CAP Talk

http://capmembers.com/media/cms/Jo_Fitness_White_Paper_C780ADDEF527E.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/Jo_Fitness_White_Paper_C780ADDEF527E.pdf)

"While it is universally agreed that physical fitness is important for cadets, there are many
varied opinions on how best to promote and measure it. Our current fitness program was
adopted in 2003, with a scoring change in 2006. While this model has worked well for
certain segments of our population there are many who are left behind by the relentless
testing and emphasis on performance. Modern understanding of fitness, particularly how it
relates to young people, has grown and developed. This classic model of fitness is looking
more and more outdated. It is time to respond to current research and update our physical
fitness program."

"Our Proposal
To modernize the physical fitness program we recommend the following changes:
• Remove current CPFT from cadet promotion requirements
• Adopt Presidential Youth Fitness Program with quarterly testing
• Rewrite CAPP 52-18 with updated activity recommendations, nutrition information
and testing protocols
• Issue new Cadet Physical Fitness Activity Guide to support positive fitness activities
at the squadron level
• Introduce new Fitness Excellence badge"

"One other significant difference between the CPFT and PYFP is the frequency of testing.
Cadets would take the test quarterly, rather than once per promotion. The less time spent
testing cadets' fitness, the more time may be spent doing fun, motivational physical activity.
After the Wright Brothers milestone cadets would be required to be in their HFZ to continue
advancing. For new cadets and those that have scored in the Needs Improvement zone, a
remedial fitness program would be available. Cadets who remain in the Needs Improvement
zone after 3 months in the remedial program would be retained in grade until they are able to
score in the HFZ."

Emphasis mine.

I don't necessarily agree that the CPFT needs adjustment at all.  I know Ned indicated
it was based on an "outdated", standard, but my question is whether the "outdated" nature of the
standard is because the levels are legitimately inappropriate, or because CPFT is affecting
retention, and the "fix" is "relative" scores instead of "concrete" scores to try and spur retention.
The example they used sounds like a CT discussion.  Talk about ends of the spectrum. The
average cadet in the average unit, is neither a gymnast nor a football player.  They are couch-riders
who may be involved in some school sports, but many (most?)are not.

The paper asserts that once a month isn't enough, then proposes dropping to quarterly testing
and suggesting cadets seek out PT elsewhere - the whole issue is they aren't now, and
many come in on testing night crossing their fingers they can brute force one more promotion,
even though they are out of breath getting out of the car.  Reducing the testing interval
to quarterly will have the effect, for most units, of treating anything more then 4 times a
year as "optional" meaning "we don't have to do it anymore".  The practical result, absent command
imperative, is more drill, less PT on nights when there's no lesson plan.

The paper suggests that running in the winter is an issue, and that the PYFP offers a number
of alternatives, but then indicates it won't look to adopt all of them.  Why?  Run the whole
program and offer everything. If things are going to change, let them change all the way,
and use this to CAP's advantage.

I concede the argument that "a cadet trying" is better then "a cadet quitting", but I am also
fearful of what I perceive to be the dilution of the program.  More alternatives in the
how's ands what's of testing and standards are fine, but I would not reduce the frequency,
or if testing each month isn't needed, certainly not make PT "optional" in any given month -
that night should still be required, and some systematic checks need to be in place to insure
CC's aren't left to "do nothing, or what they will, until the SUI" which is the case today.

Further to that, the CP as whole would be a lot better off if NHQ adopted a mandatory
13-week (or whatever) schedule for all units, started each year on 1 January.
There could be room for the flexibility of resources and facilities, or to take advantage
of opportunities, but a Unit should be a Unit, and there should not be a radical difference
from wing to wing, let along units within a wing.

I suggested much of your suggesting to Rex Glasgow back in the early 2000's (2004-5?).  My contention was that cadet membership turn over was exacerbated by the inability to promote.  In some cases you had a cadet that was an excellent cadet except for the ability to pass CPFT.

I also recommended a CPF Ribbon.  A ribbon or badge would work. 

My concept of the operation was:

*CPFT is monthly but diagnostic until the Mitchell (must be passed at this level and above)
*CPF Ribbon for Cadets that consistently pass the test.
*An Additional Event to provide another opportunity to pass.

This allows for cadets to work for the Mitchell as they age and progress, without holding them back.

AFJROTC has no physical fitness testing at all!  The average cadet will not go into the armed forces.  I think our unit averaged about 40%.

The above isn't my suggestion or proposal, see the link to the white paper at the top of the OP.

As to another badge or ribbon - cadets who "consistently pass" get promoted.

So, who gets to administer the "Remedial Fitness Program" and how much time at meetings does it consume? WIWAD, it was an extra hour of PT every evening just before close of business and dinner, including weekends.

I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that the PACER test is suitable for the typical cadet unit.  You can read about the PACER by clicking on the Fitnessgram assessment protocols link in the white paper, or you can check out Wikipedia for the TL:DR version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_meter_pacer_test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_meter_pacer_test)

Based on my understanding, the minimum amount of time you could budget for the PACER test is 30 minutes (21 minutes for the test and time for adequate stretching and cool down), assuming that you have enough space for all cadets to run at the same time and adequate senior member supervision to track each cadet's progress.

Most units would probably have to run two iterations of the PACER, with half of the cadets running and half counting laps each time.  That's 60 minutes gone, and you haven't even started the rest of the CPFT yet.

And you can forget about doing the PACER in a long hallway during poor weather, as most hallways could only accommodate one runner at a time.  At up to 21 minutes each, most units would run out of time before running out of cadets.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 26, 2014, 02:45:51 PM
The above isn't my suggestion or proposal, see the link to the white paper at the top of the OP.

As to another badge or ribbon - cadets who "consistently pass" get promoted.

I <sarcasm> really like </sarcasm> the possibility of awarding a badge one cycle and asking the cadet to take it off after another cycle.  That might work for adults at the USAFA, but I'm not sure it would play well with our age cohort.

Or their parents! >:D

Edited to add the sarcasm tags.  Just in case.

Perhaps a Physical Fitness ribbon for achieving a standard above the promotion requirements. No need to remove. Repeat awards over a time span long enough to not have anyone need a 2nd ribbon.

We promote those who pass, award those who excel.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 26, 2014, 02:45:51 PM
As to another badge or ribbon - cadets who "consistently pass" get promoted.

Actually, a ribbon wouldn't be a bad idea if they do remove the CPFT from the promotion requirements.  Do it like NJROTC did it back in my day; cadets get the ribbon when they pass their first test and get devices for each additional test they pass.  This recognizes continued excellence and avoids the possibility of taking away an earned award.

As NC Hokie said, we had a PT ribbon in NJROTC, plus you had to pass your PT test for certain promotions, to be on cadet staff, and additionally it was part of your NJROTC class grade. There are devices for multiple awards and different levels of fitness. If you drop down a level though you have to remove the device from the higher level. I don't think we ever had anyone who dropped so low they didn't rate the ribbon anymore though.

Quote from: NC Hokie on August 26, 2014, 03:46:06 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 26, 2014, 02:45:51 PM
The above isn't my suggestion or proposal, see the link to the white paper at the top of the OP.

As to another badge or ribbon - cadets who "consistently pass" get promoted.

I <sarcasm> really like </sarcasm> the possibility of awarding a badge one cycle and asking the cadet to take it off after another cycle.  That might work for adults at the USAFA, but I'm not sure it would play well with our age cohort.

Or their parents! >:D

Edited to add the sarcasm tags.  Just in case.

You know, a shoulder cord would be better. Cadets generally know it's not a permenent award like a badge or a ribbon.

Heh. I've wondered why there were more Spaatz cadets BITD (besides more cadets overall). The standards on PT seem to suggest at least one difference. Of course the cadet program itself has changed plenty over the decades, even during the short span that I was a cadet myself.

It's going to be rough to do an objective standard for all. As the example listed, some cross country runners will ice the mile run and sit and reach, while struggle with pushups or situps. A larger, "strength" based athlete may knock out push ups and sit ups but fail on the run.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 26, 2014, 05:35:12 AM
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/Jo_Fitness_White_Paper_C780ADDEF527E.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/Jo_Fitness_White_Paper_C780ADDEF527E.pdf)

[While this model has worked well for certain segments of our population there are many who are left behind by the relentless
testing and emphasis on performance.

When something like this is stated, in any sort of 'proposal' that it is made to sound like the strive for excellence is a bad thing, is......crap.

This, is the liberal or progressive agenda and is made to generally issue trophies/ribbons/awards for 'participating' or, 'showing up'.....  >:(


There is absolutely nothing wrong with the CPFT or the way it's currently administered.  It should stay tied to promotion requirements.

The Cadet Oath is not just words on a piece of paper.  [darnit].

The only problem with the 'system' is that PT is not mandated for every meeting.

Quote
PRINCIPLES OF EXERCISE
If you want your fitness training to be effective and safe, you have to adhere to certain basic exercise principles whether you are an Olympic athlete or a cadet. Those principles include:
♦ Regularity:
For training to be productive, cadets must exercise regularly. Exercising only once in a while can do more harm than good. Regularity is also important in resting, sleeping, and following a good diet.
♦ Progression: The intensity (how hard) and/or duration (how long) of exercise must gradually increase to improve the level of fitness.
♦ Balance: To be effective, a program should include activities that address all the fitness components – strength, flexibility, cardiovascular endurance -- since overemphasizing any one of them may hurt the others.
♦ Variety: Providing a variety of activities reduces boredom and increases motivation and progress. Exercise is hard work. Cadets will stick with a program only if it's lively and fun.
♦ Specificity: Training must be geared toward specific goals. For example, cadets who need to lower
their mile run time will become better runners if their training emphasizes running. Although swimming is a great exercise, it does not improve the 1-mile run time as much as a running program does.

Squadrons should have some form of PT activity of some sort every meeting if at all possible since many know that's the only activity many of these cadets get outside the home or school.

We have at least one cadet that up until the cadet started trying to run, the mother admitted that she had never seen her cadet run.  Ever.   :o

I was ambivalent on this issue, but I guess that after Don's words, I may be siding with him.

Today's kids are not very active, and some school PT programs are closing. If anything we need to be promoting PT.

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 26, 2014, 07:55:34 PM
I was ambivalent on this issue, but I guess that after Don's words, I may be siding with him.

Today's kids are not very active, and some school PT programs are closing. If anything we need to be promoting PT.

Sheesh, today's SENIORS aren't very active, myself included, as evidenced last weekend when I tried humping the hills with the cadets. I died. I need to put down this 12er of Krispy Kreme and start doing SOMETHING. It's horrible to see the way I look NOW as opposed to what I looked like in my 20s, even 30s.

Why does it appears when seniors have a meeting there are donuts available. Could we find a healthier alternative.

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 26, 2014, 08:00:13 PM
Sheesh, today's SENIORS aren't very active, myself included, as evidenced last weekend when I tried humping the hills with the cadets. I died. I need to put down this 12er of Krispy Kreme and start doing SOMETHING. It's horrible to see the way I look NOW as opposed to what I looked like in my 20s, even 30s.

Computers are doing that to us now.  Before, if you needed a form, you would walk to HR and ask and then walk to turn it in.  Now, you download it and email it to them.  Needed to look something up, you would walk to the reference books (library, archives, whatever).  Now, you just type it into google. 

I have this argument with my co-workers all the time.  They get annoyed when they have to pick something up 2 blocks away because it is either too hot or too much time or too long.  They want it delivered to them instead. 

Every once in a while, something is incorrectly delivered to us.  Since I work in a secure facility, it is usually easier for me to drop it off at the correct building, rather than have that person come to mine to pick it up.  I get to hear the complaining about how that should not be and how they should be required to come and pick it up.  It is never-ending.

Of course, computers are also good and make things faster and easier.  So it is trade off.

Quote from: CAP_truth on August 26, 2014, 08:10:10 PM
Why does it appears when seniors have a meeting there are donuts available. Could we find a healthier alternative.

Unfortunately, healthier options are usually more expensive.  Actually, I have tried this before and it failed miserably.  Now, I try to balance it with "healthier" options.

I can see dimly into the future...

We will be able to lie in bed, put a plug into our head and work that way. Our bodies will atrophy. We will take nourishment from pills and tubes. No one will move. Gas prices will fall to extraordinary levels. Those less fortunate than the elite will become powerhouses of physicality, able to move small mountains while their brains shrink.

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 26, 2014, 08:29:54 PM
I can see dimly into the future...

We will be able to lie in bed, put a plug into our head and work that way. Our bodies will atrophy. We will take nourishment from pills and tubes. No one will move. Gas prices will fall to extraordinary levels. Those less fortunate than the elite will become powerhouses of physicality, able to move small mountains while their brains shrink.

I see plans, within plans....

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 26, 2014, 08:29:54 PM
I can see dimly into the future...

We will be able to lie in bed, put a plug into our head and work that way. Our bodies will atrophy. We will take nourishment from pills and tubes. No one will move. Gas prices will fall to extraordinary levels. Those less fortunate than the elite will become powerhouses of physicality, able to move small mountains while their brains shrink.

Hey, I saw that movie ... "Wall-E" if I remember correctly.   ;D

Jack

Yet another solution in search of a problem.

No real change is needed to the program.  PT should be a monthly meeting activity, as outlined in Cadet Great Start (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P052_009_7603F5B468886.pdf) pamphlet.   

If anything, PT standards should be increased (are they aligned with JROTC?) and I'd even buy into a prgoram for Seniors (lead by example).

Quote from: A.Member on August 26, 2014, 09:06:18 PM
I'd even buy into a prgoram for Seniors (lead by example).

For a while, I used to perform the CPFT with the cadets.  On the mile run, I was beating all but one.  She was a cross country runner coming in at 6:30 a mile.  I was 6:35 a mile. 

One of the retention related issues my seminar at NSC 2014 looked at was the CPFT. From our submission.

"Excluding the addition of the "run plus two out of three" rule around 2006 the CPFT has not changed in close to two decades. Sadly the fitness profile of the American youth has changed in that time and not for the better. CAPR 52-16 para 1-7c (1) states, "The goal of the Cadet Program's fitness element is to develop in cadets a habit of regular exercise." If the CPFT is driving some out of the cadet program, which may be their only peer group extolling the benefits of a fit lifestyle and providing role models that do,  then we are failing in that goal."

So a cadet joins who may not have been exposed to physical fitness / healthy eating. A realistic assessment says he'd need 6 months to get to the point to pass the CPFT. So he stays an C/AB for that time. No ES, encampment or anything else that requires the Curry. Others move up new people move up.  Likely hood he stays?

Some suggestions below suggest allowing promotions up to before the Wright or Mitchell. Might be a good start.

Quote from: LSThiker on August 26, 2014, 09:10:31 PM

Quote from: A.Member on August 26, 2014, 09:06:18 PM
I'd even buy into a prgoram for Seniors (lead by example).

For a while, I used to perform the CPFT with the cadets.  On the mile run, I was beating all but one.  She was a cross country runner coming in at 6:30 a mile.  I was 6:35 a mile.

Good on you. 

We organized a squadron 5K, complete with awards.  It was open to seniors and cadets and other squadrons as well - but members only, no family members, public, etc..   It was fun, turnout was good (we had members from at least 4 different squadrons), and it helped build esprit de corps.  It was fun to see a few of the cross country runners put the hammer down thinking they'd leave us in the dust only to see the old guys right there with them (although there was  one who did manage to leave us in the dust; one of our state's top h.s. cross country runners)

Of course, we could step it up to this  ;) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggFA-IguTIs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggFA-IguTIs)

Here is a modified version of a Senior Member fitness program I just came up with.

1. Put the donut/beer/soda/sugary food item down.
2. Step away from said item.
3. Turn off the TV/Computer.
4. Go outside.
5. Take a walk for more than 30 minutes a day.
6. Reap benefits.

Whoa, whoa, whoa Jack LaLanne, let's not get crazy...

It's better than the other plan I had.

1. Think about losing weight.

2.

3. PROFIT!

Quote from: A.Member on August 26, 2014, 09:06:18 PM
Yet another solution in search of a problem.

No real change is needed to the program.  PT should be a monthly meeting activity, as outlined in Cadet Great Start (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P052_009_7603F5B468886.pdf) pamphlet.   

If anything, PT standards should be increased (are they aligned with JROTC?) and I'd even buy into a prgoram for Seniors (lead by example).

the problem is ..... To many kids drop out of CAP or worse don't join because of our pt standards.  A gradual approach that still has an objective standard (say at Mitchell) but with emphasis on showing improvement in stead of xyz for each promotion.   I also like the quarterly assessments in stead of each promotion.

I would be all for making a passing score required for each milestone acheivment.  Make each in-between achievements diagnostic only.  ie you have to physicall complete it, but it doesnt count against you, only tell you where you are in relation to you target for the next required test.  This solves the stuck at AB for ever while I try to get in shape without getting too discouraged.

Using the once a month idea to promote a healthy lifestyle is the same problem we have in the reserve's.  Once a month does nothing to make them change their lifestyle, in fact it leads to a higher likelyhood of causing an issue the day that you "make" them do PT.

mk

I don't know much about the president thing but I think if almost be ok with quarterly pt tests. That doesn't mean you still can't do pt once a month or even every week. My police explorers pt every week for the first 30 mins of a meeting. It's a crunch but doable. I also agree with a passing score for major achievements.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 26, 2014, 10:32:50 PM

Quote from: A.Member on August 26, 2014, 09:06:18 PM
Yet another solution in search of a problem.

No real change is needed to the program.  PT should be a monthly meeting activity, as outlined in Cadet Great Start (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P052_009_7603F5B468886.pdf) pamphlet.   

If anything, PT standards should be increased (are they aligned with JROTC?) and I'd even buy into a prgoram for Seniors (lead by example).

the problem is ..... To many kids drop out of CAP or worse don't join because of our pt standards. 

Source?  I've never heard anyone joining or not joining because of PT and don't agree there is a problem.  We cannot and should not try to be all things to all people.  They can join Scouts or 4H instead.   

Quote from: A.Member on August 27, 2014, 02:04:13 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 26, 2014, 10:32:50 PM

Quote from: A.Member on August 26, 2014, 09:06:18 PM
Yet another solution in search of a problem.

No real change is needed to the program.  PT should be a monthly meeting activity, as outlined in Cadet Great Start (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P052_009_7603F5B468886.pdf) pamphlet.   

If anything, PT standards should be increased (are they aligned with JROTC?) and I'd even buy into a prgoram for Seniors (lead by example).

the problem is ..... To many kids drop out of CAP or worse don't join because of our pt standards. 

Source?  I've never heard anyone joining or not joining because of PT and don't agree there is a problem.  We cannot and should not try to be all things to all people.  They can join Scouts or 4H instead.

I can see their little eyes go all foggy when I mention PT to potential cadets.

Quote from: A.Member on August 27, 2014, 02:04:13 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 26, 2014, 10:32:50 PM

Quote from: A.Member on August 26, 2014, 09:06:18 PM
Yet another solution in search of a problem.

No real change is needed to the program.  PT should be a monthly meeting activity, as outlined in Cadet Great Start (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P052_009_7603F5B468886.pdf) pamphlet.   

If anything, PT standards should be increased (are they aligned with JROTC?) and I'd even buy into a prgoram for Seniors (lead by example).

the problem is ..... To many kids drop out of CAP or worse don't join because of our pt standards. 

Source?  I've never heard anyone joining or not joining because of PT and don't agree there is a problem.  We cannot and should not try to be all things to all people.  They can join Scouts or 4H instead.

Personally in my seven years with my current composite squadron......I know of at least 10 cadets who dropped out due to non-progression due to continued PT failures.     I also know of more then a couple of prospective larger then average cadets who never returned after PT night. 

I know personally at least 10 Eakers who failed to make Spaatz due to PT failures.

As for "well they should join XYZ"......call me biased but I think that we got a better program then they do.....and I would rather they join our program.

 

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 04:04:17 AM
I know personally at least 10 Eakers who failed to make Spaatz due to PT failures.

I know of a few people that did not want to join due to PT.  I would not be opposed to mandate a passing CPFT until the Wright Brothers.  This way, cadet airman have at least 6 months to condition prior.

However, I have a problem with the above statement (not necessarily towards you).  By the time they get to the Eaker, you know what the Spaatz requirements are.  There is no reason a cadet should walk into the Spaatz and fail the CPFT (barring any unexpected problems such as a person running into the cadet while running).  A CPFT is pretty much the only test you walk into knowing all the answers and whether or not you will pass.

The point being......by definition only 25% of the population will be in the 75th percentile........there are some people who will NEVER no matter how much effort or training make it to that standard.

One of the many reasons why we only have .05% (or less) of our cadets ever get their Spaatz.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 04:04:17 AM
As for "well they should join XYZ"......call me biased but I think that we got a better program then they do.....and I would rather they join our program.

Concur...and you want to why?  PT!  It's a key differentiator.

Quote from: A.Member on August 27, 2014, 04:41:42 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 04:04:17 AM
As for "well they should join XYZ"......call me biased but I think that we got a better program then they do.....and I would rather they join our program.

Concur...and you want to why?  PT!  It's a key differentiator.

Really?  You joined CAP because of the PT?   

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 04:28:10 AM
The point being......by definition only 25% of the population will be in the 75th percentile........there are some people who will NEVER no matter how much effort or training make it to that standard.

One of the many reasons why we only have .05% (or less) of our cadets ever get their Spaatz.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 04:28:10 AM
One of the many reasons why we only have .05% (or less) of our cadets ever get their Spaatz.

Sure.  But is it truly a reason or a consequence of other reasons?  Also, there are some people who will never no matter how much effort or studying will make it to the standard of passing the written Spaatz exams. 

However, if you are sitting at Eaker and you walk into the Spaatz not knowing whether or not you will pass the CPFT, then there is a problem.  To be honest, not much of a difference in standards between Eaker and Spaatz.  The run is the only one that has a "significant" difference between the two.

My point....has been.....why have we chosen the standard of the 70th percentile?

Since we are not primarily a physical fitness organization why did we choose that standard?

We need a PT component to our cadet program.....I agree with that.  We need to have assessments....I agree with that.   But whey do we need to have a 50%/60%/70%/75% standard to promote?

Are we saying only collegiate caliber athletes can be good leaders and good citizens?....because that is what we have set up as out system.

And that attidue trickels down to the lowest levels......an out of shape 12 year old is not going to want to join an organization where you got to not only do PT to advance.....but do well.    12 year olds don't think like that.   So they don't join, we never get the chance to train them, mold them and make a difference in their lives.

So.....we do PT once a month just like we always do.  We do fitness assessments once a quarter....and we encourage out cadets to improve and work on it.......as we continue to train and mold them into leaders and good citizens. 

Where exactly is the down side to this?

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 04:45:02 AM

Quote from: A.Member on August 27, 2014, 04:41:42 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 04:04:17 AM
As for "well they should join XYZ"......call me biased but I think that we got a better program then they do.....and I would rather they join our program.

Concur...and you want to why?  PT!  It's a key differentiator.

Really?  You joined CAP because of the PT?   

No, I'm a senior member but the cadet program is certainly one reason I got involved and stay involved.  It's A differentiator...not THE differentiator.   

PT is one of the things that makes the cadet program unique otherwise it could simply be a scout or 4H program; they have aerospace activities too, as does Young Eagles.  PT is a key part of leadership development for cadets...and yes, in my 13+ yrs at the squadron I've had a number of prospective parents express they were impressed and appreciative of the PT component, among other things.   They don't want their child sitting around playing video games. 

Our cadets looked forward to PT night...kind of like gym class.  At the Wing level, the cadet volleyball competition is one of the most popular cadet activities with squadrons competing against each other for a trophy (and bragging rights).   Our Wing CC has a standing challenge out to cadets to beat him on a very challenging trail run.   Physical activities are something we should embrace, not shy away from. 

Cadets will surprise (and impress) you and themselves when properly motivated.

Quote from: A.Member on August 26, 2014, 09:30:50 PM

Quote from: LSThiker on August 26, 2014, 09:10:31 PM

Quote from: A.Member on August 26, 2014, 09:06:18 PM
I'd even buy into a prgoram for Seniors (lead by example).

For a while, I used to perform the CPFT with the cadets.  On the mile run, I was beating all but one.  She was a cross country runner coming in at 6:30 a mile.  I was 6:35 a mile.

Good on you. 

We organized a squadron 5K, complete with awards.  It was open to seniors and cadets and other squadrons as well - but members only, no family members, public, etc..   It was fun, turnout was good (we had members from at least 4 different squadrons), and it helped build esprit de corps.  It was fun to see a few of the cross country runners put the hammer down thinking they'd leave us in the dust only to see the old guys right there with them (although there was  one who did manage to leave us in the dust; one of our state's top h.s. cross country runners)

Of course, we could step it up to this  ;) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggFA-IguTIs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggFA-IguTIs)

That's awesome.  :clap: Would love to see a white paper on that activity. 

Quote from: ColonelJack on August 26, 2014, 08:54:45 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 26, 2014, 08:29:54 PM
I can see dimly into the future...

We will be able to lie in bed, put a plug into our head and work that way. Our bodies will atrophy. We will take nourishment from pills and tubes. No one will move. Gas prices will fall to extraordinary levels. Those less fortunate than the elite will become powerhouses of physicality, able to move small mountains while their brains shrink.

Hey, I saw that movie ... "Wall-E" if I remember correctly.   ;D

Jack

More like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogates)

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 04:28:10 AM
The point being......by definition only 25% of the population will be in the 75th percentile........there are some people who will NEVER no matter how much effort or training make it to that standard.

One of the many reasons why we only have .05% (or less) of our cadets ever get their Spaatz.

Pt is what stalled me out at 17. Granted some was my fault, I was certainly not an active type. But I did the double whammy - one year older and into a new phase. So not only did the percentile change, but also the requirements based on being older. From there, college and work weren't too far away, and as things go, I never went past my Earhart Award. Probably not a big deal in the long run of a lifetime, but it's something that will nag me forever, probably.

When I joined CAP back in the '80s, I wasn't very active or in the best of shapes. Because I wanted to promote and participate in drill competitions, I challenged myself to exercise more and, after much effort, was able to get in good shape. When I came back after a prolonged absence, I was surprised to see how watered down the PT program was. Heck, we used to do PT almost every week and now cadets don't even have to run the mile or pass every component of the PT test to pass. We did push ups for things like not not wearing our uniforms properly and now that's considered hazing. It's no wonder that the average CAP cadet is not as active or fit as other young men and women their age. Although, in all fairness, the average kid now a days prefers to play video games or watch TV than play sports or exercise.

Are you suggesting cap cadets are less active the the average American kid?

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 07:58:16 PM
Are you suggesting cap cadets are less active the the average American kid?

Sadly, no. However, in my experience not many kids that are active in sports, especially competitive sports, join or remain active in CAP. YMMV.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 27, 2014, 08:19:44 PM
... in my experience not many kids that are active in sports, especially competitive sports, join or remain active in CAP. YMMV.

Concur.  As a general statement with exceptions, of course, this may be true.  Although, there may be a potential opportunity there to reach some of those more active kids.  This is because the approach to youth competitive sports has changed over the years. 

As kids enter high school, team sizes are constrained by the given sport.   Kids must try out to make teams.  This is not new.  What has changed, however, is the fact that kids are increasingly specializing/focusing on one activity from a young age, in order to increase their chances of gaining a coveted spot on the team; more and more the days of the 3 sport athlete are gone.   At the same time, there are more kids competing for those few sports, leaving many on the outside looking in.  As a result, you see intramural sports/activities popping up at the high school levels where they never existed previously.  You're also seeing new sports sprout up/take hold.  Kids are looking for different outlets for physical activity.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 27, 2014, 08:19:44 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 07:58:16 PM
Are you suggesting cap cadets are less active the the average American kid?

Sadly, no. However, in my experience not many kids that are active in sports, especially competitive sports, join or remain active in CAP. YMMV.

And again, as pointed out, 75th percentile is just that. It's not 75th of ALL kids. It's 75th of a certain age, further making it "harder", especially if you're not physically inclined, based on genetics and other factors. Outside of that, while I'm no conspiracy nut, schools often "hide" bad test takers in detention, expulsion, etc for the standardized government tests. I'm not at all familiar with how the fitness tests were done, but what was the sample based on? No way was it ALL students. Was it voluntary? Did schools get something out of letting these kids participate/score well?

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 27, 2014, 08:19:44 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 07:58:16 PM
Are you suggesting cap cadets are less active the the average American kid?

Sadly, no. However, in my experience not many kids that are active in sports, especially competitive sports, join or remain active in CAP. YMMV.

I agree.....my son is very active (practice 3-4 times per week in the evenings.  Games on Saturday/Sunday) in soccer....he between that and school he does not have time for CAP.

But the point I have been trying to make is that those cadets in or below the 25th percentile who might be interested in CAP.....don't join or quit in the first year when they can't promote. 

So we keep PT as part of CAP.....just not part of our promotion standards.   That is what this white paper is recommending, if I am reading it correctly.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 27, 2014, 09:07:36 PM
And again, as pointed out, 75th percentile is just that. It's not 75th of ALL kids. It's 75th of a certain age, further making it "harder", especially if you're not physically inclined, based on genetics and other factors. Outside of that, while I'm no conspiracy nut, schools often "hide" bad test takers in detention, expulsion, etc for the standardized government tests. I'm not at all familiar with how the fitness tests were done, but what was the sample based on? No way was it ALL students. Was it voluntary? Did schools get something out of letting these kids participate/score well?

They were based on a study conducted in 1985 and further validated in 1998.  The study matched similarly to those conducted in 1958, 1965, and 1975.

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED291714.pdf (http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED291714.pdf)

And no it is not a Christmas proceedings paper.

To answer your questions though:

QuotePrincipals of the selected schools were mailed all of the informative documents sent the superintendents and a work sheet was sent requesting a list of physical education classes with enrollments for each (for schools in which physical education was a required subject in the grades sampled) along with a list of the number of students in each class

QuoteTesters were instructed to make all possible efforts to test all students. If a student was absent or ill on the test day, the tester was instructed to test the student when back in school and able to perform.  When students could not perform one or more tests because of a minor injury, school personnel were asked to note that on the data card. Students were asked to perform all tests of which they were physically capable.

The reasons why the CPFT needs to stay in CAP:

http://www.fitness.gov/resource-center/facts-and-statistics/ (http://www.fitness.gov/resource-center/facts-and-statistics/)

Why a test?

I don't think anyone is saying that we should not continue to do PT activities.   The white paper says we should still be assessing all our cadets quarterly and we should be working with them to improve their physical fitness.

The only suggest is that we remove the PT test as part of the promotion requirements.

So the PT promotion requirement might read something like the Character Development requirements for promotion.  "have you completed a PT Assessment in the last 90 days?"

Unit will still have to have meet the recommended contact hours for PT, cadets will still have to particapate in the PT (baring physical disability/injury) as part of the "participate in squadron activities".

Because CAP is >supposed< to be about object standards, not just "showing up", and
you also need to take into consideration the average unit.

Move to "participation" and the next you know, formations will be considered "PT" and
the entire idea will simply fade into the past.

And before you know it, Spaatz will be little more then an exercise in longevity.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2014, 11:50:55 PM
Because CAP is >supposed< to be about object standards, not just "showing up", and
you also need to take into consideration the average unit.

Move to "participation" and the next you know, formations will be considered "PT" and
the entire idea will simply fade into the past.

And before you know it, Spaatz will be little more then an exercise in longevity.

I disagree....the most important standards in the cadet program are the subjective standards.
Creating leaders and good citizens is not about memorizing some AE and leadership facts.....it is most certainly not about running a mile in 6:45 seconds.

How long has Character Development been just "participation"?   I know we have not let it slide into "We told them not to do drugs and then moved on".

I reject your slipper slope argument.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2014, 11:28:56 PM
Why a test?

I don't think anyone is saying that we should not continue to do PT activities.   The white paper says we should still be assessing all our cadets quarterly and we should be working with them to improve their physical fitness.

The only suggest is that we remove the PT test as part of the promotion requirements.

So the PT promotion requirement might read something like the Character Development requirements for promotion.  "have you completed a PT Assessment in the last 90 days?"

Unit will still have to have meet the recommended contact hours for PT, cadets will still have to particapate in the PT (baring physical disability/injury) as part of the "participate in squadron activities".

I did not say not change the CPFT.  We can change it as I like the PYPF concept as I mentioned in another thread.  We can make it the same way the Army and Air Force have their PFTs.  Have you completed a PFT in the last 4 or 6 months?  Yes?  Good for go on promotion.  No?  Sorry, no promotion until completed.  Or no weekend activities.  Or no O-flights.  Or no whatever.

But my point is that we need to keep physical fitness as part of the cadet program.  Removal was brought up in another thread prior to this.

Why a test?  Because it is called the Presidential Youth Fitness Program fitness test. 

QuoteThe PYFP fitness test uses Fitnessgram assessment protocols. Test events remain about the same.

We can play the semantics game of whether we call it a Cadet Physical Fitness Test or a Cadet PT Assessment, but regardless of the label, the concept is still a cadet physical fitness test.  As long as we have a standard for age and gender for physical fitness that requires some preparation (not run a mile in under 20 minutes) based on a nationally recognized set of data, we are good to go. 

However, if it becomes a "unit must perform X hours of physical fitness each month", then it is a waste of time as some squadrons will consider drill PT.  Or units will pick an activity like dodge ball, while fun and has moments of activity, most of the time people get knocked out and simply sit on the edge doing no physical activity while the game is in play. 

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 12:00:18 AM
I disagree....the most important standards in the cadet program are the subjective standards.

The words in bold do not go together, especially in regards to a paramilitary program.

As a matter of fact, the subjective stuff is what generally gets CAP leaders in the most trouble and
causes the most angst and attrition among members, both cadet and senior.

You provide opportunities and set expectations of performance, that is what CAP is literally all about.
Start getting "subjective" and "relative" and you will take the legs off the program.  The trendlines
are already negative, this would be one more cut, but a big one.

What's next? As long as you "tried" to take the online / open book test, you get promoted?

CPFT, along with the expectations of performance and the effort required, are why our cadets
stand above their peers, the trouble is, the intentions have been all but ignored,
another leadership failure, and one I would hazard we'll be told "can't be fixed" by NHQ.

When a cadet is failing at PT, a Commander is >supposed< to start working with that cadet to get
them to the proper level, many units wouldn't even consider that an option, and I know for a fact,
over the years, of >many< units that weren't even doing PT, or not doing it right (nonsense
like a running start for the shuttle run, etc.), and everyone looked the other way, until the
bumped into a Spaatz test and needed oxygen and a calendar to finish the run.

Like just about everything in CAP right now, especially anything that hints around a retention issue,
the "fix" is not to relax the standard, but to start working the >entire< program, the way it was intended,
and start leaning on the upper echelons to get the lower ones to do their jobs or give up their badge.

And yes, it's another issue about "not enough people" - we have no selection pool for CCs, so we take
what we can get, they don't do their jobs, but we can't fire them because there is no one else,
so we start relaxing standards.

There are a lot of companies which started this death spiral, never to recover.  When you consider
all the other alternatives kids have these days for their attention, the last thing CAP needs to start doing
is leaning towards becoming another social / rec center / participation trophy organization.

Further to the above.

If the standards become "subjective" and "relative" what incentive do the fit cadets have for
excelling?

Cadets are not dumb, a cadet capable of a fast mile with good effort can certainly figure out
how to run a medium mile with no effort, and then just "improve" (whatever that means).

Cap already excels in "sit here quietly and you'll get a badge" as it is, we don't need to institutionalize it.

Sorry Eclipse you are wrong.

When is Cadet X ready for promotion?

When is Member Y ready for promotion?

You yourself keep reminding us that no promotion is automatic.    So.....there are subjective standards for promotion.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 28, 2014, 12:27:37 AM
Further to the above.

If the standards become "subjective" and "relative" what incentive do the fit cadets have for
excelling?

Cadets are not dumb, a cadet capable of a fast mile with good effort can certainly figure out
how to run a medium mile with no effort, and then just "improve" (whatever that means).

Cap already excels in "sit here quietly and you'll get a badge" as it is, we don't need to institutionalize it.

If the changes happen....the standard will be "have you competed the Physical Fitness Assessment in the last 90 days".   There will not be a pass or fail.   

The unit will still have to have a PT program...they will still have to meet their contact hours....but now only have to do "the test" four times a year instead of 12.

So that means (if you are like my unit) you can spend the whole 2 1/2 hours on PT night doing all sorts of PT stuff instead of burning up half of it doing the test for those who need it for promotion.

It means that we don't hold back cadets because they can't meet a standard that has very little to do with being a good leader and citizen, but still show that physical fitness is a good thing, and important to the "whole person".....just like we do with character development.
 

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 12:39:04 AM
It means that we don't hold back cadets because they can't meet a standard that has very little to do with being a good leader and citizen, but still show that physical fitness is a good thing, and important to the "whole person".....just like we do with character development.

No comparison to CDI - CDI is a "sit quietly" and try not to let the big guy see you on your phone.

PT requires physical effort and initiative, especially if you aren't hitting the marks.

"contact hours"?  If that becomes the standard, you might as well just drop it altogether, because a lot of units will let the
wall-huggers slide, avoid the conversation, and click "promote", creating another sub-class in CAP - namely cadets who
are obviously getting clicked-through by their CC's.

Again....the slipper slope.   If our CP officers lack such integrity.....why are they not fudging their PT test now?
And if you know this is going on....why are you not doing something about it?

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 12:53:49 AM
Again....the slipper slope.   If our CP officers lack such integrity.....why are they not fudging their PT test now?

Um...Honestly, I really wonder sometimes if you are in the same CAP as the rest of us, just refuse to
acknowledge the issue, or have been lucky enough because of your personal history and access to never
have encountered the issues most of us with the same tenure see as a matter of course.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 12:53:49 AM
And if you know this is going on....why are you not doing something about it?

Been there, done that.  At some point, people stop listening.

Seriously, "so what are you doing about it" is >not< a useful response, it's essentially a defensive acknowledgment.
Knowing a tire is flat is not the same thing as having the ability to fix it, and when you point it
out, the mechanic shouldn't say "well why didn't you fix it"?

When I had a say, I pressed the issue, and those in my AOR knew better then to fudge things,
including when I was an encampment commander where we tested all the cadets to grade
level and sent their eye-opening scores back to their CC's, generally to a response resembling a cricket.

Certain units get reputations for being "less then ethical" - all the cadets hit every promotion to the day their
entire careers (but never even try Spaatz), cadets with difficulty climbing stairs somehow clocked their runs
to the exact maximum time, etc., etc.

There are people carrying membership cards and wearing eagles and stars who are charged with
maintaining the integrity of the process and organization, and/or fixing it when they are aware of issues,
however as we have recently been told by a former BOG member, if leaders choose to ignore the rules,
there is little anyone can do about it.  Do you really believe that in an organization which can't even enforce
it's uniform regulations, and which has inconsistently trained leaders with the full spectrum of motivation
and initiative that there are plenty being "expedient" regarding cadet PT?

I personally know of recent instances where a commander decide it was too cold to run, so just passed everyone
who was there.  Issues were raised.  Someone like that isn't going to "not" do other dumb things just because
he got caught once.

So how about less "what are you doing" and more "accept the facts and the state of CAP today"?

Okay...so CAP is broke...it's aways hase been broke....it will continue to be broke.

Okay...I get it.

Problem.   Kids today don't get enough exercise.
Problem.   Kids don't join CAP because of fear of the PT test.
Problem.   Kids quit CAP because they can't pass out PT test.
Problem.   We can't help kids get enough exercise if they don't come to CAP.

Fix......remove PT as part of our promotion requirements.  Continue to require units to have a PT program.  Continue to require our cadets to participate in said program.

What's the problem?

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 01:08:00 AM
Problem.   Kids today don't get enough exercise.
Problem.   Kids don't join CAP because of fear of the PT test.
Problem.   Kids quit CAP because they can't pass out PT test.
Problem.   We can't help kids get enough exercise if they don't come to CAP.
What's the problem?

Cite please.

IMHO, this is one more false premise used as the basis for major change that is unnecessary.
Like the idea that there are "too many FGOs and members promote too fast".

The >fix< is to work the actual program and recruit at a level where CAP gets "unbroke" so
that the opportunities and experiences flow like they should.

Seeing 3 1/2-motivated cadets in a slack-jawed line with two disconnected senior members in the
corner ignoring them while they do their "cadet stuff" is hardly the motivation for anyone to
step up and start doing something which is uncomfortable, even if it's necessary.

Seen it with my own eyes.   At my WAG I would say 20-30% of my perspective no-returns are because of their in ability to pass the curry test or their fear of doing the PT test.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 01:21:10 AM
Seen it with my own eyes.   At my WAG I would say 20-30% of my perspective no-returns are because of their in ability to pass the curry test or their fear of doing the PT test.

Then they walked in the wrong door to begin with.

As stated earlier, we can't and shouldn't be all things to all people.  We want to develop leaders.  We should challenge our cadets; they'll answer.  I've seen it.

As Eclipse pointed out earlier, we need to move in the opposite direction from the entitlement society.  If they were so quickly to dismiss PT and were not willing to put out the effort, what else were they unmotivated to do?  Those that want to cherry pick the program requirements to meet were not likely to be long for the program to begin with.

I really see no reason as to why our PT standards should be any different from JROTC/ROTC.

I guess we are at an impasse.   I think we need to be taking in all the kids in america and turning them into leaders and good citizens.

You only want a select few.....okay.

I've had my say.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 02:02:07 AM
I think we need to be taking in all the kids in america and turning them into leaders and good citizens.

"All the kids in america" aren't interested in CAP, nor are their parents, and the PT standard is likely the
least of CAP's issues. I have personally witnessed units run like rec centers, with a mother hen looking the other
way so that "everyone can join and participate, and no one feels bad".  Cadets who really didn't feel like being there,
or care one way or the other, etc., etc.

They ultimate defeat their own purpose, because when they venture out from under the wing of the home unit, they can't
perform at the level of their peers, and many quit shortly after the reality sandwich.  It also trivializes and makes things
harder for those in the same unit who actually want to be there, but are disrupted by the many.

As it stands today, kids >capable< are expected to perform, those incapable can get medical notes to that effect and
participate.  We don't need more kids who are capable but want the rules changed to it isn't "so hard", especially
when you consider the relatively low expectations in the first couple of years.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 02:02:07 AM
I guess we are at an impasse.   I think we need to be taking in all the kids in america and turning them into leaders and good citizens.

You only want a select few.....okay.

I've had my say.

We're a volunteer organization.  By definition, a volunteer opts in.  Our doors are open to everyone.   They make the choice as to whether they are going to commit to the program.  Right, wrong or other, not everyone is truly interested in what we offer.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 12:39:04 AM
If the changes happen....the standard will be "have you competed the Physical Fitness Assessment in the last 90 days".   There will not be a pass or fail.   

Actually, if the changes occur as per the white paper, there will be a pass (HFZ)/fail (not-HFZ) system:

QuoteAfter the Wright Brothers milestone cadets would be required to be in their HFZ to continue advancing. For new cadets and those that have scored in the Needs Improvement zone, a remedial fitness program would be available. Cadets who remain in the Needs Improvement zone after 3 months in the remedial program would be retained in grade until they are able to score in the HFZ.*

Thanks.   I missed that.   I still Ike it.   No more sliding scale based on rank.

Based on the 1985 report provided:

Curl-Ups:

QuoteReliabilty 0 68 to 0 94

What does that mean, exactly? What's the real fudge factor?

Shuttle Run:

QuoteEquipment. Two blocks of wod, 2 in x 2 in x 4 in , and stopwatch Pupils should wear sneakers or run barefoted.

We don't allow cadets to run "barefoted". I know from personal experience that CAN make a difference.

QuoteIf the scorer has two stopwatches or one with a split-second timer, it is preferable to have two people runing at he same time T

Yea, that won't fudge the split second times at all.

QuoteReliabilty 0.68 -0 75

Mile Run:

QuoteReliabilty 0.65 0.92.

Sit and Reach:

QuoteThe subject clasps thumbs so hands are together, palms down and placed on the flor betwen lower legs; fet are close to vertical While legs are held flat on flor at knes the subject slowly reaches forward along the measuring line, keping fingers in contact with the floor

Uh...we make cadets do a "step box" Effectively, they can't "bend" as low because their hands are higher than not. So we don't do it as perscribed.

QuoteReliabilty. 0.70 0 94

Sample size:

QuoteA total sample of 18,857 students from grades 1-12 participated in the 1985 testing Each student in thestudy population received a 1/2135 chance of being selected to participate in the 1985 testing program

So...we remove half of that for the first 6 grades. We're left with 9-10K students. Call it 1500/class or year? Also divide that by Gender.

QuoteBoys. It is interesting to note that only 1 boys out of 9,678 scored in the 85th percentile on any six test
combinations (0.1%). Our projection, ilustrated in the botom row, sugests that only 20,50 boys in the
United States would qualify :or a Presidential Physical Fitnes Award. Note that he numbers increase
dramaticaly at he thre test levels, reflecting a population estimate of 1,373,50 boys. It is also
interesting to note the'. 10,29,50 boys (49.9% or half) failed to score on any test at he 85th percentile.
Girls. Table 4.6 reports the girls' results on their six test modules. The girls results disclosed what some
would consider an interesting statistic, more girls than boys scored in the 85th percentile or higher
than boys. The population inferences are that 61,50 girls qualifed whereas only 20,50 boys would have
qualifed. Girls also reported a slightly higher percentage than boys when four or five tests were
considered.
More girls than boys, however, with one exception (one test), failed to score at he 85th percentile or
higher on the remaining combinations.

Interesting bit. Seems to show that kids can exceed in one or a few tests, but not ALL. Would go to the point of the fast runner OR strong upper body types.

Also found ONE reference to push-ups in the file provided, and it wasn't part of the test itself...

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 28, 2014, 02:23:32 AM
Based on the 1985 report provided:

Curl-Ups:

QuoteReliabilty 0 68 to 0 94

What does that mean, exactly? What's the real fudge factor?

It is a statistical reliability coefficient.  Unfortunately, they are primarily used in social, psychological, and behavioral studies so I never use them.  However, in a nutshell, they measure how reliable a result is for a particular observation.  For example, height-weight correlation, which is considered fairly high.  Essentially, it is similar to a p value for significance in test interpretation (not necessarily similar in measurement or calculation).  From my understanding, the common standard today is usually 0.80, which is considered highly reliable.  I do not know if that same standard applied in the 1980s.  In the biological sciences, we commonly use p<0.05, but go back far enough and you will find the common p value is 0.1.  Today it is slowly moving towards p<0.01.  For more information, consult a stats book.

Quote
We don't allow cadets to run "barefoted". I know from personal experience that CAN make a difference.

Unfortunately, whomever transcribed the report did a very poor job, but it is spelled correctly in the report. 

Yes, barefoot can make a difference.  However, considering the test was conducted in the 1980s, there were still some schools albeit a lower number, especially in the poor and/or rural South, where students did not have shoes.  Also, not all students had shoes in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s.  While the test administrators probably knew there is a difference between barefoot and shoe, they probably had to make a concession.

QuoteUh...we make cadets do a "step box" Effectively, they can't "bend" as low because their hands are higher than not. So we don't do it as perscribed.

It would be interesting to read the validity report from the 1990s.  I am curious if it was conducted the same way or if they changed how the test was performed and found similar data.  If I find it, I will post it. 

Quote from: A.Member on August 28, 2014, 01:55:28 AM
I really see no reason as to why our PT standards should be any different from JROTC/ROTC.

Do not know anything about the JROTC standards, but ROTC standards would not work for CAP.  They are the real military standards designed for 18+ year olds.  Trying to apply that to 12-17 is not going to work. 

Quote from: LSThiker on August 28, 2014, 03:24:53 AM

Quote from: A.Member on August 28, 2014, 01:55:28 AM
I really see no reason as to why our PT standards should be any different from JROTC/ROTC.

Do not know anything about the JROTC standards, but ROTC standards would not work for CAP.  They are the real military standards designed for 18+ year olds.  Trying to apply that to 12-17 is not going to work.

Agree they will not work for 12 -17; those would be the JROTC standards. 

ROTC standards should apply to cadets 18+...the standards are not unreasonable or unprecedented.

So I'm curious - how does your unit do the run test? Do you offer an option or do you only do one or the other? WIWAC my unit only offered the shuttle run if you failed the mile. I could pass 2 of the other 3 but never a run because by the time I failed the mile I was too tired to pass the shuttle. Also because I didn't/don't turn on a dime, but I always thought the mile had something to do with it.

Their choice. Most in my old unit did the run, and half the cadets typically finished behind the 55 yo olde fart.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on August 28, 2014, 05:45:52 AM
So I'm curious - how does your unit do the run test? Do you offer an option or do you only do one or the other? WIWAC my unit only offered the shuttle run if you failed the mile. I could pass 2 of the other 3 but never a run because by the time I failed the mile I was too tired to pass the shuttle. Also because I didn't/don't turn on a dime, but I always thought the mile had something to do with it.

We typically have cadets do both, starting with some stretching then doing the shuttle run before moving on to the mile.  In very cold weather, we'll only do the shuttle run, with a poor senior member freezing outside for the 10-15 minutes or so it takes to cycle everyone through.  The cadets?  They're lined up indoors and only come out when the previous runner is finished.

    I was criticized for been to harsh on the cadet when they where doing crunches and push ups. Since I been in the USMC for the past 17 years and I went to a combat conditioning course. I made the cadet to do it right from the beginning.  For two straight years and having two senior members trained properly, my former cadets have performed amazingly proper around the wing and their legacy continue having fruits every way they go. 2 are Spaatz.

   The program is not broken and utilizing the presidential fitness standards is not the answer. They have lowered the standard so every kid can get a medal. What we need to do its train our CP officer right. The new senior CP have to go to the TLC and receive a class on how to conduct the CPFT properly. Standardized the nation CP, create a video on how to do the exercises right, under their guidance.

   When we do the IG inspections, make the CPFT part of the inspection grab two-three random cadets and have them to performed a PFT under the supervision of the IG and the wing CP director and the CP officer. If they do it wrong give them a warning and a make over PFT date. In order to correct their deficiencies.

GySgt Latorre

Nhq already has videos available...standards are in 52-18.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 28, 2014, 01:12:19 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 01:08:00 AM
Problem.   Kids today don't get enough exercise.
Problem.   Kids don't join CAP because of fear of the PT test.
Problem.   Kids quit CAP because they can't pass out PT test.
Problem.   We can't help kids get enough exercise if they don't come to CAP.
What's the problem?

Cite please.

IMHO, this is one more false premise used as the basis for major change that is unnecessary.
Like the idea that there are "too many FGOs and members promote too fast".

The >fix< is to work the actual program and recruit at a level where CAP gets "unbroke" so
that the opportunities and experiences flow like they should.

Seeing 3 1/2-motivated cadets in a slack-jawed line with two disconnected senior members in the
corner ignoring them while they do their "cadet stuff" is hardly the motivation for anyone to
step up and start doing something which is uncomfortable, even if it's necessary.

Currently have a SM that was a former cadet, who had problems with the CPFT.  He was one of the unusual few that stayed despite being frozen. 

Our unit was massive at one time (50 cadets).  I have 3 at the current time.  I get lots of visitors, that come for all three visits.  The meetings are interesting, and we keep them busy.  Visits are almost always inclusive of a CPFT, but even if not we inform them of the requirement.  After three they don't come back.  Many of these kids are playing football or hockey, yet can't do 15 good push-ups.  So, it would appear it's not CAP that's broken but society at large.

Look I don't begin to understand the entire youth psyche or dynamic.  But it was clear to me as a very junior CP officer in 1999 that requiring a CPFT pass to promote hurts cadet retention.  This program should not focus too heavily on any one aspect of youth development.  As a former soldier, and as a current civilian worker, I would rather hire youth that are respectful, can follow instructions, show up on time and are dependable.  Unless I'm hiring steel workers, I don't much care if they can pass a PT test.  The program is supposed to build citizens, not athletes.  We aren't even supposed to be developing Airmen.  Both the CAP and JROTC programs are youth citizenship programs with a military flair.

There has been discussion about JROTC fitness standards.  When I was a cadet there wasn't any.  I did 2 years of Army JROTC, 1 Semester of MCJROTC (this was the only program that did PT) and a year and a half of AFJROTC, and none had a CPFT (the Army JROTC program had a test if you were in the Ranger program).  Yes I did have a CPFT as a CAP cadet, a single event the mile run in 8min.  Very easy! 

Hitler Youth and Soviet Young Pioneers needed to be in excellent shape, for their entry into elite military party supporting apparatus.  That is not the purpose of the CAP cadet program!  We should be building well rounded young citizens, that respect authority, but can make a sound morale judgement when faced with an ethical dilemma.  Yes encourage physical fitness, even require it, at the point when the AF is going to provide advanced credit.  Other than that don't allow it to hinder the cadets participation or progress.

*CPFT is diagnostic until the Mitchell
*Cadet must pass the CPFT to get Mitchell (this is where the AF really start giving credit, for rank and scholarships) 
*To cut down on units fudging the CPFT for Mitchell, Earhart and Eaker have the test scored at Group or Wing Level.

Quote from: A.Member on August 28, 2014, 01:55:28 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2014, 01:21:10 AM
Seen it with my own eyes.   At my WAG I would say 20-30% of my perspective no-returns are because of their in ability to pass the curry test or their fear of doing the PT test.

Then they walked in the wrong door to begin with.

As stated earlier, we can't and shouldn't be all things to all people.  We want to develop leaders.  We should challenge our cadets; they'll answer.  I've seen it.

Define the wrong door.  Yes, all kids are not going to be interested in CAP.  However, if the kid comes for a visit, one must assume there was at least an inkling of interest.  I have always worked by the philosophy there are no bad cadets, only poor leaders and mentors.  Maybe the cadet program officer walked through the wrong door.

Partisan politics aside, the portion of society that feels ENTITLED, probably can't afford or doesn't want to adhere to the structure or regimentation of an organization like CAP.  You keep quoting JROTC, they don't through cadets out because they can't adhere to a PT standard.  And while I agree we don't through kids out for that reason either, we do discourage their participation.

I am not talking about lowering standards, what I'm talking about is deferring applying the standard as a condition of enrichment being able to fully participate, until the standard means something to outside agencies.  If your an Eagle Scout you can enlist as an E-2, if you were in CAP or JROTC but didn't complete the program you can enlist as an E-2.  CAP Mitchell, JROTC program completion are recognized by DOD for enhanced accelerated appointment.  Definitely at Mitchell or above, they must pass.

By the way, cadets and visitors are walking away because cadet program managers are running the program to include the CPFT with integrity.  Where the program lacks integrity is that CP managers don't have to pass the PT test they are giving.  Honestly, I can't pass it.

I have a difficult time telling a kid they can't fully participate in a program, and I can't meet the standard that excludes him.  The IG should give a SPFT, and come back and make sure they are setting an example.  Once again maybe we walked in the wrong door.  I agree with Lordmonar, build character and citizenship, work with them to improve physical fitness.  Hold them to the appropriate standard when the time is right.

Catrulz,

What would you do with the cadet who wants to go to a physically demanding NCSA like PJOC who can't pass the PT test?

Quote from: PA Guy on August 29, 2014, 04:45:25 PM
Catrulz,

What would you do with the cadet who wants to go to a physically demanding NCSA like PJOC who can't pass the PT test.

If there is a fitness requirement for an activity, then they must pass to the standard of the activity.  Our Wing already conducts NCSA boards.  Run the CPFT for the applicant on the day of the board.

Quote from: catrulz on August 29, 2014, 01:31:20 PM
Hitler Youth and Soviet Young Pioneers needed to be in excellent shape, for their entry into elite military party supporting apparatus.  That is not the purpose of the CAP cadet program!  We should be building well rounded young citizens, that respect authority, but can make a sound morale judgement when faced with an ethical dilemma.  Yes encourage physical fitness, even require it, at the point when the AF is going to provide advanced credit.  Other than that don't allow it to hinder the cadets participation or progress.

Really?  Stating that two most extreme examples?

So we should only require physical fitness because the USAF is going to give advanced credit?  We should ignore the fact that our country has an obesity epidemic?  That we literally pay out $190 billion a year on obesity related diseases?  The fact that the USAF gives credit at the Mitchell should have no bearing on requiring physical fitness for cadets.  Requiring physical fitness should be as early as possible but with enough "warm-up" period to get people into shape.  The Wright brothers gives a cadet 6 months to get their posterior in gear and get off the couch. 

Quote from: catrulz on August 29, 2014, 01:31:20 PM
Hitler Youth and Soviet Young Pioneers needed to be in excellent shape, for their entry into elite military party supporting apparatus.  That is not the purpose of the CAP cadet program!  We should be building well rounded young citizens, that respect authority, but can make a sound morale judgement when faced with an ethical dilemma.  Yes encourage physical fitness, even require it, at the point when the AF is going to provide advanced credit.  Other than that don't allow it to hinder the cadets participation or progress.

Perhaps actually knowing what you're talking about would be helpful?


The Soviet "Pionieri" were akin to (if not a rip off of) the Boy Scouts, except boys and girls participated. Since my mother was one, I think I would know. They did service projects, summer camps, and even had rifle shooting teams, but they weren't a pool of recruits for the military. There was no need - if mother USSR wanted you to serve, you did.


The Hitler Youth? Sure, long term the idea was to build loyal, strong men, but it was basically the same thing as boy scouts, until the war went south for Germany, and they began to throw 15-16 year old boys into the last line of defense.


Neither of those two was MEANT to send people into the military. Both DID have a goal of creating model citizens (national values notwithstanding).

Catrul,

Eliminating CPFT for the average cadet yet requiring it for demanding NCSA will ensure that cadet fails, does not attend the NCSA. Retaining CPFT for the average CAP cadet ensures those that decide later they want the NCSA to be better prepared. Note I said better prepared, not ensuring (s)he will pass it...

Quote from: LSThiker on August 29, 2014, 05:13:23 PM

Quote from: catrulz on August 29, 2014, 01:31:20 PM
Hitler Youth and Soviet Young Pioneers needed to be in excellent shape, for their entry into elite military party supporting apparatus.  That is not the purpose of the CAP cadet program!  We should be building well rounded young citizens, that respect authority, but can make a sound morale judgement when faced with an ethical dilemma.  Yes encourage physical fitness, even require it, at the point when the AF is going to provide advanced credit.  Other than that don't allow it to hinder the cadets participation or progress.

Really?  Stating that two most extreme examples?

So we should only require physical fitness because the USAF is going to give advanced credit?  We should ignore the fact that our country has an obesity epidemic?  That we literally pay out $190 billion a year on obesity related diseases?  The fact that the USAF gives credit at the Mitchell should have no bearing on requiring physical fitness for cadets.  Requiring physical fitness should be as early as possible but with enough "warm-up" period to get people into shape.  The Wright brothers gives a cadet 6 months to get their posterior in gear and get off the couch.

I went with the two most extreme examples, because they had that exact philosophy that required mental and physical perfection (hey but at least their adult leadership set an example).  Those organizations were exclusionary in other ways as well, so I'm not saying that CAP mirrors them.  I do think by reading this thread that this no defect mind set is expected.  Every cadet cannot be expected to walk in to door as a prime physical specimen.  And honestly, I would rather have a less physically fit cadet that participates fully, than a cadet that maxes the PT and then does just the minimum to fill program requirements.

I and others have stated quite clearly that Cadet Physical Fitness should not be ignored!  No-one has said there should not be a standard.  No-one said there were not other good reasons to perform a Physical Fitness program other than to allow a cadet to progress.  What I did say was, we should not get exclusionary with the Physical Fitness program until the accomplishment of passing has meaning outside CAP (Mitchell level and above). 

Are we doing obese kids a service by taking the attitude that he may have "walked through the wrong door"?  By placing diagnostic testing in place prior to the Mitchell, but still requiring the standard be met at the Mitchell and above, you will still end up with about the same amount of Mitchell, Earhart, Eaker and Spaatz.  But you'll get more cadet retention at the cadet enlisted level, and therefore be able to positively influence thousands of youth that currently feel intimidated by a program that physically overwhelms them.  Build their bodies, but do it without running them out the door.  That's when it becomes the "Wrong Door", that door should invite people in and not bully them into leaving.  CAP is not going to change the eating habits of the average heavy kid, yes some will change, with good counseling and mentoring, but most will not.  But perhaps that same young person can be influenced into becoming more polite, be respectful to authority, to think of others before themselves, learn some good decision making skills and even perhaps some leadership.

CAP should build better citizens morally!  If other countries youth programs had striven for a program based more on our core values, historically they may have avoided a great deal of strife.

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on August 29, 2014, 05:50:54 PM
Catrul,

Eliminating CPFT for the average cadet yet requiring it for demanding NCSA will ensure that cadet fails, does not attend the NCSA. Retaining CPFT for the average CAP cadet ensures those that decide later they want the NCSA to be better prepared. Note I said [better prepared,[/b] not that (s)he will pass it...

Once again the intent isn't to eliminate CPFT, but to make it diagnostic.  Many in this thread have said if a cadet wants to make this rank, they'll work harder to meet the standard.  Well wouldn't that also apply to NCSA attendance?  Remember, were still doing the testing, we're even applying pass/fail on the diagnostic.  What we would not be doing is telling a cadet, sorry your stagnant (and if they haven't made Curry completely unable to participate other than meetings). 

The kids that won't meet the standard, would never have met it anyway.  You will still be mentoring, and counseling to engineer success.  In some cases that will work, and in some cases that will not.  If counseling and mentoring are ineffective, along with diagnostic testing, the chances are that cadet would never have been eligible for that NCSA anyway.

Quote from: catrulz on August 29, 2014, 05:52:00 PM
Are we doing obese kids a service by taking the attitude that he may have "walked through the wrong door"? ...

You've got quite the Straw Man going on here.   This has nothing to do with shunning obese kids or expecting only poster children to walk through the door.  The wrong door is the one where a potential cadet is not willing to accept all portions of our program and/or put forth the effort to improve.  I've seen my share of obese cadets come in and make significant changes.  It's one of the most rewarding aspects of CP.  Our program can be a catalyst in that respect.

Another key point being lost here is there is more value to PT than simply being physically fit and living a healthy lifestyle.  Among other things, it also a great deal to do with self discipline, self confidence, and goal setting; important characteristics of leadership.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 29, 2014, 05:22:49 PM

Quote from: catrulz on August 29, 2014, 01:31:20 PM
Hitler Youth and Soviet Young Pioneers needed to be in excellent shape, for their entry into elite military party supporting apparatus.  That is not the purpose of the CAP cadet program!  We should be building well rounded young citizens, that respect authority, but can make a sound morale judgement when faced with an ethical dilemma.  Yes encourage physical fitness, even require it, at the point when the AF is going to provide advanced credit.  Other than that don't allow it to hinder the cadets participation or progress.

Perhaps actually knowing what you're talking about would be helpful?


The Soviet "Pionieri" were akin to (if not a rip off of) the Boy Scouts, except boys and girls participated. Since my mother was one, I think I would know. They did service projects, summer camps, and even had rifle shooting teams, but they weren't a pool of recruits for the military. There was no need - if mother USSR wanted you to serve, you did.


The Hitler Youth? Sure, long term the idea was to build loyal, strong men, but it was basically the same thing as boy scouts, until the war went south for Germany, and they began to throw 15-16 year old boys into the last line of defense.


Neither of those two was MEANT to send people into the military. Both DID have a goal of creating model citizens (national values notwithstanding).

Well shoot, am I stupid, duh!  Yes the Young Pioneers were founded on the Scouts but were converted into a party youth apparatus.  But technically, the Komsomol would have fit my analogy better, since like the Hitler Youth you actually had to join the party for membership.  So, lets get really particular on this and ignore the total content of the message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Pioneer_Organization_of_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Pioneer_Organization_of_the_Soviet_Union)

The Soviet rank in file Military required no actual cadet program affiliation, since it worked on a 4 class draft with a new class being drafted every six months.  NCO's were schooled and appointed based on aptitude testing. 

Most Soviet Officers were Komsomol members before attending their respective academies.  I'm sure you'll find some slight flaw in this also, for instance Naval Draftees served longer than army or some such, can we please get back to the CPFT? 

Quote from: catrulz on August 29, 2014, 05:52:00 PM
I went with the two most extreme examples, because they had that exact philosophy that required mental and physical perfection (hey but at least their adult leadership set an example).  Those organizations were exclusionary in other ways as well, so I'm not saying that CAP mirrors them.  I do think by reading this thread that this no defect mind set is expected.  Every cadet cannot be expected to walk in to door as a prime physical specimen.  And honestly, I would rather have a less physically fit cadet that participates fully, than a cadet that maxes the PT and then does just the minimum to fill program requirements.

Really?  This thread gives you the idea that a no defect mind set is expected?  I do not think anything in this thread is requiring a no defect. 

QuoteI and others have stated quite clearly that Cadet Physical Fitness should not be ignored!  No-one has said there should not be a standard.  No-one said there were not other good reasons to perform a Physical Fitness program other than to allow a cadet to progress.  What I did say was, we should not get exclusionary with the Physical Fitness program until the accomplishment of passing has meaning outside CAP (Mitchell level and above).

Again, so we should only require a passing score until it means something outside of CAP?  Using that logic, then each cadet test prior to the Mitchell should be just a diagnostic.  After all, we do not want to be exclusionary prior to the Mitchell.  So, we are not exclusionary for fitness but for written tests, we are?  Again, the Mitchell is not the point to make fitness required, it would be the first milestone award.

Let us be honest, the Mitchell has no meaning outside of CAP.  The Army and Air Force give advanced promotion for it more out of history than anything.  Cadets were given advancement upon joining the AAF.  Also, the Army and USAF gives advanced promotion to E-3 for just about anything.  Get two recruits in, here is E-3.  tied your shoes today?  Here is E-3.  Advancement to E-3 is pretty much a joke now.  A commander has the authority to promote a person to E-3 simply because. 

[quoteBut you'll get more cadet retention at the cadet enlisted level, and therefore be able to positively influence thousands of youth that currently feel intimidated by a program that physically overwhelms them.  [/quote].

And we will have better retention if all we did is stopped wasting people's time.  In fact, that would probably overcome most other issues.

QuoteCAP should build better citizens morally!  If other countries youth programs had striven for a program based more on our core values, historically they may have avoided a great deal of strife.

CAP should build better citizens both morally and physically.

Being a leader includes not only making moral decisions, but also showing that you can take care of yourself physically. 

If all CAP should do is build better citizens morally, there are already plenty of those programs available nationwide.

Quote from: A.Member on August 29, 2014, 06:19:26 PM

Quote from: catrulz on August 29, 2014, 05:52:00 PM
Are we doing obese kids a service by taking the attitude that he may have "walked through the wrong door"? ...

You've got quite the Straw Man going on here.   This has nothing to do with shunning obese kids or expecting only poster children to walk through the door.  The wrong door is the one where a potential cadet is not willing to accept all portions of our program and/or put forth the effort to improve.  I've seen my share of obese cadets come in and make significant changes.  It's one of the most rewarding aspects of CP.  Our program can be a catalyst in that respect.

Another key point being lost here is there is more value to PT than simply being physically fit and living a healthy lifestyle.  Among other things, it also a great deal to do with self discipline, self confidence, and goal setting; important characteristics of leadership.

I actually agree with you here, I just don't believe PT needs to be a dis-qualifier for participation in-order to be the catalyst.  What everyone is skipping in my posts is, I am not advocating skipping PT or removing from the program.  I don't even think unit testing should stop.  I simply believe you would have better recruiting and retention results if those tests were diagnostic, up to a certain level.  At that point and for some activities they would still have to be passed.  There would have to be a case study to determine if I'm right or full of p**p, and what overall affect it would have on encampment participation (which I think would increase, and NCSA attendance, promotions and so on.

For instance, for Hawk Mountain or PJOC, cadets definitely need to be physically prepared for these NCSAs.  I'm sure most of the applicants are, and the unit shouldn't be forwarding applicants that aren't.  Once again, with properly applied diagnostics, and leadership counseling, the cadet knows where they stand in relation to physically demanding activities and toward achieving higher level milestones.

Quote from: LSThiker on August 29, 2014, 06:40:09 PM
And we will have better retention if all we did is stopped wasting people's time.  In fact, that would probably overcome most other issues.

Amen, brother!  :clap:

Quote from: PA Guy on August 29, 2014, 04:45:25 PM
Catrulz,

What would you do with the cadet who wants to go to a physically demanding NCSA like PJOC who can't pass the PT test?

PJOC has it's own standards.....can't pass it....can't go.

  The cadets on this days like in the past are looking for challenges. Like I said before it's nothing wrong with the program. I just the leadership.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:05:25 PM

Quote from: PA Guy on August 29, 2014, 04:45:25 PM
Catrulz,

What would you do with the cadet who wants to go to a physically demanding NCSA like PJOC who can't pass the PT test?

PJOC has it's own standards.....can't pass it....can't go.

No CAP activity should have PT standards which exceed the grade-appropriate level for a respective cadet.

Why not?

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:28:17 PM
Why not?

It makes no logical sense - CPFT indicates "x" is an appropriate level of fitness for "y", then a
given NCSA, open to the respective grade level, says you have to be able to do "q" in order top
participate?  Where did that cadets "q" powers come from?

If the underlying thread of CPFT is that it is an age-appropriate standard, respectively, then any
CAP activity which mandates a level in excess of CPFT is asking for something which exceed
an age-appropriate level of fitness.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:33:46 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:28:17 PM
Why not?

It makes no logical sense - CPFT indicates "x" is an appropriate level of fitness for "y", then a
given NCSA, open to the respective grade level, says you have to be able to do "q" in order top
participate?  Where did that cadets "q" powers come from?

"y" being "ready to accept more leadership responsibilities"
"q" being the standard set by the NCSA developers as the level of fitness necessary to successfully compete the NCSA.

Where do the cadets with "q" Physical Fitness come from?   Well from the squadrons of course.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:41:16 PMWhere do the cadets with "q" Physical Fitness come from?   Well from the squadrons of course.

?

So now we have squadrons training cadets in excess of the CPFT standards?
Where do you send the summons when someone gets hurt?

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:45:26 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:41:16 PMWhere do the cadets with "q" Physical Fitness come from?   Well from the squadrons of course.

?

So now we have squadrons training cadets in excess of the CPFT standards?
Where do you send the summons when someone gets hurt?

LOL.  Try again.....Here is the PJOC PFE (http://ncsas.com/file.cfm/media/careerfairs/documents/02152014_PJOC_PFE_D45D305D12F7D.pdf)

Try what again?  Does it exceed the expectations for some cadets in the current CPFT or not?

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:56:51 PM
Try what again?  Does it exceed the expectations for some cadets in the current CPFT or not?

Completely different standards.

Push ups are different, sit ups are different, pull up are not part of the CPFT.

PJOC is harder then everyday CAP life.....so they got different standards.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:45:26 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:41:16 PMWhere do the cadets with "q" Physical Fitness come from?   Well from the squadrons of course.

?

So now we have squadrons training cadets in excess of the CPFT standards?
Where do you send the summons when someone gets hurt?

Generally, and you should know this, if a cadet wants to go to a physically demanding activity, they should know either by their own research or word-of-mouth that they should start prepping well before the activity, especially if the requirements are outlined. And they are. Of course, there are some cadoinks that don't think anything of it and show up completely unprepared and die. No squadron is going to supplant the CPFT to an NCSA standard. That's just not a-gonna happen. Parents will revolt, cadets will leave, and we'll be stuck with an unholy mess.

It's just causing me to shake my head at all the CPFT requirements, and how we are going to enforce/change them given our current number of contact hours per monthly PT session. It's up to the cadets, just like testing and drilling, to get up to par. And they either will, or they won't. Those that want to promote will kick themselves in the butt to make the promotions, and those who want to coast, won't. I have a brand new cadet who is working his butt off trying to pass his PT for his first stripe, and I have a few 0 and 1 stripers who are on the verge of getting a really serious talking to pretty soon. There are athletes, and there are bookworms. There are a few with known and documented medical issues, and some who just play sick when it suits them. It's a real mixed bag.

My professional opinions is this: Those who want to move up and move on, will, and will do whatever is necessary to progress. Those who won't will be given a choice to either promote or leave.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:25:34 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:05:25 PM

Quote from: PA Guy on August 29, 2014, 04:45:25 PM
Catrulz,

What would you do with the cadet who wants to go to a physically demanding NCSA like PJOC who can't pass the PT test?

PJOC has it's own standards.....can't pass it....can't go.

No CAP activity should have PT standards which exceed the grade-appropriate level for a respective cadet.

Strong non-concur.   

PJOC is a USAF career field orientation course.   The career field requires the highest level of fitness and far surpasses the requirements for the rest of the regular military; indoc is one of the most physically and mentally challenging training among all services.  It would be inappropriate for standards for an orientation course NOT to be higher or reflective of that elevated requirement.

BTW, PJOC is one of the most popular and selective NCSAs...and it is so for the reasons mentioned above.

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 29, 2014, 10:08:05 PM
...Of course, there are some cadoinks that don't think anything of it and show up completely unprepared and die....

No, show up unprepared and they are sent home at their own expense.  Happens every year.

They must pass the PJOC PT test upon arrival before heading to the field to help ensure they are capable of keeping up.

Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 12:30:24 AMThe course is a career field orientation course.

Thank you for making my point.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 30, 2014, 12:50:26 AM

Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 12:30:24 AMThe course is a career field orientation course.

Thank you for making my point.

You haven't made any points here.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:45:26 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2014, 09:41:16 PMWhere do the cadets with "q" Physical Fitness come from?   Well from the squadrons of course.

?

So now we have squadrons training cadets in excess of the CPFT standards?
Where do you send the summons when someone gets hurt?

I sure hope we don't train to standards.  I hope we train to meet and exceed standards. 

How can Excellence be part of our Core Values with anything less?

Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 01:00:00 AM
I sure hope we don't train to standards.  I hope we train to meet and exceed standards. 

How can Excellence be part of our Core Values with anything less?

You can't, and yet, there you go...

PJOC is what it is, my original point was that CAP units are not preparing cadets, by a long shot for participation, and
certainly won't be if the CPFT is changed as the proposal indicates.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 30, 2014, 01:21:44 AM

Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 01:00:00 AM
I sure hope we don't train to standards.  I hope we train to meet and exceed standards. 

How can Excellence be part of our Core Values with anything less?

You can't, and yet, there you go...

PJOC is what it is, my original point was that CAP units are not preparing cadets, by a long shot for participation, and
certainly won't be if the CPFT is changed as the proposal indicates.

CAP shouldn't prepare cadets for PJOC. That is on their own dime. Not a part of their normal progression.

Bob, I think you're way off base here. I just looked at the PJOC test, and compared it to CAPP 52-18. I used the minimum age for PJOC (15) as a baseline.

2014 PJOC PHYSICAL FITNESS EVALUATION requirements:
http://ncsas.com/file.cfm/media/careerfairs/documents/02152014_PJOC_PFE_D45D305D12F7D.pdf (http://ncsas.com/file.cfm/media/careerfairs/documents/02152014_PJOC_PFE_D45D305D12F7D.pdf)

CAPP 52-18:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_018_501C183A14D19.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_018_501C183A14D19.pdf)

The PJOC run is easier than any 15 yo or older passing requirement in 52-18. The pushups and situps are comparable to 15 yo Mitchell requirements. Pullups aren't part of the 52-18, but PJOC is upper body intensive, so I think it's a reasonable requirement.

The physical part is supposed to be hard. Being a PJ in the AD AF isn't for everyone. Our NCSA is a look at the career field, and how demanding it is. There's some partial immersion here. Only the strong survive.

FWIW, I could pass 3/4 of the test as a 40 yo. Couldn't do that many pushups.

Fair enough.  >I< didn't look, I asked "is it comparable" and it seems to be.   Several other people commented,
apparently, based on assumptions.

FWIW, the standards cited above are new and different from the previous standards:
http://www.ncsas.com/file.cfm/media/careerfairs/documents/PJOC_PT_Requirements_7B77B39C6CC8B.pdf (http://www.ncsas.com/file.cfm/media/careerfairs/documents/PJOC_PT_Requirements_7B77B39C6CC8B.pdf)

APJOC also includes a swim qual.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:25:34 PMNo CAP activity should have PT standards which exceed the grade-appropriate level for a respective cadet.

Well, they ignore a few different aspects of CPPT so ignoring other parts of our program isn't all that surprising.

Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 05:15:21 AM
FWIW, the standards cited above are new and different from the previous standards:
http://www.ncsas.com/file.cfm/media/careerfairs/documents/PJOC_PT_Requirements_7B77B39C6CC8B.pdf (http://www.ncsas.com/file.cfm/media/careerfairs/documents/PJOC_PT_Requirements_7B77B39C6CC8B.pdf)

APJOC also includes a swim qual.

That's the first one I found, and it's not really all that different. The biggest individual differences are the run, the pullups, and no flutter kicks. The other big change is doing away with the point system.

Quote from: Fubar on August 30, 2014, 07:12:03 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:25:34 PMNo CAP activity should have PT standards which exceed the grade-appropriate level for a respective cadet.

Well, they ignore a few different aspects of CPPT so ignoring other parts of our program isn't all that surprising.

Such as?

Quote from: SarDragon on August 30, 2014, 09:26:48 AM

Quote from: A.Member on August 30, 2014, 05:15:21 AM
FWIW, the standards cited above are new and different from the previous standards:
http://www.ncsas.com/file.cfm/media/careerfairs/documents/PJOC_PT_Requirements_7B77B39C6CC8B.pdf (http://www.ncsas.com/file.cfm/media/careerfairs/documents/PJOC_PT_Requirements_7B77B39C6CC8B.pdf)

APJOC also includes a swim qual.

That's the first one I found, and it's not really all that different. The biggest individual differences are the run, the pullups, and no flutter kicks. The other big change is doing away with the point system.

Agreed.  Just pointing out that it did change.

Quote from: 68w10 on August 30, 2014, 01:06:00 PM

Quote from: Fubar on August 30, 2014, 07:12:03 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:25:34 PMNo CAP activity should have PT standards which exceed the grade-appropriate level for a respective cadet.

Well, they ignore a few different aspects of CPPT so ignoring other parts of our program isn't all that surprising.

Such as?

Yeah, explain.

The CPFT is such an unbelievable minimum level of fitness at the entry levels that its not even funny.  When I was a Deputy Commander for cadets, we had so many other things to do, running the PFT was about the only physical activity we did.  The PFT is pretty basic.  With the resources available to most cadets in the US in schools, sports or other daily life, its really up to them to take physical fitness as an interest to at least pass the PFT... which is a pretty low level of fitness if you are meeting the minimums.  Nothing wrong with promoting physical fitness, once in a while having a class on nutrition.... but nothing you do in CAP is going to have the slightest impact on a kids fitness unless they take it and make it personal.  In many cases, watching their friends pass them up is the best motivation.  Thats how the world really works.  Better to learn it now in a safe, supporting environment than to learn it when your paycheck is on the line.  Ive seen plenty of kids go from not being able to jog 1 lap without walking and improve to jogging the entire mile and not making it in time, to actually running/jogging and making it in. 

If someone is running a unit where physical fitness is the main focus, then Id be curious what other aspects of the program aren't a part of the meeting.  Maybe some of you spend way more time at CAP with your cadets  than the 3hrs a week that I did.   I think a cadet program would be better suited by putting together a list of school sports specific to that cadets school or other activities outside of CAP and encourage cadets to get into that vs burning CAP time trying to get cadets into shape for a couple hours a month.  Yes... CAP ends up with some kids who are grossly out of shape........ CAP isnt equipped to do much more than attempt to provide positive reinforcement in the way of goals, promotions, awards and helping to steer that cadet to a lifestyle where they can get into shape.  Focusing on getting cadets to pass the PFT only takes away from the majority of the cadets who can. 

A ribbon for passing the PFT?  I think the rank on your collar and the ribbon for the achievement is probably enough to indicate you passed the PFT.  I don't think we need a ribbon to reward passing phases of an award that comes with a ribbon that coincides with your new rank.

Really nothing we do in CAP requires much more than a level of fitness beyond what it takes you to live in normal society.  The PFT isnt a measure of being able to do a job like the military, LE, Fire, EMS..... its a method of promoting a healthy lifestyle for their future. 

+ Everything.

Quote from: 68w10 on August 30, 2014, 01:06:00 PM

Quote from: Fubar on August 30, 2014, 07:12:03 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:25:34 PMNo CAP activity should have PT standards which exceed the grade-appropriate level for a respective cadet.

Well, they ignore a few different aspects of CPPT so ignoring other parts of our program isn't all that surprising.

Such as?

Well, PT as punishment for one.

Quote from: Fubar on August 31, 2014, 01:48:17 AM

Quote from: 68w10 on August 30, 2014, 01:06:00 PM

Quote from: Fubar on August 30, 2014, 07:12:03 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:25:34 PMNo CAP activity should have PT standards which exceed the grade-appropriate level for a respective cadet.

Well, they ignore a few different aspects of CPPT so ignoring other parts of our program isn't all that surprising.

Such as?

Well, PT as punishment for one.

PT as punishment has never been officially endorsed the entire time I've been involved in the CAP Cadet program. The fact that it has been condoned, and even encouraged, by misguided leadership in various units and activities is one of the reasons the current CPPT reg is so specific.

If you see it, report it. it's that simple. Documentation helps. The more effort put in to discourage this unsat behavior, the quicker it will go away.

Never been to PJOC....but I sent one of my cadets there.....and they do use PT as punishment there......again it is the nature of the NCSA.  What I understand is that they have a waiver from NHQ for it.   It is closely monitored and conducted by PJ instructors.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 31, 2014, 02:38:18 AM
Never been to PJOC....but I sent one of my cadets there.....and they do use PT as punishment there......again it is the nature of the NCSA.  What I understand is that they have a waiver from NHQ for it.   It is closely monitored and conducted by PJ instructors.

I gotta agree on this one. You want a "slice of life" as a PJ? I bet "punishment" PT for the whole is part of the deal. When I was doing the Future Soldier DEP program, the recruiters would PT us, but then if someone screwed up, everyone would get dropped. Even if it was just the pushup "up" position...everyone was doing it. On CAP meeting nights, they knew I had to leave earlier, so the recruiter said I could get up and go. I stayed down without saying anything. He repeated that I can go, but I told him "no, Sergeant". He got what I was doing, and turned it into a lesson for the rest on teamwork. I still had to stay down with the rest of the guys for an extra five minutes though, and it sucked.

Quote from: Fubar on August 31, 2014, 01:48:17 AM

Quote from: 68w10 on August 30, 2014, 01:06:00 PM

Quote from: Fubar on August 30, 2014, 07:12:03 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:25:34 PMNo CAP activity should have PT standards which exceed the grade-appropriate level for a respective cadet.

Well, they ignore a few different aspects of CPPT so ignoring other parts of our program isn't all that surprising.

Such as?

Well, PT as punishment for one.

Some background: I've staffed APJOC, but not the basic course.  That being said, the CAP and USAF instructors that I spoke with who had staffed the basic course disagree with you.  PT sessions during the basic course are scheduled events.  They're frequent and intense, but they are a planned portion of the course with a specific purpose.

Hypothetically, were PT as a punishment allowed by CAP (I do not condone this, just making a statement), I think that this would be one of the scenarios in which it would be acceptable. There's an enormous difference between a 15 year old Cadet flying off the handle and making their Cadets do push ups and a USAF Pararescueman using the same exercise to reinforce a lesson.

Quote from: Fubar on August 31, 2014, 01:48:17 AM

Quote from: 68w10 on August 30, 2014, 01:06:00 PM

Quote from: Fubar on August 30, 2014, 07:12:03 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2014, 09:25:34 PMNo CAP activity should have PT standards which exceed the grade-appropriate level for a respective cadet.

Well, they ignore a few different aspects of CPPT so ignoring other parts of our program isn't all that surprising.

Such as?

Well, PT as punishment for one.

Really, when were you there?

A lot of speculation from those that have never been there.  "I heard..." 

Concur with 68w10.  I assure you CPPT is taken very seriously and followed.

I don't understand all the hate towards incentive pt. Maybe it wasn't allowed but I recall doing push ups when I messed up at encampment though that was 25 years ago. I recall doing push-ups in jrotc in HS. I recall young marines doing IPT. If done properly it is a good learning tool. Of course I understand that it can be abused but that's where accountability and training comes in. I guess I'm the only one who thinks that way. And no I don't make cadets do push ups now. But I do make my Explorers. 

The key to your point was "if done properly".....and unfortunately CAP has proven unable to make sure that our leaders understand where that line is and how to enforce it.   So the NHQ CP team decided, and I agree with them, to draw the line at "don't do it".

I used to supervise drill sergeants at a school for at-risk youth where we used incentive PT.  Even with paid staff who were trained we had a hard time with some to ensure they knew the line, what was appropriate, and that there needed to be a point.  I can't imagine trying to get CAP personnel aligned on the same page.  Especially since done incorrectly, there can be very real consequences.