CAPR 52-16 CADET PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVE 1 FEBRUARY 2011

[A.Member]

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. 

[Ozzy]

Has anybody realized the new 52-16 doesn't mention the cadet First Sergeant? (Well, other then in an example on SMART Goals)

[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?

[A.Member]

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.

[coudano]

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

b. 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]

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.

[Ned]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Ron1319]

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.

[Bobble]

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.

[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.

[fyrfitrmedic]

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.

[Ron1319]

4-4a refers to a promotion requirement that is no longer defined anywhere.

[Ned]

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.    )

Ned Lee