CAPR 52-16 CADET PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVE 1 FEBRUARY 2011

Started by MIKE, December 20, 2010, 07:11:35 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MIKE

Mike Johnston

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: MIKE on December 20, 2010, 07:11:35 PM
CAPR 52-16 CADET PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVE 1 FEBRUARY 2011

Summary of Changes
After reading the new regulation/requirements, do ya think that senior members will be all lined up eager to volunteer their time to oversee the cadet program :-\ ???
RM

jimmydeanno

There isn't anything in there that shouldn't be done already.  If establishing goals and taking a TLC if you haven't are going to stop you from working with cadets, I can't imagine it was a good fit anyway.

It also removes a bunch of responsibility from the local units and places the onus on the wing to provide things to the units they're supposed to support.

1) TLCs at least once per year

2) O-Flights will be managed by the wing

That's not a bad thing and makes my job a lot easier...
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

DC

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 21, 2010, 02:24:24 AM
Quote from: MIKE on December 20, 2010, 07:11:35 PM
CAPR 52-16 CADET PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVE 1 FEBRUARY 2011

Summary of Changes
After reading the new regulation/requirements, do ya think that senior members will be all lined up eager to volunteer their time to oversee the cadet program :-\ ???
RM
The only one that I saw that might be a hurdle for some is the 2 TLC graduate requirement, and that's left pretty flexible.

The rest of it was stuff related to running a strong cadet program that should have been in there a long time ago.

If someone is put off by having to [gasp!] attend a weekend training course and [gasp!] actually hold activities for their cadets they need to find another part of the CAP mission to serve, because Cadet Programs isn't for them. It does require a little work to run a good program.

EMT-83

More highlights:

Cadets become eligible to participate in CPPT upon turning 17 years of age.

High Adventure Activities.


Interesting that O-flights are to be managed by Wing. Last year, we moved away from Wing level O-flights and left them to the squadrons. Actually flew more hours that way.

jimmydeanno

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 21, 2010, 02:48:05 AM
Interesting that O-flights are to be managed by Wing. Last year, we moved away from Wing level O-flights and left them to the squadrons. Actually flew more hours that way.

The intent isn't to have the wing call up the cadets, etc, but rather, to have the wing develop a plan to get cadets in the air.  That could mean that the wing establishes the general framework for the program, then has the groups and squadrons implement.

The benefit, though, is that a squadron with no pilots and no plane doesn't have to figure out how to convince people to fly their cadets.  A call to the wing, letting them know of the need should be sufficient enough to get a plan in action. 

IMO, it's a win-win.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: DC on December 21, 2010, 02:30:58 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 21, 2010, 02:24:24 AM
Quote from: MIKE on December 20, 2010, 07:11:35 PM
CAPR 52-16 CADET PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVE 1 FEBRUARY 2011

Summary of Changes
After reading the new regulation/requirements, do ya think that senior members will be all lined up eager to volunteer their time to oversee the cadet program :-\ ???
RM
If someone is put off by having to [gasp!] attend a weekend training course and [gasp!] actually hold activities for their cadets they need to find another part of the CAP mission to serve, because Cadet Programs isn't for them. It does require a little work to run a good program.
So how long does that weekend activity have to be, 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours etc?   Also do all cadets have to participate?  What if it is a "niche" type activity only e.g. rockets, computers, radio comms, astronomy/satellite viewing, ES ground team training?  Do you also have to have a general interest activity?  Also can the activity be held on another weekday night rather than a weekend?   Surely, their needs to be flexibility in when these activities are held, and again mandating when is not good policy.

Cadet & senior members have other lives, and weekends may be reserved for other activities.

Hey I'm not in cadet programs, and this likely won't affect me greatly (I'll likely give them 4 to 6 hours, one weekend per quarter to help),  so good luck to all the cadet program guys & gals :clap:
RM

manfredvonrichthofen


DC

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 21, 2010, 03:02:49 AM
Quote from: DC on December 21, 2010, 02:30:58 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 21, 2010, 02:24:24 AM
Quote from: MIKE on December 20, 2010, 07:11:35 PM
CAPR 52-16 CADET PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVE 1 FEBRUARY 2011

Summary of Changes
After reading the new regulation/requirements, do ya think that senior members will be all lined up eager to volunteer their time to oversee the cadet program :-\ ???
RM
If someone is put off by having to [gasp!] attend a weekend training course and [gasp!] actually hold activities for their cadets they need to find another part of the CAP mission to serve, because Cadet Programs isn't for them. It does require a little work to run a good program.
So how long does that weekend activity have to be, 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours etc?   Also do all cadets have to participate?  What if it is a "niche" type activity only e.g. rockets, computers, radio comms, astronomy/satellite viewing, ES ground team training?  Do you also have to have a general interest activity?  Also can the activity be held on another weekday night rather than a weekend?   Surely, their needs to be flexibility in when these activities are held, and again mandating when is not good policy.

Cadet & senior members have other lives, and weekends may be reserved for other activities.

Hey I'm not in cadet programs, and this likely won't affect me greatly (I'll likely give them 4 to 6 hours, one weekend per quarter to help),  so good luck to all the cadet program guys & gals :clap:
RM
I don't think saying, in effect, that a squadron needs to do something outside of the regular weekly meeting once per month is overbearing, or dictating when things should happen. It doesn't even have to be a Saturday, that's just the example given. Exactly what type of activity is held is left open, allowing units to do what suits their needs best.


A.Member

Extremely poor wording of 2-5b.  It should simply read that "no CAP member may administer prescription or nonprescription medication to another member".  Of course, exceptions are not addressed...or maybe there are none? (the way I read it there are none).

The one weekend activity requirement per month is ridiculous as well.  Have one special activity is OK; defining when and/or how that activity should take place is not.

The rest of the changes are OK. 
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

DC

Quote from: A.Member on December 21, 2010, 03:55:15 AM
Extremely poor wording of 2-5b.  It should simply read that "no CAP member may not administer prescritpion or non-prescription medication to another member".  Of course, exceptions are not addressed...or maybe there are none? (the way I read it there are none).

The one weekend activity requirement per month is ridiculous as well.  Have one special activity is OK; defining when and/or how that activity should take place is not.

The rest of the changes are OK.
I think the spirit of the requirement allows for a little more flexibility than that, but, honestly, how often do activities other than regular meetings occur during the week?

A poor choice of wording on NHQs part, but not a huge problem for the vast majority of units, I think.

A.Member

Quote from: DC on December 21, 2010, 04:02:56 AM
Quote from: A.Member on December 21, 2010, 03:55:15 AM
Extremely poor wording of 2-5b.  It should simply read that "no CAP member may not administer prescription or nonprescription medication to another member".  Of course, exceptions are not addressed...or maybe there are none? (the way I read it there are none).

The one weekend activity requirement per month is ridiculous as well.  Have one special activity is OK; defining when and/or how that activity should take place is not.

The rest of the changes are OK.
I think the spirit of the requirement allows for a little more flexibility than that, but, honestly, how often do activities other than regular meetings occur during the week?

A poor choice of wording on NHQs part, but not a huge problem for the vast majority of units, I think.
Agreed but the problem I have is when issues such as this one are not explicitly defined.  The "spirit" of the regulation leaves much open to interpretation.  What is the "spirit"?  Your view of that spirit may differ greatly from mine.  That is the concern.  The reg should try to eliminate such interpretations whenever possible.  Flexibility by design may be OK in some cases but not in others.  My guess is the meds statement is derived from legal concerns, as such it should be stated more clearly.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

jimmydeanno

You think that a unit participating in 12 activities a YEAR is too much to ask?  To me, it actually sounds a little low to actually get anything done.

In reality, if the wing has 6 activities a year, the squadron only needs to come up with 6 more - whatever it may be: museum, air show, rocketry day, ES activity, drill team practice, orientation flight day, basic cadet training day, star gazing, radio controlled airplanes, paintball, firing range, hiking, sports day, communications training, bivouac, orienteering, community projects, SOMETHING! 

The point is that a cadet program with no activities is not a cadet program.  There are squadrons that do not do anything outside of their weekly meetings.  Their cadets are suffering. 

Additionally, based on exit surveys, one of the main reasons that cadets leave is because there isn't anything to do.  The majority of squadrons already do a lot and this isn't adding any additional burden on them, because they can piggy-back off other units activities, etc and still have it count.

The only burden that has been added is to under-performing units, every one else is just business as usual.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

jimmydeanno

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 21, 2010, 03:02:49 AM
So how long does that weekend activity have to be, 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours etc?

However long it is.  If it's serving lunch to the folks at the nursing home and it takes 2 hours, then it's two hours.  If it's manning a recruiting booth at an airshow, then it's probably 24.  It doesn't matter.


QuoteAlso do all cadets have to participate?

No.  However, without activities, cadets can't promote anyway.  If we don't provide the opportunity, they won't come anyway.

QuoteWhat if it is a "niche" type activity only e.g. rockets, computers, radio comms, astronomy/satellite viewing, ES ground team training?

Fine.  If that's what you want to do.

QuoteDo you also have to have a general interest activity?

Anyone planning and creating goals for a cadet program wouldn't limit their activities to only "niche" stuff.  But this is where being an experienced Cadet Programs Officer and attending TLC helps.  ;)

QuoteAlso can the activity be held on another weekday night rather than a weekend?   Surely, their needs to be flexibility in when these activities are held, and again mandating when is not good policy.

Sure.  The policy is to offer CAP activities sometime other than the 2.5 hours weekly.

QuoteCadet & senior members have other lives, and weekends may be reserved for other activities.

And most joined to do activities with CAP.  Offering activities doesn't mean that everyone has to attend every single one.  It also doesn't mean that the same person has to plan and execute every activity.  If the ES guy wants to have ES training, he can plan and run it.  Then, the AE guy can plan and execute a visit to an aviation museum, and so on.

QuoteHey I'm not in cadet programs, and this likely won't affect me greatly (I'll likely give them 4 to 6 hours, one weekend per quarter to help),  so good luck to all the cadet program guys & gals :clap:RM

Teaching a comms class once per quarter, or having a communications exercise would be a great asset to the cadets and seniors of your unit.  If you offer the class to others outside of your unit, you can also help satisfy their requirement to provide a monthly activity.  ;)

See how easy that was?  I think that you're over-thinking this...
[/quote]
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

Bluelakes 13

When I was reading the additions, I kept thinking to myself:
We did this,
We did this,
We did this...
(when I was a unit CC/DCC).
I guess that's why we got a unit citation.

My other part, the part that teaches TLC and sees how many units don't do this regularly, is thankful that it's in the regulation now.

And the RCLS lingo is in there too!  Woohoo!



Ned

Quote from: A.Member on December 21, 2010, 03:55:15 AM
Extremely poor wording of 2-5b.  It should simply read that "no CAP member may not administer prescription or nonprescription medication to another member".  Of course, exceptions are not addressed...or maybe there are none? (the way I read it there are none).


Non-concur.

This portion of the new regulation simply implements the basic policy directed by the NEC, and more completely described in the draft CAR 160-2 (see our previous discussion here on CT).

The new 160-2 will have all the necessary details, exceptions, etc. and provides essential guidance for members, leaders, and parents.


coudano

Quote from: A.Member on December 21, 2010, 03:55:15 AM
"no CAP member may not administer prescription or nonprescription medication to another member".

Is it nit picking to point out that this is a double negative?

SarDragon

Quote from: coudano on December 21, 2010, 05:32:26 AM
Quote from: A.Member on December 21, 2010, 03:55:15 AM
"no CAP member may not administer prescription or nonprescription medication to another member".

Is it nit picking to point out that this is a double negative?

No. As written, it makes no sense.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

NCRblues

I really enjoy on the slide show (cause that's all i have had a chance to read so far) when it talks about parents medication, it says have a parent come to the activity and administer it....

Uh....really?

So, what if this parent is a nonmember? Do we really allow a non screened person to just "chill" around other children during an activity?

What if the activity is weeks long? (NCSA's come to mine) Are we supposed to allow the parent to come along JUST to give out meds? (and again, what if the parent is a total nonmember.....)

Maybe its just the late hour, or the lunar eclipse but.....i might be crazy overthinking this...
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

A.Member

Quote from: coudano on December 21, 2010, 05:32:26 AM
Quote from: A.Member on December 21, 2010, 03:55:15 AM
"no CAP member may not administer prescription or nonprescription medication to another member".

Is it nit picking to point out that this is a double negative?
No.  However, more accurately, it's a typo. :)  I corrected the original post.  Thanks! 

My statement should've read:

"no CAP member may administer prescription or nonprescription medication to another member".
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

A.Member

Quote from: Ned on December 21, 2010, 05:12:30 AM
Quote from: A.Member on December 21, 2010, 03:55:15 AM
Extremely poor wording of 2-5b.  It should simply read that "no CAP member may not administer prescription or nonprescription medication to another member".  Of course, exceptions are not addressed...or maybe there are none? (the way I read it there are none).


Non-concur.

This portion of the new regulation simply implements the basic policy directed by the NEC, and more completely described in the draft CAR 160-2 (see our previous discussion here on CT).

The new 160-2 will have all the necessary details, exceptions, etc. and provides essential guidance for members, leaders, and parents.
How about most the people that haven't seen your discussion on CT (myself included)?  The reg makes no reference to 160-2.  If that is the intent, then it should be stated.  You can "non-concur" but it doesn't change the fact that it's poorly worded.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eclipse

^ This isn't a change in anything - CAP members were never allowed to administer meds to anyone, and the new 52-16 does not preclude
activity CC's from vetting cadet medical status, nor tracking that they take their meds.

As to the other stuff, talk about nit-picking - make sure you understand the term "should" in a CAP regulatory context.  That indicates a preferred situation, not a requirement.  I am a staunch advocate of TLC, and anything that brings more members to that table gets my support, but like most things in CAP that require adult initiative beyond the minimums, all we can do is "strongly suggest".

As to the weekend activities - if between unit/group/wing you can't find at least one non-meeting activity a week to offer your cadets, you do need some program adjustment.

As to O-Rides, Wings have always been the final delimiter on scheduling and coordination, since they have to approve the funding.  This may put some more pressure on the Wing O-Ride coordinators to be more proactive, but its not like the majority of effort still won't be in the unit CC's, who will still need to make sure the cadets actually show up.  I think the biggest problem with the 90 days is that this is an unfunded mandate for cadets who join in the late summer / early Fall, when the issue is not lack of interest or initiative, but lack of funding.

Military O-Rides are nearly non-existent in most parts of the country outside encampments, and it will be real interesting to see who wins the argument when a unit CC in mid-state nowhere with one new cadet says the wing has to ferry a plane for a single ride.  Have the ferry ratios been relaxed or eliminated?

The only thing in the new rev which is causing much concern in my wing is the removal of the ability to waive Part 1 of RST.  It doesn't affect the encampment I run, but does some other activities in the wing which have transient staff, which may need to run it almost daily, and for the full 2-sessions.

"That Others May Zoom"

Sleepwalker


  I think what is being referred to regarding meds are the cases where Senior Members have control of the Cadets' prescription meds during certain activities, and make sure that they take their proper dosages on time.  Appearently this practice will end in February.         
A Thiarna, déan trócaire

cap235629

Quote from: NCRblues on December 21, 2010, 07:29:21 AMSo, what if this parent is a nonmember? Do we really allow a non screened person to just "chill" around other children during an activity?

You cannot exclude a parent. Bad JUJU.
Bill Hobbs, Major, CAP
Arkansas Certified Emergency Manager
Tabhair 'om póg, is Éireannach mé

Eclipse

Quote from: cap235629 on December 22, 2010, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on December 21, 2010, 07:29:21 AMSo, what if this parent is a nonmember? Do we really allow a non screened person to just "chill" around other children during an activity?

You cannot exclude a parent. Bad JUJU.

Non members are non-participants.  They don't "hang around", juju or no.

Period.

"That Others May Zoom"

NCRblues

Quote from: cap235629 on December 22, 2010, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on December 21, 2010, 07:29:21 AMSo, what if this parent is a nonmember? Do we really allow a non screened person to just "chill" around other children during an activity?

You cannot exclude a parent. Bad JUJU.

So lets say this activity is a NCSA, heck for giggles ill say its one you all love  >:D NBB.

Now a cadet puts in his application, get accepted, but the parents do not feel he is ready to handle his own medication. So with E.O. and the law suit happy world we live in, we must allow this cadet to attend. What about the parent though? I refuse to let a non screened person around children.

It's all good that they have a child in CAP, but just because you have a kid in CAP does not mean that the parent is an angel.

So for the whole 2 weeks beret is going on, do we allow the parent to just "come and go" and give medication, or do we allow them to be on compound with the cadets?

I don't see a win/win here....at best I see a minor hassle with scheduling around medication time...at worst well, i don't know....

So, do we say no to the cadet, no to the parent, or let it happen and pray the parent is a nice person?
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

MICT1362

/\
I can see that already. Person walks up to the gate guard.

**The following is a dramatization, not every parent is like this, but I have seen similar.**

Parent: "Uh, hello, I need you to open the gate, I have to give snuffy his medication."
Gate Guard: "Uh, what, huh, who are you again? Who are you looking for?"
Parent: Not that its any of your business, but I'm his/her parent, now open the gate please."
Gate Guard: "Do you have an ID badge?"
Parent: "I don't need one, I have his medication."
Gate Guard: "I'm going to have to contact the Activity Director and see what they want to do."

Parent then gets frustrated and tells the AD that the gate guard was rude and yelled at them causing the cadet to get into trouble for doing their job.

WONDERFUL! ::)

-Paramedic

SamFranklin

You guys over-complicate things.

(1)  Encampment CC or NCSA CC sends the usual welcome letter to cadets / parents.  It includes a few words about the self-medication policy.  "Hey mom, this activity is for young adults, so you'll want to make sure your kid can self-medicate. Please call Capt Jones if you have concerns."

(2)  If mom insists on attending, fine, but I bet that won't happen for more than 1 cadet in a thousand. We've got nothing to hide, so parents being involved is a good thing.

-- Mom can come during the day and per CAPR 52-10 can interact with cadets even without being screened if a screened senior is present. One senior would of course be present anyway.

-- Encampment CC or NCSA CC also tells mom that the DoD facility won't let her thru the gate unless she is a CAP member, so she'll want to become a CSM if she's intent on attending even part-time.

(3)  The NBB example above is a red herring because cadets need to complete encapment before going to NCSAs. If the cadet made it through encampment, I bet he's ok for NBB.

It's common sense. The self-med policy isn't the end of the world. Moreover, I dunno about you, but I'm confident that I have enough leadership skill to calm a worrisome mom and make her feel good about our great activities.

Eclipse

Quote from: NCRblues on December 22, 2010, 09:31:17 PM
Now a cadet puts in his application, get accepted, but the parents do not feel he is ready to handle his own medication. So with E.O. and the law suit happy world we live in, we must allow this cadet to attend. What about the parent though? I refuse to let a non screened person around children.

EO is not applicable here because refusal to allow participation would not be based on the cadet's status in a protected class.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: magoo on December 22, 2010, 10:44:14 PM-- Mom can come during the day and per CAPR 52-10 can interact with cadets even without being screened if a screened senior is present. One senior would of course be present anyway.

How do you figure?  Past the CPPT issues, non members aren't allowed to just "hang around", for starters it is a disruption of the
training environment.

Encampments and large activities are not unit meetings, either you're on staff or you're not there.

"That Others May Zoom"

NCRblues

Quote from: magoo on December 22, 2010, 10:44:14 PM
You guys over-complicate things.

(1)  Encampment CC or NCSA CC sends the usual welcome letter to cadets / parents.  It includes a few words about the self-medication policy.  "Hey mom, this activity is for young adults, so you'll want to make sure your kid can self-medicate. Please call Capt Jones if you have concerns."

(2)  If mom insists on attending, fine, but I bet that won't happen for more than 1 cadet in a thousand. We've got nothing to hide, so parents being involved is a good thing.

-- Mom can come during the day and per CAPR 52-10 can interact with cadets even without being screened if a screened senior is present. One senior would of course be present anyway.

-- Encampment CC or NCSA CC also tells mom that the DoD facility won't let her thru the gate unless she is a CAP member, so she'll want to become a CSM if she's intent on attending even part-time.

(3)  The NBB example above is a red herring because cadets need to complete encapment before going to NCSAs. If the cadet made it through encampment, I bet he's ok for NBB.

It's common sense. The self-med policy isn't the end of the world. Moreover, I dunno about you, but I'm confident that I have enough leadership skill to calm a worrisome mom and make her feel good about our great activities.

1. Yes, they do send out the letter. Lets all be honest here. Most of the parents don't read them, and I would say 45% of parents use CAP as a baby sitting tool. Its (sometimes) cheaper than an actual babysitter.

2. Once again, 1 in a whole NCSA. That seems like a small number, but (using my NBB example) we barley have enough staff on hand (because of budget restraints and sleeping area's at a minimum) and sometimes (well most of the time) the cadets are unsupervised (by a SM, cadet staff is present) in the barricks and around compound. So mom would have to follow her sons tac around ALL day....then we get into the actual mission week of NBB. (I'm just using NBB as an example, insert your own here if you feel you need to). Only CAP members can be on AF mission's. We have had cadets need to take medication once an hour before, so, conceivable mom would then have to follow the flight around ELT hunting? I'm 100% sure the AF is not going to allow that one to go down. (mom slips and falls, is not covered under insurance...BAM lawsuit)

2a. 52-10 says that people instructing cadets are allowed to come while being supervised. It makes no mention of mom or dad in the provision you are talking about. A member is screened, mom and dad are not. Its that simple. I will not allow mom or dad to just "chill" around the rest of the kids.

3. Encampments are for a large majority of time, classroom marching and inspections. Most NCSA are more than that, and (using my example again) NBB is far....very far from that. Just because you make it through an encampment does not mean in anyway shape or form you are ready for NCSA.

We can be the best speakers in the world, we can move mountains with words, but find the one mom who wont let her "baby go play soldier" without her presence well....good luck.

I do not believe this "self medication" idea was really thought about. I think the legal eagles said this is good, it will keep us from getting in trouble and BAM it was done.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Ned

Quote from: NCRblues on December 23, 2010, 02:53:20 AM
I do not believe this "self medication" idea was really thought about. I think the legal eagles said this is good, it will keep us from getting in trouble and BAM it was done.

Oh come on, don't be silly.

The orignial committee work was done with multiple Spaatz cadets(one of whom has an MD), including the National Cadet Advisor, on board.  It was only AFTER this committee did their work that the legal guys got to take a look.  (And they unanimously approved, BTW).  It had extensive input from the corporate CP staff, most of whom also have Spaatz awards.

Then it went to the NEC, the majority of whom are keenly familiar with the CP, as well as the operational aspects of large CAP activities.  After close examination and public input from all the stakeholders (including, BTW, extensive discussions here on CT and on CS), the NEC established the policy on medications, and directed that it be incorporated into our regulations.

Which includes the 52-16 and the upcoming CAPR 160-2, Cadet Medications, which is in final coordination.

You may agree or disagree with some or all of our CAP policies (which is fine, of course), but it would be a grave error to suggest that the policy on cadet medications was done with little or no thought or study; or that this is somehow driven by "legal beagles" instead of it being a reasoned response to concerns raised by experienced CP leaders in the field.

Just saying . . .


BGNightfall

I fully think that NHQ is right to draw a line on this particular issue.  It may seem like common sense that senior members should be able to provide a cadet with a pill and a glass of water, but how many senior members are comfortable with measuring out a shot of insulin and injecting a cadet before every meal?  Or with giving a cadet a suppository?  Not to be morbid or obscene, but these are very real possibilities.

When it comes to cadets, the burden is on us as the leaders of the cadets to educate the parents (especially parents of cadets that require special attention) on the nature of our regulations in this or any regard.  Preferably before they sign on the application to send their cadets to encampment, to an NCSA or even to an overnight squadron activity. 

Why wait for a letter from the encampment commander when the senior members at the local squadron can discuss the issue in person? 

MICT1362

Ned,

As a Health Care Professional, and after ten years in CAP, I still don't think that cadet self medication is 100% smart.  With the amount and variety of medications being prescribed today, this can become a huge problem.  Can some cadets handle it, sure, but others can't, and that is where the problem will start.  I don't mind cadets physically taking their own medications, but they don't need to keep them.

I saw absolutely no problem with having the medications collected at inprocessing and being held for the cadet.  The Medical Officer would simply note when a cadet needed to take medications and check boxes that they came and took them as appropriate.  This kept medications from being passed around the barracks like candy.  I am not saying that this happens all the time, but it only takes one time of a cadet getting ahold of something that they didn't know they were allergic too.  The Medical Officer is not administering medication, they are simply safe guarding the property of one cadet from another. 

How far behind are we in processing input from the field?  If I suggested that something needed to be changed today, it would take a while to get to the field.  I would say that some items even take years of deliberation in the office before the field hears again.  Admittedly my numbers are probably off, but what I'm trying to say is that the problem today wont get solved tomorrow.  So are the Spaatzen and Dr's working off of what they saw 10 years ago, because as a CP leader at the squadron level, I don't know that our input makes it that far.  I fear that we get lost in the shuffle.

It is impossible, IMO, to find a perfect solution to this problem, but I still do not know that our current stance is the best answer. 

As always, I respect your position in the organization and the experience that you as well as the rest of the NHQ team have.  It is impossible to please everyone and I will follow the regulation as set forth by NHQ, but you are correct in saying that I do not have to like or agree with it.  As such I will not utilize my professional background and serve as a Medical Officer at activities other than in a life or death situation.  I fear that if something happens, the entire thing would end up thrown in my lap, and that isn't something that I can afford to do. 

So, such is life that we continue to have something to discuss on CT.  What would we all do if we had nothing to discuss?

-Paramedic


manfredvonrichthofen

Quote from: MICT1362 on December 23, 2010, 04:04:35 AM
As a Health Care Professional, and after ten years in CAP, I still don't think that cadet self medication is 100% smart.  With the amount and variety of medications being prescribed today, this can become a huge problem.  Can some cadets handle it, sure, but others can't, and that is where the problem will start.

Read the regulation again, as well as the previous posts. If a cadet's parents don't think that their cadet is ready or capable of self medication then it is their responsibility to ensure that there is a method of administering the medication that they deem safe. If that means the cadet's parents attend in order to administer the medication then that is what needs to be done. It should not be the responsibility of a SM to shoot a cadet in the arm with insulin. The problem with a SM administering insulin and other such medications is that even though we may know the cadet very well, we still might not know the proper dosage for this or that situation, and we may accidentally make things worse for the cadet. Do you want to accidentally give a cadet too much insulin do you? Doesn't matter what, there is the possibility that you could medicate wrong. Admittedly there is the possibility that a cadet could do the same thing to them self, but it is less likely to happen.

NCRblues

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 23, 2010, 04:17:49 AM
Quote from: MICT1362 on December 23, 2010, 04:04:35 AM
As a Health Care Professional, and after ten years in CAP, I still don't think that cadet self medication is 100% smart.  With the amount and variety of medications being prescribed today, this can become a huge problem.  Can some cadets handle it, sure, but others can't, and that is where the problem will start.

Read the regulation again, as well as the previous posts. If a cadet's parents don't think that their cadet is ready or capable of self medication then it is their responsibility to ensure that there is a method of administering the medication that they deem safe. If that means the cadet's parents attend in order to administer the medication then that is what needs to be done. It should not be the responsibility of a SM to shoot a cadet in the arm with insulin. The problem with a SM administering insulin and other such medications is that even though we may know the cadet very well, we still might not know the proper dosage for this or that situation, and we may accidentally make things worse for the cadet. Do you want to accidentally give a cadet too much insulin do you? Doesn't matter what, there is the possibility that you could medicate wrong. Admittedly there is the possibility that a cadet could do the same thing to them self, but it is less likely to happen.

It is less likely a minor child, being rushed to get back to training and not miss anything with his friends will give him/herself a little to much, compared to a certified paramedic or nurse or doctor, which most of the medical officers are in cap?

So your saying a paramedic will mess up a simple insulin injection more than a child?
Just wanted to make sure that's what you are saying.

Also when do we draw the line? How many parents are we going to allow to come to an activity before it is to many and the activity cannot proceed?

Once again, i stress that most activity's struggle to provide the minimum amount of SM staff, let alone, ones to watch non members mommys and daddy's when they are around other cadets. Nonmembers don't get to come and play. They are not cleared to work with other kids, sorry but that's a no go, not only in my book, but the regs as well. Noncleared don't get to play.


Ned, I really appreciated your answers and have a great repsect for you sir, but i think on this issue you are....for lack of a better term "towing the party line" a little to much here.

The input from the field you speak of....i was never asked (been in or around CP for 11 years as of last October). I have asked almost every DCC in the wing and they were never asked on this issue. I have also asked a lot of the medical officers in the wing and they were never asked, so...where was the public input? I guess they asked everyone in other wings except mine then?

I'm not trying to be a smart *&^ but, can anyone cite one instance where a SM holding the medication for a MINOR child resulted in something bad?
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Ned

Quote from: NCRblues on December 23, 2010, 04:41:07 AM
'm not trying to be a smart *&^ but, can anyone cite one instance where a SM holding the medication for a MINOR child resulted in something bad?

Easy to do.

I have  personally seen such things.

I have read the investigation of an incident concerning a cadet who took ADD/ADHD drugs "as needed."  At an encampment, his drugs were seized at inprocessing, and passed along to his tac for "safekeeping."  The cadet decided that it was some sort of a sign of weakness to ask his tac for his meds, since it would suggest that he wasn't tough enough to make it through encampment like his team mates.  The unmedicated cadert experienced an "acute incident" and experienced a complete breakdown, resulting in his parents having to drive hours to pick him up mid week.  The parents very reasonably asked why their 16 year old cadet was not allowed to keep his own medications instead of having the tac serve as a gatekeeper.  The parents felt that if the cadet had had his own medication, he would not have been intimidated, and would likely have taken the meds when he needed them.  Just like he did at home and school.

I have read the investigation concerning a squadron weekend camp out where the parents delivered their child and his medication to the senior checking troops in at the squadron headquarters.  The senior took possession of the ADD/ADHD meds (there is a bit of a trend here), but as it turned out this particular senior was only checking the troops in and was not actually going out into the field.  The senior inadvertantly did not pass the meds along to the seniors going into the field.  The unmedicated cadet misbehaved and acted out sexually on Saturday night.

I have served as a tactical officer at a large wing's encampment that often has 20-25 cadets per flight.  As the tac, it was not unusual  for me to tote around two dozen different medications for 10-15 different cadets.  Each with a different dose and schedule.  I like to think of myself as a conscientious officer, and I bet I got the dosages at least 95% correct.  Of course, that is still 5% wrong.

On the other hand, even after carefully checking we could not find a single documented incident of inappropriate drug sharing by cadets.  Lots of anecdotal accounts ("I heard from a friend who heard from the DCP that in 1998 in XXwg, there were these cadets selling Ritalin in the latrine . . . "), but no verified incidents.  In the thousands of CAP encampments held since WWII, it may well have happened, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is a real problem.

And yes, it is my job to "tow the company line," especially when the "company line" is not only correct, but the actual mandatory policy ordered by the NEC.


BGNightfall

Quote from: NCRblues on December 23, 2010, 04:41:07 AM

It is less likely a minor child, being rushed to get back to training and not miss anything with his friends will give him/herself a little to much, compared to a certified paramedic or nurse or doctor, which most of the medical officers are in cap?

So your saying a paramedic will mess up a simple insulin injection more than a child?
Just wanted to make sure that's what you are saying.



How many medical officers do we actually have in CAP?  Does every wing have one?  Not trying to be accusatory, but these are relevant questions.  Do we have enough to require them on every overnight or all day activity? 

Having said that, I also agree with you that non-cleared don't get to come play, and that senior members have enough on their plate without watching the parents too. 

What I would say instead is that issues like this should be discussed with the parents or guardians by the squadron/flight level leadership long before we have uncleared parents traipsing around our encampments.  If the parent does not feel confident that their child can self-administer, then ideas such as cadet sponsor membership can be discussed.

Honestly, I'm okay with deciding with a parent that their child should wait before going to encampment, if the parent doesn't want their child self-administering and they don't wish to join for their own reasons.  If that means that Cadet Snuffy misses out on overnight activities, or encampment, until he's 16, or even 18, I can live with that. 

Eclipse

Quote from: Ned on December 23, 2010, 05:22:59 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on December 23, 2010, 04:41:07 AM
'm not trying to be a smart *&^ but, can anyone cite one instance where a SM holding the medication for a MINOR child resulted in something bad?

Easy to do.

I have  personally seen such things.

I have read the investigation of an incident concerning a cadet who took ADD/ADHD drugs "as needed."  At an encampment, his drugs were seized at inprocessing, and passed along to his tac for "safekeeping."  The cadet decided that it was some sort of a sign of weakness to ask his tac for his meds, since it would suggest that he wasn't tough enough to make it through encampment like his team mates.  The unmedicated cadert experienced an "acute incident" and experienced a complete breakdown, resulting in his parents having to drive hours to pick him up mid week.  The parents very reasonably asked why their 16 year old cadet was not allowed to keep his own medications instead of having the tac serve as a gatekeeper.  The parents felt that if the cadet had had his own medication, he would not have been intimidated, and would likely have taken the meds when he needed them.  Just like he did at home and school.

I have read the investigation concerning a squadron weekend camp out where the parents delivered their child and his medication to the senior checking troops in at the squadron headquarters.  The senior took possession of the ADD/ADHD meds (there is a bit of a trend here), but as it turned out this particular senior was only checking the troops in and was not actually going out into the field.  The senior inadvertantly did not pass the meds along to the seniors going into the field.  The unmedicated cadet misbehaved and acted out sexually on Saturday night.

I have served as a tactical officer at a large wing's encampment that often has 20-25 cadets per flight.  As the tac, it was not unusual  for me to tote around two dozen different medications for 10-15 different cadets.  Each with a different dose and schedule.  I like to think of myself as a conscientious officer, and I bet I got the dosages at least 95% correct.  Of course, that is still 5% wrong.

On the other hand, even after carefully checking we could not find a single documented incident of inappropriate drug sharing by cadets.  Lots of anecdotal accounts ("I heard from a friend who heard from the DCP that in 1998 in XXwg, there were these cadets selling Ritalin in the latrine . . . "), but no verified incidents.  In the thousands of CAP encampments held since WWII, it may well have happened, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is a real problem.

And yes, it is my job to "tow the company line," especially when the "company line" is not only correct, but the actual mandatory policy ordered by the NEC.

So...

Three incidents of inappropriate staffing and behavior changes the system?

Drug sharing is not the issue - not taking them is.  I have several personal, hands-on examples.

IMHO TAC officers have no business handling meds, if it is going to be done, it needs to be a dedicated person or staff with no other duties for exactly the reasons indicated above.

"That Others May Zoom"

Ned

Quote from: Eclipse on December 23, 2010, 06:05:36 AM
So...

Three incidents of inappropriate staffing and behavior changes the system?

Drug sharing is not the issue - not taking them is.  I have several personal, hands-on examples.

Bob,

You're normally a little better at following these threads and responding responsibly than this would indicate.

I was asked to "cite one instance", so I did.  I was not asked to cite "all incidents" (or whatever you were gleefully refuting here.)

And if you take a moment and re-read this thread, you will see a lot of folks who were specifically concerned with drug sharing, which is what I was responding to.

As it turns out, I agree with you.  Based on my research, drug-sharing is not an issue.  And I also agree that "not taking them" is the primary issue.

The difference between us is that you believe that seizing and reissuing the drugs prevents the non-taking, and the NEC believes that seizing and reissuing causes at least some of the non-taking.

I've cited at least a couple of incidents where "seize and reissue" has caused the problem.  Perhaps you would care to share your evidence that "seize and reissue" has prevented some non-taking.



coudano

it's mis-taking that is the real problem
not only non-taking, but also unsupervised overdosing.

I would also purport to you that drug stealing/sharing/selling has not been an issue, because by in large, drugs have not been present in the general population, historically.  When you let/make cadets tote their stuff around, I suspect you will see incidents rise.


manfredvonrichthofen

I would suggest an inspection of medication, make sure that the medication has a legitimate prescription along with the inspection should be a drug book that is up to date so that the pill/applicator can be confirmed as to what it is as closely as possible by the medical officer. At the same time a questionnaire form should be filled out making sure the cadet knows what the drug is for and the correct dosage that should be taken. I agree that every measure should be taken to ensure the safety of cadets while self medicating.

Ned

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 23, 2010, 07:51:33 AM
I would suggest an inspection of medication, make sure that the medication has a legitimate prescription along with the inspection should be a drug book that is up to date so that the pill/applicator can be confirmed as to what it is as closely as possible by the medical officer.

Out of curiosity, how does one verify that the medication "has a legitimate prescription?"

Cadet:  "Sir, here is my bottle of erthromycin that I take for acne."

Senior: "Well, that sure looks like a prescription bottle to me.  Look, it has a child safety cap and everything.  And there is a doctor's name on it and pharmacy phone number, too.  Let me send you along to the medical officer (a podiatrist) who will look at the pill and decide if it looks like ethromycin or any one of the other 10,000 possible pills out there.  I hope she brought her PDR."

"It says here you should take it 'three times daily, with meals.'  So, cadet, how often should you be taking the pill?"

Cadet: "Three times daily, sir.  With Meals."


Senior:  "Fine, then, off you go."

SamFranklin

What precisely constitutes a "meal"? The regulation doesn't say.

Eclipse

Quote from: Ned on December 23, 2010, 05:20:57 PM
Out of curiosity, how does one verify that the medication "has a legitimate prescription?"

The parents and unit CC sign the Form 31 which indicates that Johnny takes "x".  If Johnny shows up with "y", we start making calls.

If both the parents and the unit CC are going to commit fraud either by commission or negligence, there isn't much we can do about it,
but that is basically the same situation law enforcement is in during the initial check.

Prescription-y bottle with person's name, no reason to suspect otherwise, move along.

"That Others May Zoom"

manfredvonrichthofen

Quote from: Ned on December 23, 2010, 05:20:57 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 23, 2010, 07:51:33 AM
I would suggest an inspection of medication, make sure that the medication has a legitimate prescription along with the inspection should be a drug book that is up to date so that the pill/applicator can be confirmed as to what it is as closely as possible by the medical officer.

Out of curiosity, how does one verify that the medication "has a legitimate prescription?"

Cadet:  "Sir, here is my bottle of erthromycin that I take for acne."

Senior: "Well, that sure looks like a prescription bottle to me.  Look, it has a child safety cap and everything.  And there is a doctor's name on it and pharmacy phone number, too.  Let me send you along to the medical officer (a podiatrist) who will look at the pill and decide if it looks like ethromycin or any one of the other 10,000 possible pills out there.  I hope she brought her PDR."

"It says here you should take it 'three times daily, with meals.'  So, cadet, how often should you be taking the pill?"

Cadet: "Three times daily, sir.  With Meals."


Senior:  "Fine, then, off you go."
Really? Here is the post again.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 23, 2010, 07:51:33 AM
I would suggest an inspection of medication, make sure that the medication has a legitimate prescription along with the inspection should be a drug book that is up to date so that the pill/applicator can be confirmed as to what it is as closely as possible by the medical officer. At the same time a questionnaire form should be filled out making sure the cadet knows what the drug is for and the correct dosage that should be taken. I agree that every measure should be taken to ensure the safety of cadets while self medicating.
Have you heard of "The Big Drug Book"? It is awesome and can be bought at Barnes and Noble or Borders and anyplace else that sells books. It tells you what pills look like what. How do you confirm what an active prescription is? It is so simple, just look at the pill bottle, it tells when the medication was prescribed and when the prescription is up, who prescribed the meds to who, and how it is to be taken. Why if you are making sure that a cadet knows how to take it would you read the bottle to him/her and then ask them to just regurgitate it to them? While you are reading the bottle, ask "How are you supposed to take this medication?" It is too simple to ensure the cadet has a current prescription and that they know how to take it correctly not to do it and do it right. I'm no doctor and even I know these things, why? Because I won't let my kids take medication that I am unfamiliar with.

By the way, not everything with a child proof cap is a prescription. It takes just a couple of seconds of reading.

Ned

No worries.

If all you really meant by "making sure the medication has a legitimate prescription" is to have a tactical officer or some other responsible CAP officer simply look at the bottle  to see if anything looks unusual, then that should work out fine.  Which was my point.

That kind of common-sense approach is a good thing, and happens at CAP activities all the time.  With or without additional the additional guidance provided by the regulation.

We can't go crazy with attempting to verify prescriptions with health care providers or spend hours staring at somebody's pills and squinting at one of 10,000 illustrations in the Big Drug Book or PDR as a matter of routine.

Phil Hirons, Jr.

From the way the latter half of this thread reads you would think the medication issue was the only change to 52-16. If memory serves this is the inclusion of a change made by ICL months ago.  ::)

Eclipse

Quote from: phirons on December 23, 2010, 08:05:55 PM
From the way the latter half of this thread reads you would think the medication issue was the only change to 52-16. If memory serves this is the inclusion of a change made by ICL months ago.

A year ago, actually, effective Jan 1 2010.

"That Others May Zoom"

manfredvonrichthofen

Quote from: phirons on December 23, 2010, 08:05:55 PM
From the way the latter half of this thread reads you would think the medication issue was the only change to 52-16. If memory serves this is the inclusion of a change made by ICL months ago.  ::)

Part of the reason that this is probably the biggest item that pertains to safety. I think everyone can agree that we are safety minded people, it is one of the most important aspects of special activities and we know it. That is why this has been the main point of discussion lately.

Agreed, we can't be calling physicians and all that jumble, but we can do our best to ensure what our cadets have on them.

EMT-83

Quote from: Eclipse on December 23, 2010, 08:42:42 PM
Quote from: phirons on December 23, 2010, 08:05:55 PM
From the way the latter half of this thread reads you would think the medication issue was the only change to 52-16. If memory serves this is the inclusion of a change made by ICL months ago.
A year ago, actually, effective Jan 1 2010.

Just curious, what (if any) incidents have occurred since the ICL went into effect?

After all, it's been an entire encampment / NCSA cycle.

Hawk200

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 23, 2010, 09:19:26 PM
Agreed, we can't be calling physicians and all that jumble, but we can do our best to ensure what our cadets have on them.
I don't even think it would take a whole lot of verification. My latest prescription from the VA actually describes the medication, including what's marked on the pills themselves. So did the last bottle.

I don't find it real practical to have someone verifying. That's where you get into the funny concepts of what constitutes "possession." I find it practical for someone at the encampment to know a cadet is on meds, and what they are, but I don't think verifying physically each med is appropriate, and could potentially could cause some legal issues. Best to just have a list, and be done with it. No reason to create more work that isn't necessary.

onetimeoneplace

A little thing that I found in the new 52-16 (which wasn't present in the 2006 version):

Quote8-7. Region Cadet Leadership Schools

a. Curriculum. Minimum curricula standards are found at capmembers.com/rcls.

Going to capmembers.com/rcls:

QuoteCurriculum -  RCLS curriculum is being developed with an eye towards equivalency with COS.  Curriculum will be posted here in 2011.

Does this mean that every RCLS from now on has to follow the standards set by National that are similar to COS? I was just wondering, with all the talk about a "new CLS" and using RCLS as an encampment feeder.
(http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11453.0 - thread regarding the standards and using RCLS as an encampment feeder)
C/Capt Isaac McDermott, CAP
PAWG Basic Encampment 2009, Staff 2011 (PAO), Staff 2013 (Inspections)
Pennsylvania Wing
Tri-Wing Encampment Staff 2013 (Public Affairs OIC)
GTM3, UDF, MRO, FLM
NJWG RCLS 2010
Mitchell #60963
National Blue Beret 2010 + 2012, SUPTFC-MS 2012
Earhart #15947
Cadet Officer School 2013

Eclipse

Quote from: onetimeoneplace on January 01, 2011, 03:08:04 AM
Does this mean that every RCLS from now on has to follow the standards set by National that are similar to COS? I was just wondering, with all the talk about a "new CLS" and using RCLS as an encampment feeder.
(http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11453.0 - thread regarding the standards and using RCLS as an encampment feeder)

Yes.

"That Others May Zoom"

caphornbuckle

I have a question for those who have issues with this regulation:

Where were you when this was put in Draft form and available for comments?

Did you offer your input through your chain of command your concerns about specific paragraphs?

This is why we have issues with most of our publications.  Most of us don't take the time to read the Draft form and review it for items of concern.
Lt Col Samuel L. Hornbuckle, CAP

manfredvonrichthofen

Quote from: caphornbuckle on January 01, 2011, 04:56:10 AM
I have a question for those who have issues with this regulation:

Where were you when this was put in Draft form and available for comments?

Did you offer your input through your chain of command your concerns about specific paragraphs?

This is why we have issues with most of our publications.  Most of us don't take the time to read the Draft form and review it for items of concern.
When they are put out in draft form for review, where do you find them at?

Eclipse

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 01, 2011, 05:46:52 PM
Quote from: caphornbuckle on January 01, 2011, 04:56:10 AM
I have a question for those who have issues with this regulation:

Where were you when this was put in Draft form and available for comments?

Did you offer your input through your chain of command your concerns about specific paragraphs?

This is why we have issues with most of our publications.  Most of us don't take the time to read the Draft form and review it for items of concern.
When they are put out in draft form for review, where do you find them at?

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/publications_for_comment.cfm

Right now 62-1 & 2 are sitting for comment.

Generally a notice is sent via the RSS feeds, posted on the blog, and emails sent via the chain (I was asked for comment directly).
In this case, 52-16 was open for comment officially in July, however the procedures regard meds were changed last fall at the board meeting, effective 1 Jan 2010.

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

When they start allowing all CAP members to submit comments on draft regulations directly to whoever at NHQ is coordinating the draft I will begin to believe that they are truly interested in receiving them.  Getting comments through the chain of command does not work and isn't necessary. 

If you're proposing to change a regulation, yes it should go through the chain, but review periods are there to catch minor mistakes or to reveal that somebody overlooked some major problem in the changes being proposed. 

Ned

Quote from: RiverAux on January 01, 2011, 09:26:24 PM
When they start allowing all CAP members to submit comments on draft regulations directly to whoever at NHQ is coordinating the draft I will begin to believe that they are truly interested in receiving them.  Getting comments through the chain of command does not work and isn't necessary. 

Well, I guess I'm sorry your chain of command let you down, but I am here to tell you that CP, at least, is vitally ineterested in feedback on proposed reguations.  Really, really.  We know that the folks in the field know far more than we will ever- know about implementing the program at the local level.

We received dozens of comments of the draft 52-16 and formulated responses to each of them..(We incorporated some suggested changes and declined to make some of the suggested changes while stating why we should not make that particular suggested change.)

But don't confuse any intertia in your chain of commande with a lack of a sincere desire from input from your national CP crew.



RiverAux

Oh, I don't really doubt that the NHQ programs folks would be interested in getting comments, especially those that would save them some embarrassment, but they aren't part of the chain of command that the comments are supposed to go through.  Any comments they get are only the ones that interested commanders through about 4-5 levels bothered to pass along. 

As a great sage said recently in another thread about trying to get uniform change suggestions through the chain of command:
QuoteSo, practically speaking, anyone with a uniform idea would be best served by buttonholing the wing commander at a hospitality room rather than patiently submitting something through staff channels and waiting for feedback.

It shouldn't be that way of course.  But there it is.
Same way with draft regulation comments. 

A.Member

Quote from: caphornbuckle on January 01, 2011, 04:56:10 AM
I have a question for those who have issues with this regulation:

Where were you when this was put in Draft form and available for comments?

Did you offer your input through your chain of command your concerns about specific paragraphs?

This is why we have issues with most of our publications.  Most of us don't take the time to read the Draft form and review it for items of concern.
Yes.  In addition, there was a thread posted here over the summer to raise visibility.  It is a mistake on your part to presume that because people may still have questions that feedback was not provided. 
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Ozzy

Has anybody realized the new 52-16 doesn't mention the cadet First Sergeant? (Well, other then in an example on SMART Goals)
Ozyilmaz, MSgt, CAP
C/Lt. Colonel (Ret.)
NYWG Encampment 07, 08, 09, 10, 17
CTWG Encampment 09, 11, 16
NER Cadet Leadership School 10
GAWG Encampment 18, 19
FLWG Winter Encampment 19

Ron1319

Did this just go away?

"c. Failure to Progress.  Cadets who fail to progress in the Cadet Program by completing
at least two achievements per year may be terminated from the program (see CAPR 35-3,
Membership Termination)."

Was that intentional?  Is there intended to be no minimum standard for cadet program progress with the new 52-16?
Ronald Thompson, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander, Squadron 85, Placerville, CA
PCR-CA-273
Spaatz #1319

A.Member

Quote from: Ron1319 on January 07, 2011, 06:22:46 AM
Did this just go away?

"c. Failure to Progress.  Cadets who fail to progress in the Cadet Program by completing
at least two achievements per year may be terminated from the program (see CAPR 35-3,
Membership Termination)."

Was that intentional?  Is there intended to be no minimum standard for cadet program progress with the new 52-16?
Good catch, Ron.   I missed that.  I'd like an answer to your question as well.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

coudano

Quote from: A.Member on January 07, 2011, 06:42:35 AM
Quote from: Ron1319 on January 07, 2011, 06:22:46 AM
Did this just go away?

"c. Failure to Progress.  Cadets who fail to progress in the Cadet Program by completing
at least two achievements per year may be terminated from the program (see CAPR 35-3,
Membership Termination)."

Was that intentional?  Is there intended to be no minimum standard for cadet program progress with the new 52-16?
Good catch, Ron.   I missed that.  I'd like an answer to your question as well.

Tricksy draft editors...
You gotta watch those guys pretty close... :)

This is still in 35-3
Quote from: CAPR 35-3b. Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program.

The justification i've heard is that the first sergeant position doesn't fit in 52-16 because no other staff position is there...
And that the 52-16 is the inappropriate place to authorize the diamond (that should be in 39-1)
--which incidentally I agree with, but until they fix it, it is apparently de-autho

The justification for removing this line from 52-16 probably goes something like "that belongs in 35-3, it's out of scope of 52-16".  Incidentally I have a cadet in hot water on the 'twice a year' thing right now (I actually enforce it).  I guess on Feb 1st, it stops becoming a hard standard, and becomes open to commander's discretion...

Bobble

Quote from: A.Member on January 07, 2011, 06:42:35 AM
Quote from: Ron1319 on January 07, 2011, 06:22:46 AM
Did this just go away?

"c. Failure to Progress.  Cadets who fail to progress in the Cadet Program by completing
at least two achievements per year may be terminated from the program (see CAPR 35-3,
Membership Termination)."

Was that intentional?  Is there intended to be no minimum standard for cadet program progress with the new 52-16?
Good catch, Ron.   I missed that.  I'd like an answer to your question as well.

Well, I suppose if the Squadron Commanders and Cadet Programs Officers are going to be required to "make reasonable accommodations" and/or adhere to IEP's for cadets with special educational needs -

5-6. Cadets With Special Needs.

"CAP will make reasonable accommodations for cadets who have special educational
needs. Unit commanders may authorize testing accommodations at their discretion.
Examples of accommodations include testing orally, extending time limits, dividing the test
into segments, and reducing the choices on a multiple-choice test.

Before authorizing an accommodation, the unit commander should discuss the cadet's
needs with the cadet's parents. Most schools use an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) to support special needs students. If a parent choose to share the IEP information with CAP, the unit commander will adhere to all reasonable accommodations set forth in the IEP.
If the commander and the cadet's parents disagree about the need for reasonable
accommodations, wing headquarters will mediate and is authorized to mandate testing
accommodations, if warranted."


- then you're probably better off not having any hard and fast rules about what constitutes failure to progress within the cadet program.

I understand where folks want to be inclusive and a part of that whole 'mainstreaming' way of thinking prevalent in our public education system, but to me it sort of takes away a lot of the cachet of the program when cadets are treated differently in how they are allowed to test for progression.  "Reducing the choices on a multiple choice test"? I thought we had a level playing field, but it looks like we're headed for the "Everybody Is A Winner" mode of operation.
R. Litzke, Capt, CAP
NER-NY-153

"Men WILL wear underpants."

Ned

Quote from: coudano on January 07, 2011, 02:41:48 PM
The justification for removing this line from 52-16 probably goes something like "that belongs in 35-3, it's out of scope of 52-16". 

This.

It is simply a matter of trying to harmonize our complex regulations and directives and have things listed in only one place where possible.

And this particular change was made in response to comments right here on CAPTalk.  You can all take a bow.

Ned Lee
Former National Cadet Advisor

Ned

Quote from: Bobble on January 07, 2011, 06:29:02 PM
I understand where folks want to be inclusive and a part of that whole 'mainstreaming' way of thinking prevalent in our public education system, but to me it sort of takes away a lot of the cachet of the program when cadets are treated differently in how they are allowed to test for progression.  "Reducing the choices on a multiple choice test"? I thought we had a level playing field, but it looks like we're headed for the "Everybody Is A Winner" mode of operation.

Lt,

You seem surprised and disappointed by this.  But it is worth remembering that we have had different physical fitness categories for several decades now to accommodate cadets with temporary and permanent disabilities. 

Do you really think that the possibility of a Spaatz cadet in a wheelchair made the cadet program lose its "cachet?"

Ned Lee

Spaceman3750

#68
Quote from: Bobble on January 07, 2011, 06:29:02 PM
Quote from: A.Member on January 07, 2011, 06:42:35 AM
Quote from: Ron1319 on January 07, 2011, 06:22:46 AM
Did this just go away?

"c. Failure to Progress.  Cadets who fail to progress in the Cadet Program by completing
at least two achievements per year may be terminated from the program (see CAPR 35-3,
Membership Termination)."

Was that intentional?  Is there intended to be no minimum standard for cadet program progress with the new 52-16?
Good catch, Ron.   I missed that.  I'd like an answer to your question as well.

Well, I suppose if the Squadron Commanders and Cadet Programs Officers are going to be required to "make reasonable accommodations" and/or adhere to IEP's for cadets with special educational needs -

5-6. Cadets With Special Needs.

"CAP will make reasonable accommodations for cadets who have special educational
needs. Unit commanders may authorize testing accommodations at their discretion.
Examples of accommodations include testing orally, extending time limits, dividing the test
into segments, and reducing the choices on a multiple-choice test.

Before authorizing an accommodation, the unit commander should discuss the cadet's
needs with the cadet's parents. Most schools use an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) to support special needs students. If a parent choose to share the IEP information with CAP, the unit commander will adhere to all reasonable accommodations set forth in the IEP.
If the commander and the cadet's parents disagree about the need for reasonable
accommodations, wing headquarters will mediate and is authorized to mandate testing
accommodations, if warranted."


- then you're probably better off not having any hard and fast rules about what constitutes failure to progress within the cadet program.

I understand where folks want to be inclusive and a part of that whole 'mainstreaming' way of thinking prevalent in our public education system, but to me it sort of takes away a lot of the cachet of the program when cadets are treated differently in how they are allowed to test for progression.  "Reducing the choices on a multiple choice test"? I thought we had a level playing field, but it looks like we're headed for the "Everybody Is A Winner" mode of operation.

My question is why commanders are authorized to permit accommodations that aren't specified on the IEP. Nevermind, I don't think this is true.

Given the number of students that are on IEPs (at least in my local district), in a big squadron IEP compliance could become a big nightmare fast.

coudano

Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2011, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Bobble on January 07, 2011, 06:29:02 PM
I understand where folks want to be inclusive and a part of that whole 'mainstreaming' way of thinking prevalent in our public education system, but to me it sort of takes away a lot of the cachet of the program when cadets are treated differently in how they are allowed to test for progression.  "Reducing the choices on a multiple choice test"? I thought we had a level playing field, but it looks like we're headed for the "Everybody Is A Winner" mode of operation.

Lt,

You seem surprised and disappointed by this.  But it is worth remembering that we have had different physical fitness categories for several decades now to accommodate cadets with temporary and permanent disabilities. 

Do you really think that the possibility of a Spaatz cadet in a wheelchair made the cadet program lose its "cachet?"

Ned Lee

ned, there's a pretty big difference between a spaatz cadet who can't run a 6:06 mile because they have a physical disability
i've met plenty of great leaders with physical limitations.

and a spaatz cadet that can't pick out the bernoulli principle from a lineup.
how is that person realistically going to be a dynamic aerospace leader?

Ned

Disabilities come in all shapes and sizes. 

Charles Schwab suffers from dyslexia.  Stephen Hawking has ALS.  Marlee Maitlin was born deaf.  My stepbrother is blind.

All of whom would have benefitted from reasonable accomodations for testing had they been CAP cadets.

And all of whom seem like dynamic Americans to me.

A.Member

Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2011, 06:36:13 PM
Quote from: coudano on January 07, 2011, 02:41:48 PM
The justification for removing this line from 52-16 probably goes something like "that belongs in 35-3, it's out of scope of 52-16". 

This.

It is simply a matter of trying to harmonize our complex regulations and directives and have things listed in only one place where possible.
That's fine but don't make people guess.   It's very simple to cross-reference another regulation without duplicating it.  In this case, a portion of the existing regulation simply disappeared without any explanation.  That's not OK.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Ron1319

Then can we get an update to the 35-3 that reads something like this:

b. Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program.
        1) A standard of two promotions per year should be met.
        2) Exceptions to this must be approved in writing by the squadron commander and reviewed every year.  Any exception will include a training plan that will attempt to meet this standard.
        3) The intent is to provide opportunities for all cadets which is accomplished by progress through the program. 

Problem solved.

Ronald Thompson, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander, Squadron 85, Placerville, CA
PCR-CA-273
Spaatz #1319

Eclipse

Then 35-3 needs to be updated to return the more concrete expectations to the termination column.

As it stands today, you can have one Unit CC kicking cadets after 1 quarter, another letting them sit for a year.

Subjectiveness is what causes arguments, bad feelings, and misunderstandings.

We need less of that, not more.

"That Others May Zoom"

Ron1319

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2011, 08:14:42 PM
Then 35-3 needs to be updated to return the more concrete expectations to the termination column.

As it stands today, you can have one Unit CC kicking cadets after 1 quarter, another letting them sit for a year.

Subjectiveness is what causes arguments, bad feelings, and misunderstandings.

We need less of that, not more.

Hey, I sense growth in our relationship.  That's twice in a row now that I couldn't agree with you more.
Ronald Thompson, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander, Squadron 85, Placerville, CA
PCR-CA-273
Spaatz #1319

Bobble

Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2011, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Bobble on January 07, 2011, 06:29:02 PM
I understand where folks want to be inclusive and a part of that whole 'mainstreaming' way of thinking prevalent in our public education system, but to me it sort of takes away a lot of the cachet of the program when cadets are treated differently in how they are allowed to test for progression.  "Reducing the choices on a multiple choice test"? I thought we had a level playing field, but it looks like we're headed for the "Everybody Is A Winner" mode of operation.

Lt,

You seem surprised and disappointed by this.  But it is worth remembering that we have had different physical fitness categories for several decades now to accommodate cadets with temporary and permanent disabilities. 

Do you really think that the possibility of a Spaatz cadet in a wheelchair made the cadet program lose its "cachet?"

Ned Lee

That seems to me to be a rather specious argument on your part, since you are addressing physical fitness categorization.  Sure, if a cadet has visual acuity issues that can be assisted by having the test given orally,  that's great, but  "extending time limits, dividing the test into segments [thereby extending the time limit], and reducing the choices on a multiple-choice test" don't have all that much to with addressing physical limitations, but they do (and are intended to) address mental/cognitive limitations.
R. Litzke, Capt, CAP
NER-NY-153

"Men WILL wear underpants."

Ron1319

I just want to be absolutely clear, I'm totally OK with making exceptions and being all-inclusive.  I also really like the changes to allow us to have more options for cadets who are having a really hard time passing tests, even though most of the time I think that they're just not studying.  I recognize that there are cadets who will need more help and assigning mentors and helping them with the questions if they really need it to extend the benefit of CAP to more cadets -- all great.

I literally JUST started using the two promotion a year minimum to encourage some cadets who were not progressing and I'd hate for it to go away in three weeks.  I can probably get it to be squadron policy, and adopt more rules around losing the opportunity to go to fun activities if they get past a certain point.  I just spent a significant amount of time last night doing review boards (not to be confused with PRBs) for several cadets who needed encouragement and mentoring and I find them to be extremely useful.  I know that we could still do that, but I'd like for the clarity to be there in the regs on exactly what a minimum expectation is.  I like my suggestion to have command (or delegate) review of IEPs and there to be an in writing exception to a two promotion a year minimum requirement.

It has weight when you tell a cadet that we were in a really bad place because they are so in the red and behind that we are supposed to pursue a termination action for their membership.  They get the picture.
Ronald Thompson, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander, Squadron 85, Placerville, CA
PCR-CA-273
Spaatz #1319

fyrfitrmedic

Quote from: Ned on January 07, 2011, 07:04:21 PM
Disabilities come in all shapes and sizes. 

Charles Schwab suffers from dyslexia.  Stephen Hawking has ALS.  Marlee Maitlin was born deaf.  My stepbrother is blind.

All of whom would have benefitted from reasonable accomodations for testing had they been CAP cadets.

And all of whom seem like dynamic Americans to me.


Dynamic, yes. Not to pick nits, but Professor Hawking isn't an American - he's British.
MAJ Tony Rowley CAP
Lansdowne PA USA
"The passion of rescue reveals the highest dynamic of the human soul." -- Kurt Hahn

Ron1319

4-4a refers to a promotion requirement that is no longer defined anywhere.
Ronald Thompson, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander, Squadron 85, Placerville, CA
PCR-CA-273
Spaatz #1319

Ned

Quote from: Bobble on January 07, 2011, 08:44:34 PM
That seems to me to be a rather specious argument on your part, since you are addressing physical fitness categorization.  Sure, if a cadet has visual acuity issues that can be assisted by having the test given orally,  that's great, but  "extending time limits, dividing the test into segments [thereby extending the time limit], and reducing the choices on a multiple-choice test" don't have all that much to with addressing physical limitations, but they do (and are intended to) address mental/cognitive limitations.

In my response to your post, I did indeed address physical fitness categories.  (Which is why I pointed out that they were physical fitness categories.)  I was pointing out that we have accommodated disabilities in the cadet program for several decades without the sky falling.

It seems likely that we will be able to accommodate some cognitive disabilities as well.

Which is what I was referring to when I pointed out uber-successful businessman Charles Schwab suffers from dyslexia (a cognitive disability.)

Thank you for your work with our cadets.  All of them.


And I indeed stand corrected.  Professor Hawking, winner of the United States' highest civilian award, is a British subject and not an American.

(I was fooled by the accent.   8) )

Ned Lee

Bobble

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.
R. Litzke, Capt, CAP
NER-NY-153

"Men WILL wear underpants."

Ned

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

Bobble

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.
R. Litzke, Capt, CAP
NER-NY-153

"Men WILL wear underpants."

Ron1319

I still want to know if there is a minimum number of promotions required per year.
Ronald Thompson, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander, Squadron 85, Placerville, CA
PCR-CA-273
Spaatz #1319

PA Guy


Ned

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

Ron1319

Ronald Thompson, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander, Squadron 85, Placerville, CA
PCR-CA-273
Spaatz #1319

Ned

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

coudano

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...


majdomke

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

jeders

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.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

majdomke

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