Does PD help.

[Skyray]

Further, what do you all do to make sure your instructors are "qualified?"

This is one place that CAP could learn from the Coast Guard Auxiliary.  I was having a rocky time in CAP back in 1995, and I joined the CGAux.  My first training was as a communications officer, and then I had a six weeks school on "Instructor" that met twice a week for about two hours a session.  The last half of the class was a series of progressively longer classroom presentations with complete lesson plans, differing presentation methods and progressively more difficult subject matter.  The program has subsequently been "dumbed down" a considerable amount, but if you can get hold of one of the original pair of books, it would make an excellent base to expand from.  The last exercise was a two hour class on a technical subject that was monitored and graded, and you had to get a pass from a Master Instructor to qualify as an Instructor

[thefischNX01]

My personal experience was that SLS was a waste of time, simply re-iterating things that I had already learned.  There were some great lectures, such as the lecture on effective communications skills, but for the most part I knew most of what I was being taught.  However, I will agree that the social aspect was very rewarding.  I still see most of my classmates at SAREX's. 

However, the AFAIDL 00013 was a worthwhile experience.  I learned more from the course than in the SLS, and mostly the final 2 sections on Communicating and Leadership.  I try to implement those things into my duties as DCC, but I am not always successful. 

This is just my personal experience tho. 

[RiverAux]

I think there are some strong arguments to be made into incorporating a lot of SLS into the online level one course -- primarily the how CAP works stuff.  The more hands on stuff should still be taught in person. 

[Dragoon]

OK, the input to the thread has died out, but based on the comments, I"m concluding:

Our current PD program sucks rocks.

Not because it's boring.  Not because it's too easy, or too hard.

But because it doesn't improve the student in a measurable way.

And that's kind of the point, isn't it?  We shouldn't send our folks to school so they can get ribbons or get promoted.  We should send them to school to  to give them the skills they need to do their jobs.  Now and in the future.

That's how training works in the real world.

Our training is primarily just orientation  - here's how a squadron is set up, here's are our uniforms, here is what Wing Finance does, etc etc.

We never get into training.  Our PD doesn't teach our members to do much of anything. (OK, they do get 15 minutes of salute training in Level 1.    )

Because truthfully, who cares what you know if you can't do?

What we need is a total rewrite based on providing skills.


For example,  Level 1 should give a member all the skills he needs to function as a an assistant to some other staff officer.  He or she probably needs to know things like.

1.  How to wear his uniform (meaning how to identify the parts AND avoid common errors)
2.  How to read the regs
3.  How to enroll in a specialty track (including how to fill out the form)
4.  How to file for reimbursement.
5.  How to fill out accident paperwork (identifying when to do so)
6.  When to wear a uniform and when not to
7.  How to file a grievance and contact the IG.
8.  How to fill out the forms to request promotion and awards.
9.  How to sign for and be accountable for property
etc. etc.


If Level II is about Squadron Staff Work, then the officer should be trained to do things like:

1.  Compose a military letter and memorandum
2.  Use the CAP filing system
3.  Write an Operations Order for an activity (pick a format, but let's decide on one)
4.  Take minutes for a committee meeting (be it Finance, Membership, or anything else that needs documentation)
5.  Conduct an inventory
6.  Within their specialty track, all the skills needed to be the primary staff officer in that track.
7.  How to route admin actions related to their specialty to higher HQ.
8.  Identify their Group and Wing level counterparts, and understand who does what
9.  Identify correct and incorrect uses of CAP funds and fundraising
10.  How to use all the tools in eServices.
11.  How to be a project officer for an activity, including planning, executing, reporting results.

Above that, it starts getting hazy.  We'd have to identify exactly what each level is designed for.  Given that we have 4 mandatory levels, it makes sense that Level III is about Group Staff, and Level IV is about Wing Staff.  At the higher levels, the skills get fuzzier, but at the very least focus on

1.  Coordinating with other staff sections in support of higher level activities
2.  Teaching and inspecting subordinate group/squadron staff officers in your specialty
3.  Being able to identify what hoops you have to jump through to coordinate with external agencies.
4.  Conduct an interview with the press.
5.  Conduct a CAP investigation.


If we taught skills we'd eliminate our biggest problem - members who truly don't know how to do their jobs.

Plus, we'd have pass/fail criteria.  There would be tests.  People wouldn't pass just by showing up - they'd have to actual demonstrate that they could master the material.

Whaddaya think?  Too harsh?



( to be fair, some of the RSCs do teach some hands on stuff, but that's wayyyyyy too late in the game.  It's like going to basic training after 10 years of service....)

[RiverAux]

I bet its been years since anyone in my wing has written a formal memo. 

[JC004]

good summary, but how does the new direction for SLS and all play into it (i.e. the leadership-based curriculum)?

[Dragoon]

good summary, but how does the new direction for SLS and all play into it (i.e. the leadership-based curriculum)?

It probably doesn't.

We don't need a "leadership based curriculum" for Level II.  Remember, folks get into this around 6 months after joining.  The vast VAST majority are going into squadron staff positions - not leadership slots.  (UCC would be the place to handle those newbies who do get stuck as leaders)

What CAP needs is more stuff about how to run CAP.  We get into the most trouble because our members, frankly don't understand what they are supposed to be doing.

But doing a curriculum like what I'm suggesting is hard.  Because

1.It requires actually telling people the correct way to do certain things.  There's so much variation between Wings on how stuff is done that there would be big resistance to specifying the "right way."

2.  There will always be pushback from members if you come up with courses people can fail.  The whole "keep 'em happy or they'll quit" argument that makes it so easy to get promoted today.

3.  It requires synchronizing the generic PD with the specialty tracks. As far as I can tell, the specialty tracks are all handled by different proponents at National with little coordination.  As a result some are hard, some are easy, some are detailed and specific and others are vague.  It would take a lot of staff work to figure out what Tech, Sr and Master level should mean accross ALL specialties in order to standardize and work into a curriculum.

"Leadership based curriculum" makes more sense at the higher levels, where members are more likely to end up in charge.  Also AFTER they've mastered staff work.

[Dragoon]

I bet its been years since anyone in my wing has written a formal memo. 

Probably cause no one knows how.

Anything that ain't on a form is supposed to be written up as either a military letter, memo or orders.

So they ought to be using 10-1 to format

1.  Results of finance, membership, promotion and other committees.

2.  Results of investigations such as IG or accident reports.

3.  MOAs with outside agencies.

4.  Appointments of committee members

5.  Various policies the commander puts out (open door, EEO, safety, etc)

6.  Any letters to the editor the unit PAO does.

7.  Any after action report of an activity or event that needs to be documented for record.

Basically, if somebody is supposed to sign it, it should be done in accordance with 10-1.  But since we don't train it, most folks just do it wrong.

[RiverAux]

No, email is used just about for everything now.  I will modify my initial comment to exclude personnel authorizations -- those, of course, are done regularly at squadron and wing levels. 

[LittleIronPilot]

Most PD is marginal at best.  If you get a good instructor who presents well and has personal experience that he can layer into the material, the students will come away with good stuff.  The material, however, doesn't stand on its own and a poor instructor can make you wish for the sweet, sweet release of death.

Disclaimer: I can't speak to RSC or NSC - this is about the local stuff.

I would want a presenter for any PD program for seniors to understand at least the basics of adult learning theory.  Adults need two basic components to any quality learning experience.  1.  The learning must be experiential and 2. it must have a component for the learner to integrate the information into their own context.  In other words, lots of role playing...small group process...etc.   Secondly, time to think about how this might work with the particular and peculiar personalities of individual units.

A Power Point can be an "introduction" to the information, but good presenters will rely heavily on student involvement.

I am an "adult" and I can say I HATE role-playing during learning. Talk about lame and a waste of time.....just one mans differing opinion.

However I find humor, timeliness of the material, and real-world anecdotes to be a great tool in learning material.

[arajca]

I am an "adult" and I can say I HATE role-playing during learning. Talk about lame and a waste of time.....just one mans differing opinion.

However I find humor, timeliness of the material, and real-world anecdotes to be a great tool in learning material.

Role playing, like all instructional techniques, has its place. The problem I have seen is some instructors do not have enough confidence to let the role playing end early if all the participants get it. "The SCHEDULE says 1 hour for role playing, and dagmanit, we're going to spend the full hour doing role playing."

[ddelaney103]

We seem to be pretty bad on the "be, know, do" of being a CAP member.

Of the three, "know" is the toughest, as we lack a branch school for everyone except CP.  The abilities under "be" and "do" are at least universal across CAP.

A lot of the "know" function could be done with an GT style manual for duty assignments.  While there are some descriptions on duties in the specialty track books, they are not detailed enough to be a work guide.  The ideal guide would have it down to the "given X, Y, and Z, create promotion paperwork for a CAP member" level.

[O-Rex]

I remember at the B last week, some CAP-USAF folks mentioning something about members not progressing in PD as they should (?)

PD is a very-much underrated endeavor in CAP.

You get out of it what you put into it:  if you attend the CAP-specific courses (SLS/CLC/UCC) with the idea of maintaining a pulse and checking the boxes, you're probably not going to be effective.

I strongly suggest SOS/ACSC, there's alot of good material there, and it'll give you exposure to the material that a USAF Capt or Maj would get.  You may never get the keys to the Pentagon washroom, but at least you'll have a smattering of the lingo, and pobably won't embarrass yourself or the organization if you happen to converse with someone who wears the uniform for a living.

[Dragoon]

While I have no problem with SOS/ACSC, I gotta firmly put that in the "nice to know" rather than the "need to know" category.

And that's the problem - we teach very little of the "need to know" stuff.

How many of our members actually know what is a reportable accident and how to report it?

How many of our members with CAP driver's licenses have ever been taught how to conduct and record preoperations checks on the van?

Heck, how many of our members have been trained on how to recommend someone for a CAP award?

How many of our members truly understand the rules governing CAP insurance, and how it might affect them on a very personal level?


We've got so much internal stuff we just assume folks will learn by osmosis.  And it never seems to work out that way.

[RogueLeader]

^^ You find that the people who know the answers are officers in those Tracks.  I know most of them, because I've had to deal with them at some point or another. One of the most important things that I've had to learn in CAP, is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  If a member doesn't want to learn, PD does nothing for you- it goes in one ear, and out the other.  If you WANT to learn- God Forbid- you will retain much of it.  For example: Last October at the WTA- where I was at the time- there was a mandatory Safety Academy.  This was a required session for all Squadrons, unless they wanted to be grounded from flight activities. Our Safety Officer just left the wing, and there was nobody wanting to go.  I had wanted to go to the PD lab that was offered, but I couldn't let the Squadron get grounded, so I went, and I learned quite a bit about safety.