AM

I don't know that it will be, although since when was CAP predictable?

CadetProgramGuy · April 28, 2007, 03:15:56 AM

Along time ago I asked LaFond the same question and he indicated that it would be someday. (2 years ago)

mikeylikey · April 28, 2007, 03:24:34 AM

Since the Cadet Program is one of those mission things of CAP, perhaps it should be included in Officer training. Doesn't mean the SM has to be focused on Cadet Programs.....just means that member will be versed in the mission and able to work with cadets if need be. I support it becoming similar to SLS or CLC. Perhaps it could be Incorporated into one of them.

JC004 · April 28, 2007, 03:28:51 AM

Since senior training is obviously under construction, it may be in the future. I'm guessing they'll overhaul SLS and CLC first (finish, anyway), then hoooopefully take a step back, look at what we've got and what we need, then maybe add TLC.

mikeylikey · April 28, 2007, 03:46:01 AM

I wonder why when these courses are being developed they don't ask for input from the membership. I know it pays for one guys job at NHQ, but it would be nice to make recommendations. (YES I know someone will say I can email my recommendations to them now, but I want them to come out an SOLICIT them)

JC004 · April 28, 2007, 03:51:02 AM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 28, 2007, 03:46:01 AM
I wonder why when these courses are being developed they don't ask for input from the membership. I know it pays for one guys job at NHQ, but it would be nice to make recommendations. (YES I know someone will say I can email my recommendations to them now, but I want them to come out an SOLICIT them)

Curt told me that they field tested the SLS and solicited feedback from the directors of PD. I think I heard something about that before too. I think the directors of PD probably could have shared it a bit more, and NHQ should be leaking this stuff to the forums that it doesn't look at...

DNall · April 28, 2007, 06:19:11 AM

Wing staff officers is not remotely the same as the field, and I think would be seen as more part of the problem than the solution on the politics/elietest attitude/communication/leadership front. That's not what I wanted to post on though...

TLC is not very good from what I've seen. The way we do it in Texas is a bit different, and probably not legit according to CAP, but it's by far better. What I would describe that as is the cadet programs officer basic course (same as tech school). If it could be looked at like that, then I think it would be a lot more successful, and I think there should be like school for most specialty fields. Perhaps lump a series of techs together in a focus area, and present a combined tech school & leadership course in that field that picks up for SLS, and is a major element of certifying in a field.

JC004 · April 28, 2007, 06:23:48 AM

Quote from: DNall on April 28, 2007, 06:19:11 AM
Wing staff officers is not remotely the same as the field, and I think would be seen as more part of the problem than the solution on the politics/elietest attitude/communication/leadership front. That's not what I wanted to post on though...

TLC is not very good from what I've seen. The way we do it in Texas is a bit different, and probably not legit according to CAP, but it's by far better. What I would describe that as is the cadet programs officer basic course (same as tech school). If it could be looked at like that, then I think it would be a lot more successful, and I think there should be like school for most specialty fields. Perhaps lump a series of techs together in a focus area, and present a combined tech school & leadership course in that field that picks up for SLS, and is a major element of certifying in a field.

Where can we find some info on this TXWG thing?

dwb · April 28, 2007, 12:05:08 PM

Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on April 28, 2007, 02:59:30 AMDo you ever think it will become a qualifier for Level Completion like the SLS or the CLC?

No, and it shouldn't be. It's for cadet programs folks, and not all senior members are cadet programs folks.

I do think there is value in the course, though. So much so, that I'm running one in June.

Eclipse · April 28, 2007, 06:21:25 PM

Because its a discussion-based curriculum, the TLC is much for valuable than the SLS/CLC, which are a HUGE waste of everyone's time.

Most wings don't do them often enough, or expect their members to travel too far.

In my experience, its just a ticket punch, and most of the people in the audience know more than the instructors.

JC004 · April 28, 2007, 07:24:33 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 28, 2007, 06:21:25 PM
Because its a discussion-based curriculum, the TLC is much for valuable than the SLS/CLC, which are a HUGE waste of everyone's time.

Most wings don't do them often enough, or expect their members to travel too far.

In my experience, its just a ticket punch, and most of the people in the audience know more than the instructors.

What he said. Although part of the goal of the new SLS/CLC will be some discussion-based elements, which is an improvement.

DNall · April 28, 2007, 07:51:18 PM

Quote from: JC004 on April 28, 2007, 06:23:48 AM
Where can we find some info on this TXWG thing?

This doesn't give much info, but start here & talk to some of the people involved. There's half a dozen people on the forum that have attended. I've been as a student & was an instructor this last time. It's a pretty good program. http://texascadet.org/programs/ctep/step/

Quote from: Eclipse on April 28, 2007, 06:21:25 PM
SLS/CLC are a HUGE waste of everyone's time....most of the people in the audience know more than the instructors.

That's true, but it's cause wings don't do them enough & people don't get around to it till they are going for Level II, rather than as a familiarization with CAP for new members, which is what it really is. Iowa has that right pounding it in with Level I, which is where AFIADL13 belongs also.

Then the next stage should be a combination tech & leadership school (real leadership, not just the word in the name of the course). That is exactly what an officer basic course is in the military. What we've done with the STEP/TLC program in Texas seems to work well in that role for CP officers, but there's nothing like it for other specialties. And like I said, I don't think you could or should do it for every tech, but functional areas of several related fields would be great. It's both a real strong learning experience in a function area, and a great chance to use the discussion/socratic model to interact with like focused officers from around the state. That's what I think should take the place of SLS, and the SLS material to Lvl I.

acarlson · April 30, 2007, 01:51:15 AM

Quote from: justin_bailey on April 28, 2007, 12:05:08 PM
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on April 28, 2007, 02:59:30 AMDo you ever think it will become a qualifier for Level Completion like the SLS or the CLC?

...No, and it shouldn't be. It's for cadet programs folks, and not all senior members are cadet programs folks....

I agree. TLC is important, and it is valuable... and we're having one in the fall... and I'm going as a student.... and it is for Training Leaders of Cadets... and it is required in the Cadet Programs Specialty Track ratings... and that doesn't mean all senior members should or would be required to take it.

mikeylikey · April 30, 2007, 03:35:24 PM

Quote from: DNall on April 28, 2007, 07:51:18 PM
That is exactly what an officer basic course is in the military.

No...Officer Basic Courses are the "Technical Schools" that teach basic fundamentals of a specialty. Pre-Commissioning programs are where the prospective Officers are to pick up on the majority of leadership issues.

AlphaSigOU · May 02, 2007, 05:27:46 PM

Quote from: JC004 on April 28, 2007, 06:23:48 AM
Quote from: DNall on April 28, 2007, 06:19:11 AM
Wing staff officers is not remotely the same as the field, and I think would be seen as more part of the problem than the solution on the politics/elietest attitude/communication/leadership front. That's not what I wanted to post on though...

TLC is not very good from what I've seen. The way we do it in Texas is a bit different, and probably not legit according to CAP, but it's by far better. What I would describe that as is the cadet programs officer basic course (same as tech school). If it could be looked at like that, then I think it would be a lot more successful, and I think there should be like school for most specialty fields. Perhaps lump a series of techs together in a focus area, and present a combined tech school & leadership course in that field that picks up for SLS, and is a major element of certifying in a field.

Where can we find some info on this TXWG thing?

www.texascadet.org

<-- Fall 2006 STEP/TLC grad

DNall · May 02, 2007, 06:30:04 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 30, 2007, 03:35:24 PM
Quote from: DNall on April 28, 2007, 07:51:18 PM
That is exactly what an officer basic course is in the military.

No...Officer Basic Courses are the "Technical Schools" that teach basic fundamentals of a specialty. Pre-Commissioning programs are where the prospective Officers are to pick up on the majority of leadership issues.

No they're not. The Army just changed to get in line with all the other services on this. Now in all services you go to your commissioning source, then an officer basic leadership course (this is what ECI13 is supposed to be for us), THEN to a tech school (SLS & a tech rating for us). That Army just broke this down to BOLC II/III. In the Air Force it's called the Air & Space basic Course... ie finishing school at Maxwell.