Satisfactory Cadet Progression

[a2capt]

The previous CAPR 52-16 had a statement that cadets should progress at least two achievements per year. The current revision does not, but does refer to CAPR 35-3, which states "b. Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program."


What is "satisfactory progress"?

[Eclipse]

What is "satisfactory progress"?

A subjective assessment by the respective commander.

You could make the argument that the old definition still holds, but "less then 2 promotions a year" would be on my list.

[a2capt]

I should have added, in the sense that what can be cited, in writing. Otherwise I agree that satisfactory progression is two per rolling 12 month period.

[Eclipse]

I should have added, in the sense that what can be cited, in writing.

Nothing, which is probably the point, but also probably defeats its own purpose, since this isn't likely to
be trotted out unless a cadet is being disciplined or even terminated, at which point mom is likely to ask the same question.

CC's looking to head that off should probably have an OI.

The old verbiage about 6 months, which was optional, at least provided a national guideline, even if it was mostly ignored.
I can't imagine why they pulled that out.

[lordmonar]

They pulled it out because it was not necessary.

35-3's verbiage is fine.   It leaves it subjective.   Mom want's to fight it......then up the chain it goes.  If wing supports the appeal....okay then there you go.

If 52-16 is going to have a hard date (two promotions per year is a lot of wishy washy room in it too), Once every six months is better....because then the clock starts there instead of at 10 months (in theory you could still get promoted twice in a year at that point).

Also....subjective.....what is "a year" in this context?  Cadet A gets promoted Jan 1 2012 and then March 2012......now it is Oct 2013 in theory he can still get promoted twice before the end of this year.....even though it has been more than 12 months since his last promotion.

[Eclipse]

You're assuming a lot of "leadership" up there.

This is how it really goes...

Cadet blows off meetings and generally isn't around for a year, including no promotion.  Or hangs around in the back but
generally does nothing. The fact that it was allowed to go on that long is lost on everyone in the room.

CC makes an effort to discipline or terminate cadet, parent says "You can't, I won't, you can't make me..." and there's no verbiage to
simply show them, CC sees a penny on the floor and stops caring.

Everyone loses.

What is wrong with objective standards for something which is considered a cornerstone of the program and that cadets
regularly swear an oath about?

As usual we make things harder on everyone to no one's benefit.

[lordmonar]

I got no problem with objective standards.....I got no problem with subjective standards either.

But beware of the law of unintended consequences......If you set a standard.....and use it objectively.....you may HAVE TO discipline cadets you did not intend to.

Either way....really......Cadet X can't or won't promote.......is he really going to fight a 2'b?   If he does.....then it is a no brainer that he is going to start progressing......or he is going to step on his own pecker down the road where I can 2'b him for cause....and then everyone is happy.

[ZigZag911]

I think the sqdn CC needs to take the cadet's age, maturity and ability into account.

Effort should also be considered...if the cadet is working diligently but needs to improve further in some area, that's very different than simply slacking off.

Frankly, I see this primarily useful as a 'motivator' for cadets who decide they are going to be "career non-coms", a category that is contrary to the aims of the cadet program.

[RiverAux]

If we have the ability to make something clear and objective, especially in regards to a justification for kicking someone out of the program, then we should. 

Has there been a significant percentage of hard-charging cadets who try, but fail, to promote twice a year?  If so, maybe a change makes sense, but not to something more subjective that will be applied differently in every single unit.  Make it once a year if we think twice a year is kicking out cadets that really should still be in the program. 

If you give a commander a vague requirement then 95% of them are generally going to ignore it.  Why should they take a risk to utilize that justification if they run the risk of gumming up lots of their time defending that decision?  If it obvious that NHQ isn't serious about it, since it is so vague, they're not going to waste their time dealing with it. 

The other 5% are going to use it in stupid ways that cause problems for their superiors.  "Well, I think cadets need to promote every 4 months". 

Just look at some of the vague requirements in the senior member promotion system and you'll know what I'm talking about. 

[SamFranklin]

I've never seen a situation where the right thing to do is terminate a cadet who is not violent or terribly disruptive.

Why toss a cadet who is participating at meetings and generally behaving well? Because he's not promoting?  Well, fix that through motivational techniques, not by kicking him out. That's basic leadership 101. 

Someone will say, What if he's missing meetings and not really participating? Again I say take a positive approach. Don't terminate. 

I know Bob has said we're not a "drop in" rec center. That that's the wrong mentality. I agree. But still if my aim is to serve youth (vs. merely administer a program), then I cAnt write a kid off.

So many squadrons terminate now, perhaps to keep their roster clean and tidy. I say people count for more than admin tidiness, so I'm glad the satisfactory progress thing disappeared.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Its still there. Just not defined.

[RiverAux]

Its still there. Just not defined.

Then its not really there. 

Sort of like the vague requirements to be performing in an exemplary manner to get promoted as a senior member. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Its still there. Just not defined.

Then its not really there. 

Sort of like the vague requirements to be performing in an exemplary manner to get promoted as a senior member.

And I see those applied regularly.

[Eclipse]

Subjective expectations and requirements are a "nice to have" when you have experienced, consistently trained leaders, who, themselves
were held to, and are held to the same standard as that of their subordinates.

Objective expectations and requirements are a necessity in any organization that doesn't have the above.

Since the former doesn't exist in CAP, we need to have the latter as tools to make commanders' lives easier and set expectations for members.

If you tell a person their goal is "some" or "many", both sides of the conversation are free to interpret those words as they see fit,
including bad feelings when the expectation isn't met, and little ramifications for either side for deficiencies.

If you tell a person their requirement is "5", they are free to "not like that", feel it is "inappropriate or unfair", and in the end "quit", but
at least no one is playing games with the number.

One would like to think that the relatively small lane of knowledgeable and experienced leaders would set "5" as a reasonable, make-able
requirement, but regardless, it should almost always be "5" and never "some".  The very fact that cadets in one wing are being pushed
for 2-3 clicks a year, while cadets in another wing (or even a neighboring unit) are allowed to "free range", makes this problem
serious enough to be need immediate correction.  This is the core of why "not all diamonds are created equal".  (BTDT).

"5" is what a good leader uses to move their people forward.  "Some" is what poor leaders use to avoid uncomfortable conversations.

The only thing worse then "some", is "5 + some", which we also have in CAP.

[ZigZag911]

While we're on the subject, I think the minimum  2 months time between achievements is too short.

I'd like to see it raised to 3 months.

[Майор Хаткевич]

While we're on the subject, I think the minimum  2 months time between achievements is too short.

I'd like to see it raised to 3 months.

Agreed from a BTDT perspective as well as current experience. Maybe some cadets can hack it, but a vast majority simply cannot do so with minimum time. Check boxes? Sure. Learn and apply the material? Not quite.

[lordmonar]

Hence the subjective criteria.

Please define an object standard for "apply the material".

I'm pushing 11 years in the cadet program now.....and about 20 years in the BSA program......most cadets are not pushing the minimum time.  If you got some book smart kid who can knock out the test and meet all the objective requirements.....and you don't think he needs to promote....right now.....CAPF50 is your tool and you need to set SMART goals for him.

[Alaric]

While we're on the subject, I think the minimum  2 months time between achievements is too short.

I'd like to see it raised to 3 months.

Agreed from a BTDT perspective as well as current experience. Maybe some cadets can hack it, but a vast majority simply cannot do so with minimum time. Check boxes? Sure. Learn and apply the material? Not quite.

Raising the minimum is unnecessary, if the adults are doing their jobs then they will not promote just because the boxes are checked.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Hence the subjective criteria.

Please define an object standard for "apply the material".

I'm pushing 11 years in the cadet program now.....and about 20 years in the BSA program......most cadets are not pushing the minimum time.  If you got some book smart kid who can knock out the test and meet all the objective requirements.....and you don't think he needs to promote....right now.....CAPF50 is your tool and you need to set SMART goals for him.

11 years in, and I'm sure you've seen plenty of C/SNCOs who shouldn't have gone to their Wright Brothers, not to mention nearing Mitchell. Some units simply don't have strong programs, or a CP staff that equate checkbox to completion.

[MacGruff]

Raising the minimum is unnecessary, if the adults are doing their jobs then they will not promote just because the boxes are checked.

We recently had this done in my squadron with negative results.

A cadet had gotten every requirement checked off for promotion within the two month time frame and came up to a promotion board. The cadet's promotion was rejected because the board felt they were not ready for the increased responsibility of the new rank. Our squadron holds promotion boards monthly. The same thing took place the second month, and even the third. Cadet was very upset.

The cadet's parent, who is a Senior Member and active in the unit, complained to the commander and others several times over this time span, asking why the cadet is not being progressed when they did everything they're supposed to have done. Things got a bit difficult with the end result that the cadet was promoted, but neither the cadet, nor the parent has been seen since.

Clearly there is a "helicopter parent" situation here, but also many other things that went wrong in this situation. Was it a leadership problem with the commander? Some sort of vendetta against the cadet? Any ideas on how to avoid such a situation?

[Alaric]

Raising the minimum is unnecessary, if the adults are doing their jobs then they will not promote just because the boxes are checked.

We recently had this done in my squadron with negative results.

A cadet had gotten every requirement checked off for promotion within the two month time frame and came up to a promotion board. The cadet's promotion was rejected because the board felt they were not ready for the increased responsibility of the new rank. Our squadron holds promotion boards monthly. The same thing took place the second month, and even the third. Cadet was very upset.

The cadet's parent, who is a Senior Member and active in the unit, complained to the commander and others several times over this time span, asking why the cadet is not being progressed when they did everything they're supposed to have done. Things got a bit difficult with the end result that the cadet was promoted, but neither the cadet, nor the parent has been seen since.

Clearly there is a "helicopter parent" situation here, but also many other things that went wrong in this situation. Was it a leadership problem with the commander? Some sort of vendetta against the cadet? Any ideas on how to avoid such a situation?

Regrettably, there will always be the danger of those kind of situations if there are subjective requirements.  The flip side of that coin is that if the requirements are totally objective, you get the "check the box" syndrome.  Perhaps we should require any denial to be fully documented (i.e. not just "he's not ready" but why he's not ready) and have that reviewed by the next level of command. 

[ZigZag911]

MacGruff -- simple solution is what I suggested to begin with...raise time between achievements nationally by one month.

As a result, we'll eliminate -- at the stroke of a pen! -- 14 year old Spaatz cadets and other aberrations of a similar nature.

Yes, there is the rare prodigy who actually has the ability and maturity to finish the whole program that young & quickly...but the additional experience won't do them any harm, might even be beneficial.

[arajca]

Raising the minimum is unnecessary, if the adults are doing their jobs then they will not promote just because the boxes are checked.

We recently had this done in my squadron with negative results.

A cadet had gotten every requirement checked off for promotion within the two month time frame and came up to a promotion board. The cadet's promotion was rejected because the board felt they were not ready for the increased responsibility of the new rank. Our squadron holds promotion boards monthly. The same thing took place the second month, and even the third. Cadet was very upset.

The cadet's parent, who is a Senior Member and active in the unit, complained to the commander and others several times over this time span, asking why the cadet is not being progressed when they did everything they're supposed to have done. Things got a bit difficult with the end result that the cadet was promoted, but neither the cadet, nor the parent has been seen since.

Clearly there is a "helicopter parent" situation here, but also many other things that went wrong in this situation. Was it a leadership problem with the commander? Some sort of vendetta against the cadet? Any ideas on how to avoid such a situation?

Regrettably, there will always be the danger of those kind of situations if there are subjective requirements.  The flip side of that coin is that if the requirements are totally objective, you get the "check the box" syndrome.  Perhaps we should require any denial to be fully documented (i.e. not just "he's not ready" but why he's not ready) and have that reviewed by the next level of command.

Already exists. Ref CAPR 52-16, Chapter 5, Sect. 5-2, Para e.

e. Retaining a Cadet in Grade. Commanders should retain a cadet in grade if the cadet's performance or maturity does not demonstrate an ability to accept increased responsibility commensurate with the promotion. Using the CAPF 50, Cadet Leadership Feedback, the commander (or deputy commander) will offer constructive feedback to help the cadet develop his/her leadership skills. The commander must also schedule a follow-up review to be held within 60 days.

emphasis mine
The regs says "will", not "should", not "may". Meaning if the cadet is retained in grade, the commander or deputy commander must let the cadet know how to improve.

[MacGruff]

Hmmm.... thanks.

I think where we failed, as a squadron, is in providing no, or limited feedback. I am also not sure how to interpret the review meeting after 60 days. In our squadron, a cadet that fails the promotion board, is allowed to apply again the very next time it's offered, which is typically a month or less.

Also noted is that this is the Commander's responsibility. While the Squadron Commander approves it, the promotion board is staffed by the cadet commander and two others. The cadet commander is the cadet who is in office as cadet commander at that time, not the Senior Member who is the Deputy Commander for Cadets     

[lordmonar]

Hence the subjective criteria.

Please define an object standard for "apply the material".

I'm pushing 11 years in the cadet program now.....and about 20 years in the BSA program......most cadets are not pushing the minimum time.  If you got some book smart kid who can knock out the test and meet all the objective requirements.....and you don't think he needs to promote....right now.....CAPF50 is your tool and you need to set SMART goals for him.

11 years in, and I'm sure you've seen plenty of C/SNCOs who shouldn't have gone to their Wright Brothers, not to mention nearing Mitchell. Some units simply don't have strong programs, or a CP staff that equate checkbox to completion.

Actually can't say that I have.   For the most part I think we get it right.

[lordmonar]

MacGruff -- simple solution is what I suggested to begin with...raise time between achievements nationally by one month.

As a result, we'll eliminate -- at the stroke of a pen! -- 14 year old Spaatz cadets and other aberrations of a similar nature.

Yes, there is the rare prodigy who actually has the ability and maturity to finish the whole program that young & quickly...but the additional experience won't do them any harm, might even be beneficial.

A.  Is 14 year Spaatz really a problem?  B.  If the cadet is not ready.....you tell the cadet and his parents he is not ready.   DTBT got the IG complaint to prove it.   The criteria is subjective....but it is right there in 52-16.  Raising the 8 week requirement will not really help a cadet who is not getting it.   Only leader intervention and mentoring will do that.

[lordmonar]

Hmmm.... thanks.

I think where we failed, as a squadron, is in providing no, or limited feedback. I am also not sure how to interpret the review meeting after 60 days. In our squadron, a cadet that fails the promotion board, is allowed to apply again the very next time it's offered, which is typically a month or less.

Also noted is that this is the Commander's responsibility. While the Squadron Commander approves it, the promotion board is staffed by the cadet commander and two others. The cadet commander is the cadet who is in office as cadet commander at that time, not the Senior Member who is the Deputy Commander for Cadets     

The 60 days is the LONGEST a cadet can be held back at a time.   i.e.  Cadet X.....you are failing in X,Y, and Z.....we are going to wait 60 days to see improvement in these areas.   It is perfectly acceptable to say 30 days, 2 days, or 59 days....but you can't say 61 or more days.

Your PRB should have at least one senior member on it.....and you should do a CAPF 50......you MUST do a CAPF50 if you are going to retain or demote any cadet.

[Eclipse]

Any PRB without at least one senior is a bad idea.

[MacGruff]

The 60 days is the LONGEST a cadet can be held back at a time.   i.e.  Cadet X.....you are failing in X,Y, and Z.....we are going to wait 60 days to see improvement in these areas.   It is perfectly acceptable to say 30 days, 2 days, or 59 days....but you can't say 61 or more days.

Your PRB should have at least one senior member on it.....and you should do a CAPF 50......you MUST do a CAPF50 if you are going to retain or demote any cadet.

To clarify:  There was a senior member on the promotion board. It was one of the three members. The other two were cadets. However, the Senior Member was NOT the Deputy Commander of Cadets.

Glad to see that it's acceptable to not award a promotion and have the cadet apply again in 30 days or less.

The CAPF50 is definitely an issue that I think my squadron needs to address. In the case I raised, I do not believe that was done...   

[Майор Хаткевич]

MacGruff -- simple solution is what I suggested to begin with...raise time between achievements nationally by one month.

As a result, we'll eliminate -- at the stroke of a pen! -- 14 year old Spaatz cadets and other aberrations of a similar nature.

Yes, there is the rare prodigy who actually has the ability and maturity to finish the whole program that young & quickly...but the additional experience won't do them any harm, might even be beneficial.

12 years +38 months is 15 years and 2 months. I would also say that a "check box" cadet has rougly zero chance on the leadership exam.

[arajca]

Hmmm.... thanks.

I think where we failed, as a squadron, is in providing no, or limited feedback. I am also not sure how to interpret the review meeting after 60 days. In our squadron, a cadet that fails the promotion board, is allowed to apply again the very next time it's offered, which is typically a month or less.

The reg says "within 60 days" not after 60 days. So the cadet coming to another PRB after 30 days is within 60 days. If they still aren't ready, another CAPF 50 is done with improvement suggestions and another 60 day window opens.

[abdsp51]

MacGruff there is also this from CAPR52-16 as well fro promotion boards:

CAPR52-16 Para 5-2 d. Promotion Boards. Although not required, squadrons may hold promotion boards (sometimes called boards of review) to help the commander decide if cadets are ready to accept the increased responsibilities that come with their promotions. If used, promotion boards must meet the following criteria:

(1) A completed CAPF 50 must serve as the promotion board's basis for discussion.

(2) Promotion boards will not re-test cadets on material they already passed through achievement tests.

(3) Commanders must apply local promotion board policies consistently, with all cadets being subject to the same process.

[ZigZag911]

Feedback is, of course, essential for anyone to improve, and it needs to be specific and objective.

I still think slowing down the minimum advancement rate to once every 3 months --which still allows four achievements annually -- would be a good thing.

It would take 4 years (48 months0 to earn a Spaatz...theoretically, at least, a cadet could join around his or her 17th birthday and still have enough time.

[SARDOC]

I think the sqdn CC needs to take the cadet's age, maturity and ability into account.

Effort should also be considered...if the cadet is working diligently but needs to improve further in some area, that's very different than simply slacking off.

Frankly, I see this primarily useful as a 'motivator' for cadets who decide they are going to be "career non-coms", a category that is contrary to the aims of the cadet program.

I agree.  For some reason my squadron tends to attract cadets that are diagnosed with learning disabilities, but man, Do they try hard.  We are relatively close to an educational institution that has become known for their program.  If the program was objective it might disqualify some of these cadets from the program because it doesn't allow for reasonable exceptions.

[lordmonar]

Feedback is, of course, essential for anyone to improve, and it needs to be specific and objective.

I still think slowing down the minimum advancement rate to once every 3 months --which still allows four achievements annually -- would be a good thing.

It would take 4 years (48 months0 to earn a Spaatz...theoretically, at least, a cadet could join around his or her 17th birthday and still have enough time.

Think that would improve our promotion numbers?

[MSG Mac]

Hmmm.... thanks.

I think where we failed, as a squadron, is in providing no, or limited feedback. I am also not sure how to interpret the review meeting after 60 days. In our squadron, a cadet that fails the promotion board, is allowed to apply again the very next time it's offered, which is typically a month or less.

The reg says "within 60 days" not after 60 days. So the cadet coming to another PRB after 30 days is within 60 days. If they still aren't ready, another CAPF 50 is done with improvement suggestions and another 60 day window opens.

Actually the Regulation says 56 days, not 60 or two months

[lordmonar]

Hmmm.... thanks.

I think where we failed, as a squadron, is in providing no, or limited feedback. I am also not sure how to interpret the review meeting after 60 days. In our squadron, a cadet that fails the promotion board, is allowed to apply again the very next time it's offered, which is typically a month or less.

The reg says "within 60 days" not after 60 days. So the cadet coming to another PRB after 30 days is within 60 days. If they still aren't ready, another CAPF 50 is done with improvement suggestions and another 60 day window opens.

Actually the Regulation says 56 days, not 60 or two months

No....go back an read the "retain in grade" section of the quoted reg.

Promotions are 8 weeks....56 days.....but if you retain in grade they must be reviewed within 60 days.

[ZigZag911]

Feedback is, of course, essential for anyone to improve, and it needs to be specific and objective.

I still think slowing down the minimum advancement rate to once every 3 months --which still allows four achievements annually -- would be a good thing.

It would take 4 years (48 months0 to earn a Spaatz...theoretically, at least, a cadet could join around his or her 17th birthday and still have enough time.

Think that would improve our promotion numbers?

No, just the quality of our cadets.

[lordmonar]

Feedback is, of course, essential for anyone to improve, and it needs to be specific and objective.

I still think slowing down the minimum advancement rate to once every 3 months --which still allows four achievements annually -- would be a good thing.

It would take 4 years (48 months0 to earn a Spaatz...theoretically, at least, a cadet could join around his or her 17th birthday and still have enough time.

Think that would improve our promotion numbers?

No, just the quality of our cadets.

And now we are back to the quality vs quantity argument.

How many 15 year old Spaatz cadets have we produced in the last 5 years?  How many 16 year old?  How many 17 year old?  How many 18 year old?

Nope......solution looking for a problem.

Adding time to the TIG requirements is not going to miraculously produce better cadets.....just add to the time it takes to get them started.

[Eclipse]

And now we are back to the quality vs quantity argument.

When quantity is valued over quality, for any reason, you lose.

NHQ has shown a reticence towards anything that would generate member attrition, so there you go.

The sad fact is that we are so undermanned that the extra experience the average cadet would get being in
a grade longer winds up being just that, time, with little else to show for it.

[MacGruff]

The sad fact is that we are so undermanned that the extra experience the average cadet would get being in
a grade longer winds up being just that, time, with little else to show for it.

Are we undermanned?

To me, asking that question implies that we are always turning away missions because we cannot do them. With the three missions that we have, which one are we turning away?

My personal observation is as follows:

• Cadet programs - we meet weekly and work with the cadets regularly. Nothing is being skipped and we're even adding weekend special activities to the point where we have stuff happening on at least two weekends a month.
• Aerospace Education - Do it with the cadets regularly and are available to any local school or organization that wants us to come. I have not seen us turn away a request yet, but on the other hand, there have not been more than one or two over the past year.
• Search and Rescue - we've been activated twice this year and went out when called.

What part of that shows undermanning?  Maybe the real problem is that we really do not have all the major missions these days? From reading CAPTalk, I see lots of bemoaning of doing less and less SAR...

[RiverAux]

CAP is most certainly undermanned in terms of active staff officers at all levels and at least as far as SAR goes is undermanned in several areas, most notably mission pilots (as evidenced if you have access to the "Commanders Dashboard" on eservices). 

In cadet programs most squadrons probably don't have nearly as many cadets as they need to really teach leadership concepts at all levels.  Best guess is that 30+ cadets would be nearly ideal. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

30+ attending. Seems most units with close to 60 get near the 30 attendance. Of course with 30 cadets attending I would say you need at least 4 CP officers, preferably 5-6 minimum.

[lordmonar]

And that's the rub of the cadet program.

With most units well below the 30 active cadets.....how are we really providing the right leadership opportunities for our cadets?

One of the things we need to really look at next time we look at the CP as a whole.

[Eclipse]

The sad fact is that we are so undermanned that the extra experience the average cadet would get being in
a grade longer winds up being just that, time, with little else to show for it.

Are we undermanned?

To me, asking that question implies that we are always turning away missions because we cannot do them. With the three missions that we have, which one are we turning away?

My personal observation is as follows:

• Cadet programs - we meet weekly and work with the cadets regularly. Nothing is being skipped and we're even adding weekend special activities to the point where we have stuff happening on at least two weekends a month.
• Aerospace Education - Do it with the cadets regularly and are available to any local school or organization that wants us to come. I have not seen us turn away a request yet, but on the other hand, there have not been more than one or two over the past year.
• Search and Rescue - we've been activated twice this year and went out when called.

What part of that shows undermanning?  Maybe the real problem is that we really do not have all the major missions these days? From reading CAPTalk, I see lots of bemoaning of doing less and less SAR...

Do you have at least two people in each staff job? And all jobs filled?

[MacGruff]

Do you have at least two people in each staff job? And all jobs filled?

No, not all, but most.

Yes.

[Eclipse]

Do you have at least two people in each staff job? And all jobs filled?

No, not all, but most.

Yes.

Well then you're one of the ones we keep next tribal council.