quote author=Ned link=topic=11917.msg220458#msg220458 date=1294440737]
It seems likely that we will be able to accommodate some cognitive disabilities as well.[/quote]

Now that's a confidence-inspiring statement!  Wait, where is that e-mail address for the Wing's Legal Officer?  We may need it, especially after the parents complain that the special ed needs of their cadet aren't being properly met (yup, the cadet in question has failed the XXX leadership test four times now, even though at the request of the parents we've whittled the four answer choices for each question down to two answer choices as per 52-16), and no, they don't want to stigmatize their cadet by sharing their cadet's IEP with the Squadron's staff (and since they don't want to share, we [nor anyone else in our organization, for that matter] will never really know how to properly address the special education needs of the cadet per state Board of Education guidelines beyond what the parents want to tell us), and by the way, which one of the Squadron's/Group's/Wing's staff has that valid and current state education certification as a Special Education Teacher to help mediate (without the cadet's IEP in hand for evaluation, of course) out of this mess?

Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2011, 10:52:17 PM
Thank you for your work with our cadets.  All of them.

You bet.

Quote from: Bobble on January 10, 2011, 06:19:51 PM
Now that's a confidence-inspiring statement!  Wait, where is that e-mail address for the Wing's Legal Officer?  We may need it (. . .)

Sigh.

Lt, even if you have no confidence in me (and since we don't know each other, there is really no reason you should), please have a little faith in NHQ.  Of course there was legal review of the regulation before it was approved.  And the lawyers are OK with it.

(And having the Wing Legal Officer working with cadets and the cadet program is probably a Good Thing rather than a Bad Thing in any event.)

Other than not wishing to accomodate diagnosed disabilities for our cadets, do you have any other concerns over the new regulation?

Ned Lee

Quote from: Ned on January 10, 2011, 07:51:04 PM

Quote from: Bobble on January 10, 2011, 06:19:51 PM
Now that's a confidence-inspiring statement!  Wait, where is that e-mail address for the Wing's Legal Officer?  We may need it (. . .)

Sigh.

Lt, even if you have no confidence in me (and since we don't know each other, there is really no reason you should), please have a little faith in NHQ.  Of course there was legal review of the regulation before it was approved.  And the lawyers are OK with it.

(And having the Wing Legal Officer working with cadets and the cadet program is probably a Good Thing rather than a Bad Thing in any event.)

Other than not wishing to accomodate diagnosed disabilities for our cadets, do you have any other concerns over the new regulation?

Ned Lee

That's an awfully big assumption right there, that I personally don't want to work with or accomodate cadets with diagnosed disabilities.  Our squadron already has a mentoring program in place to assist cadets experiencing difficulty with any facet of the testing progression.

But to me, that's the key right there - diagnosed disabilities.  The change to 52-16 as written that we are discussing does not require a professional diagnosis of any sort.  It is merely the cadet stating (and his/her parents agreeing), "I have a learning disability and therefore I need special considerations or adaptations".  No other documentation required.  What constitutes sufficient considerations or adaptations?  Including changing the content of the tests.  Apparently, that will be decided when (and if) everyone is happy. 

As a former HS teacher, I have sat through plenty of conferences that included the student, the student's parents, the school psychologist, the student's guidance counselor, and myself plus other faculty members,  to discuss just how the student's special educations needs were being addressed, implemented and documented.  Knowing how convoluted and argumentative those issues can be when they involve payed professional staff members and standardized documentation, I shudder to think what might happen in trying to do the same using un-trained volunteer staff and no standardized documentation.

As an aside, as a teacher, I was never required to edit the content my tests for any of the special needs students assigned to my classes.  Time extensions? Sure.  Letting the student take the test in a separate quiet area? Sure.  Handing off the test to a SpEd Teacher or Teaching Assistant so that the test could be given verbally?  Sure.  Making a "Large Print" version of the test?  Sure.  Beyond that?  Nope.   

Sure, it's going to happen, cause the folks at NHQ say it's going to happen.  That's the nature of the beast.  But I've dealt with plenty of "Helicopter Parents", and it sure isn't giving me any warm fuzzy feelings.  And changing the content of the tests themselves?  What happened to that whole "Integrity" thing?

Other than that?  Regarding 52-16?  No issues.  Sir.

I still want to know if there is a minimum number of promotions required per year.

Why don't you call NHQ/CP and ask them?

Quote from: Ron1319 on January 10, 2011, 09:53:11 PM
I still want to know if there is a minimum number of promotions required per year.

Sorry for not responding to your PM sooner, but I am still working the answer.  Maxwell is closed today.  Should have something for you guys tomorrow.

Ned Lee

Excellent, thank you.

After checking my notes and chatting with the full time crew, we removed the specific number of achievements required each year from the 52-16 to defer to the more general guidance in the 35-3 and to give additional discretion to local commanders to decide what is satisfactory progress for their units.

Commanders are free to follow the old guidance, or set any other reasonable standard for their units.

Ned Lee

fwiw, i think you guys had it about right...
the cadet oath does say advance my education and training rapidly
lending some concreteness to the word rapidly was a good move in my opinion.

it is already not possible to join on the 12th birthday,
advance every 6 months all the way through the program, and complete the spaatz before turning 21...
twice a year is literally the slowest conceivable acceptable speed, to me, and might even be slightly too slow.

i'll bet that promotion rate was set back when there were only 15 achievements and no time in grade for milestones...  making it equal to the minimum time to get from age 12 (or 13?) to the spaatz.  it's almost like someone did that math and had an actual reason there...

Quote from: Ned on January 10, 2011, 07:51:04 PM
Other than not wishing to accommodate diagnosed disabilities for our cadets, do you have any other concerns over the new regulation?

Ned Lee

Apart from testing being moved to online, why was Figure 1-1 (Suggested Quarterly Schedule) left out of the new reg. It's not even mentioned in the summary of changes.

Jon

Quote from: LTD on January 14, 2011, 10:43:10 PM

Quote from: Ned on January 10, 2011, 07:51:04 PM
Other than not wishing to accommodate diagnosed disabilities for our cadets, do you have any other concerns over the new regulation?

Ned Lee

Apart from testing being moved to online, why was Figure 1-1 (Suggested Quarterly Schedule) left out of the new reg. It's not even mentioned in the summary of changes.

Jon

Look at 4-3a. Basically, things like the suggested quarterly schedule were moved over to other pamphlets.

Thank you for the direction... since it wasn't mention in the summary of changes I assumed it was left off by mistake. It just so happened I needed for my meeting last night. Our new cadet commander is starting to plan her own schedule and couldn't find it where I always knew it was.

Jon