Satisfactory Cadet Progression

[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.