Nov 07 NEC -- Cadet Professional Development Credit

[RplnXbrnt]

This is from another thread, but I think it might be worth talking about on its own, as well.

They also passed crediting former cadets with past accomplishments for senior membership without amendment.  IMO it could have used a few.

So, I'm curious -- does the fact that they passed this agenda item make the proposed change occur immediately?

For example, I went to COS (and RCLS, for that matter) as a cadet, but have not yet completed AFIADL-13. If this change takes effect immediately (well, at the end of the meeting, anyway) make it such that I don't have to finish AFIADL-13? I already have SLS and the CP technician rating, so that's the only thing otherwise standing in my way from Level II completion.

Thanks!

[Tim Medeiros]

Kind of curious if it is retroactive, ie would the CP ratings (if you don't already have them) be dated to when you became an SM?  Along with the SLS, AFIADL 13 and Level 2 credit?  Wonder if that was thought of.

[MIKE]

They were saying it would be retroactive in the stream.

[jb512]

Where is the list for all of these items?  I must've missed it.

[RiverAux]

Nope, still have to write regulations and get them approved.  Don't hold your breath.

[Eclipse]

Kind of curious if it is retroactive, ie would the CP ratings (if you don't already have them) be dated to when you became an SM?  Along with the SLS, AFIADL 13 and Level 2 credit?  Wonder if that was thought of.

Well, the idea was approved, there's very little detail behind it.

I would say this is a good idea for a older cadets - perhaps the requirement should be they must be over 18, I don't see how much use an SLS is going to be for a 12 year old by the time they get around to using what they have "learned". (other than the general knowledge of what it takes to run a unit, etc.)

[RplnXbrnt]

Well, the idea was approved, there's very little detail behind it.

I would say this is a good idea for a older cadets - perhaps the requirement should be they must be over 18, I don't see how much use an SLS is going to be for a 12 year old by the time they get around to using what they have "learned". (other than the general knowledge of what it takes to run a unit, etc.)

Well, firstly, you can't get even the Mitchell at a mere 12 years-old, barring special exceptions from our middle-school programs, so that's essentially a non-issue. Secondly, even in that case, that individual would still have to progress through to the Eaker Award to receive credit for SLS, and that takes nearly 2 years additional time in the program after the Mitchell, at minimum. Also, having SLS doesn't do anything for cadets -- period. The only reason that this was brought up was to provide incentive to keep our older cadets around -- those who may have "outgrown" the Cadet Program. This is partially meant to help them maintain interest in the program so that they switch to Officer status.

Being a former Eaker cadet of just over 8 years service as a cadet, I can honestly say that I know the functions of the vast majority of the various staff officer positions at a given unit better than the average newbie Officer off-the-streets -- particularly considering that it's often the case that they come to me for advice on their job functions, and we're usually met with success. That's not to say I learned nothing from my SLS -- far from it. But, so long as you pay attention and the course is run well, you will always learn something.

Anyhow -- the whole point of the PD credit is to help retain the older cadets in the program as CAP Officers.

[Eclipse]

I actually think a well-run SLS would be good for cadets.  It might be an eye opener as to what it takes to actually run a successful unit and provide the opportunities many take for granted (or even complain about).

I'm just saying that if its open on a credit-granitng basis to cadets of any age, we're opening it up to 12 year olds who will likely do little more than sleep in the back of the room.

6-9 years later when they actually need to apply the knowledge, it will likely have changed significantly, or they will have retained little, however when its suggested that they attend a more current one, they will say they don't have to.

The other issue is that it could have the side effect of turning PD into just another cadet check box.

[MIKE]

I've read the agenda item... I'm a former Earhart cadet, and I still think this is a bad idea.  Maybe this means that after five years I have succumbed fully to the power of the Dark Side.  You may find my lack of faith disturbing, but I now subscribe to the no free lunch philosophy.

[ZigZag911]

Other than Yeager equivalency, I'm not wild about this idea, and I'm a former cadet with an Earhart myself  (from a Galaxy Long Long Ago!)

Thing is, 'The Dark Side' is very different from cadet service....and the recently transitioned senior/ex-cadet needs more than just marks on a checklist...she or he needs to get used to working as an adult, with other adults, networking, negotiating, coordinating activities, resolving differences....the kind of experiences one gets attending courses, conferences, working on missions and other projects beyond the limits of the local squadron.

Anything that makes this less necessary is not ultimately good for the future development of new officers.

Why are opinions not solicited from the field before these decisions are made??

[RplnXbrnt]

I definitely have to disagree with what seems to be the prevailing sentiment here -- as well as offer another correction.

I'm just saying that if its open on a credit-granitng basis to cadets of any age, we're opening it up to 12 year olds who will likely do little more than sleep in the back of the room.

This is just patently inaccurate -- cadets won't be attending SLS, they'll be getting credit for it, similar to PME, on the basis of their completion of their Staff Duty Analysis assignments which they already have to do.

This makes this point moot:

6-9 years later when they actually need to apply the knowledge, it will likely have changed significantly, or they will have retained little, however when its suggested that they attend a more current one, they will say they don't have to.

They never actually need to attend the course. I think you're entirely missing the boat on this point. And, even assuming that you manage to get an Eaker cadet that's actually that young, this won't have any effect on them until they hit 21, and it is the Squadron CC's responsibility to ensure that these cadets are adequately prepared for CAP Officership. This should be part of an on-going process.

As to the point that:

I actually think a well-run SLS would be good for cadets.  It might be an eye opener as to what it takes to actually run a successful unit and provide the opportunities many take for granted (or even complain about).

I said that already -- and it's not just true for former cadets, either. It's true for those with PME for SLS, also. ANY well-run program, as I've said before, will benefit all participants, no matter how many times they've been through it.

Thing is, 'The Dark Side' is very different from cadet service....and the recently transitioned senior/ex-cadet needs more than just marks on a checklist...she or he needs to get used to working as an adult, with other adults, networking, negotiating, coordinating activities, resolving differences....the kind of experiences one gets attending courses, conferences, working on missions and other projects beyond the limits of the local squadron.

Anything that makes this less necessary is not ultimately good for the future development of new officers.

If you really do justice to the program and really work with your cadets appropriately, this won't be an issue. After I was done with my turn as Cadet Commander at my unit, at 19, I went on to work far more closely with my (now fellow) Officers, and transformed my role into the squadron much, much more akin to that of a Leadership Officer -- and, over 3 years' time in such a role, my transition to "The Dark Side" has been that much smoother. I associate most closely with my fellow Officers and the cadets that knew me in my days of diamonds know that there is a line between us now, and they respect and understand that.

Honestly, I think the real problem people have with this is that there is a lack of faith in the transition from cadet to officer, and that having this policy enacted will somehow absolve unit commanders from their responsibility of preparing their cadets adequately to enter the officer program. Instead of complaining about changes like these, I recommend attacking the real problem, which is inadequate preparation for older cadets turning grey. If we do our jobs effectively, then these new measures will a) help retain these cadets in the program and make the return on our investment in them that much greater and b) make their transition smoother.

These new measures are, to a certain extent, meant for those cadets that really do their homework, so to speak. For those cadets that you're really worried about getting these sorts of credits, I really don't think that giving them this credit is going to impact their "negative" impact on your units. This is really about allowing our hardworking, older cadets to enter the officer program with a better footing and to allow them to have an even greater, positive impact on our program.

I really don't think the problem is the policy changes you're opposing, but your lack of faith in the Cadet Program and -- more importantly -- its implementation. How about offering solutions to THOSE problems?


For the record: I don't mean to sound negative or antagonistic -- I think that last statement might come across that way, and it's not meant to.

Why are opinions not solicited from the field before these decisions are made??

Because it's the NEC -- that will come into play when they start making changes to the regs and put the resolution before the NB.



Anyway, just my $.02.

[RiverAux]

In general I think we've got to make it as attractive as possible for former cadets to want to continue on in the organization as officers.  Right now the number of cadets that go right from cadet-hood to officer is pretty darn low.  If we're lucky some come back again in the 30s or so after getting established in their careers and families. 

If we've done our job right the cadets who have achieved these levels in the program have gone on to be leaders in their own right and I don't have a problem with giving them some credit for these courses.  After all, we're already giving them advanced officer rank based on their cadet achievements. 

[jb512]

Where is the list for all of these items?  I must've missed it.

Still not seeing it...

[RiverAux]

They were discussed at the NEC and varioius people watching the livestream posted comments about it here.  So, there is no list and won't be until the NEC draft minutes are put up, probably many months from now. 

[IceNine]

The proposed item is listed on the NEC Agenda

[RiverAux]

Speaking of that agenda, it actually isn't even posted on eservices, so I'm wondering how fmm got hold of it?

[Eclipse]

Here's what was passed.

Cadets that earn the Amelia Earhart Award be automatically awarded a Cadet
Programs Technician rating in addition to their promotion to First Lieutenant. An
Earhart cadet already possesses the skill set developed from the knowledge and
service requirements found in CAPP216 for a technician rating.

Cadets that earn the Ira C. Eaker Award be automatically awarded Level II
completion. The Staff Duty Analyses completed by these cadets in Phases III
and IV provide them a depth of knowledge sufficient to that obtained by
attendance at a Squadron Leadership School. If this agenda item is approved,
Eaker cadets will have already earned a CP technician rating by virtue of their
Earhart award; and, completion of ECI13, Region Cadet Leadership School, or
Cadet Officer School is a current requirement for the Eaker Award. Completion
of one of those three equivalent courses should be transferable to the
comparable Level II requirement.

Cadets that earn the Carl A. Spaatz Award be automatically awarded a Cadet
Programs Senior rating and credit for Yeager Award completion in addition to
their promotion to Captain. Spaatz cadets already possess the skill set
developed from the knowledge and service requirements found in CAPP 216 for
a senior rating. Additionally, the AE portion of the Spaatz examination is at least
as comprehensive as the Yeager exam; and Spaatz awardees do not have the
open-book option available to officer members taking the Yeager test.

I have no issue with A, but some heartburn with B&C.  I would have less so if they were simlply
awarding the tech ratings, but I don't care for the idea of Yeager equivelence and
an automatic pass to L2 - this is effectively awarding Captain to Eaker cadets minus the TIG.

[jb512]

The proposed item is listed on the NEC Agenda

Thanks.  That's what I was looking for.

[jb512]

I have no issue with A, but some heartburn with B&C.  I would have less so if they were simlply
awarding the tech ratings, but I don't care for the idea of Yeager equivelence and
an automatic pass to L2 - this is effectively awarding Captain to Eaker cadets minus the TIG.

I think it's awesome, wholeheartedly agree with the reasoning, and glad to see the bosses doing things to keep former cadets coming back.  I wish they had thrown us former Mitchell cadets a bone though. 

Anyone who is a former cadet officer and who has also taken the Yeager can see the similarities.  I had been out of the organization for about 15 years and still took it with ease.

[Eclipse]

If the only reason we can retain cadets as new senior members is giving them meaningless grade, we're not doing our jobs and they don't understand the program.