Professional Development Changing Again

Started by culpeper, January 31, 2020, 02:53:40 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

catrulz

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.

slicek38

#61
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.

Retired and loving it!

Stonewall

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.
Serving since 1987.

THRAWN

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.
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

dwb

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. :)

etodd

 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
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Brit_in_CAP

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

  • If your available $$ limit your attendance at courses, ask for help or dive into the DL option.
  • If time off from work, or family need, is a limiting factor, dive into the DL option.
  • If you did a DL option and get the chance to attend and "audit" in person, please do so!
  • If you apply for roles in CAP, expect to get some reasonable questions about the DL training; if time off or family is your limiting factor, and the role requires a lot of time, then it's a reasonable concern that you may not be able to give the required time.

...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.

slicek38

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.
Retired and loving it!

Eclipse

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

slicek38

#69
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.   
Retired and loving it!

catrulz

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?

kcebnaes

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.
Sean Beck, Maj, CAP
Great Lakes Region sUAS Officer
Various Other Thingsā„¢

Eclipse

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

Capt Thompson

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.
Capt Matt Thompson
Deputy Commander for Cadets, Historian, Public Affairs Officer

Mitchell - 31 OCT 98 (#44670) Earhart - 1 OCT 00 (#11401)

NovemberWhiskey

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.

Fubar

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.

PHall

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.

Eclipse

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

catrulz

#78
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. 

catrulz

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.