Don't try to be first in line for new CPPT

[dwb]

Public Service Announcement

CAP released the new cadet protection courses today. Don't rush in to LMS to be the first in your neighborhood to complete it, though. If you didn't do Level 1 through LMS, then LMS thinks you didn't do Level 1 at all and won't let you take the cadet protection courses.

NHQ has been notified, so don't run off and email them. Hopefully it'll be straightened out soon.

[Camas]

Yup - took the Level I back in 2000 so I guess it doesn't count

[MSG Mac]

Just checked on line, they must have completely removed the "New" CPPT, not there.

[a2capt]

Cart<--Horse. Oops.

[Tim Medeiros]

Just checked on line, they must have completely removed the "New" CPPT, not there.

It's there, in the professional development category of LMS.

[Eclipse]

I don't see anything new.

[stixco1]

I don't see anything new.

I just took Level one last year. It allowed me to take it online. It still shows on e-services for me. The only difference I can see is it now allows for pre-existing relationships outside of CAP. Also dropped the co-ed requirements for overnight events with co-ed cadets. Although it still suggests it.

[Eclipse]

So is this supposed to be the new Level 1 version, or the updated multi-tier version everyone will have to retake?

[stixco1]

So is this supposed to be the new Level 1 version, or the updated multi-tier version everyone will have to retake?

Everyone is suppose to take the "Basic" version. Commanders,deputy commanders and up have to also take the "advanced" course. It wont let you take the advanced course until you have completed the online and in-residence version of the basic course. I believe it has to be done by 30 June 15.

[SKI304]

It looks like the course is now running.  I just completed the Basic course over lunch, pending summary conversation.

On the topic of the Cadet Wingman Course, does anyone know if there is a separate place for us to enter this completion in eServices, or do we just hold the course in person and then input that date for Intro to Safety and Achievement 1 Character Development?  I don't want to burden NHQ with a helpdesk ticket if I'm just simply being blind and not seeing it.

[MacGruff]

I was working with two new Senior Members at last night's meeting, going over Level 1 stuff with them, when I noticed that the CPPT module was updated. The new reading material is 16 pages in length. All kinds of new and fancy graphics.     I have it in my "to do" list to read over it all myself and see if the Mentoring I do, and the case studies I use, still apply.

By the way, I also had a cadet take it as they just turned 18 and the process for giving them credit for it in e-services is a bit different than it was, so pay attention when you go to do it as a PDO.

[Grumpy]

Do I have this correct?

If you're not in a command position you must take the "New & Improved" Basic CPPT module that was updated yesterday and it will count as your refresher (48 month) training.

If you're in a command position (Sqdrn/CC) you can take the Advanced Course and forget about taking the Basic refresher training because the Advanced Course will cover both.

Next question:  If you are a new member and completed the Aug 2014 version of CPPT two weeks ago, you still have the take the Basic CPPT that became effective yesterday?

I'm so-o-o-o confused.   

[dwb]

Everybody has to take the basic course by July 1, 2015. The commanders/high-level CP folks also have to take the advanced course (so, two courses total).

Yes, even if you just completed old CPPT three days ago, you still need to do the new one.

Also, senior members can do them as a group during a weekly meeting and submit a CAPF 11 for everybody.

[capmaj]

For those that can't seem to find the link..............   http://www.capmembers.com/cadetprotect

[Eclipse]

For those that can't seem to find the link..............   http://www.capmembers.com/cadetprotect

"All adult members must complete the Cadet Protection Basic Course by 1 July 2015."

Awesome - one more cat for summer activities to herd.   4 months is plenty of time, yet
people will still be doing this on their phones at registration.

With that said, this is going to force conversations with once-a-years.

[Grumpy]

Everybody has to take the basic course by July 1, 2015. The commanders/high-level CP folks also have to take the advanced course (so, two courses total).

Yes, even if you just completed old CPPT three days ago, you still need to do the new one.

Also, senior members can do them as a group during a weekly meeting and submit a CAPF 11 for everybody.

OK, thanks.  Looks like we have a weekend training date coming up.  Perhaps we can get the other squadrons in our group and do it all at once.  Ah yes I can smell the coffee and doughnuts now

[Eclipse]

Basic done.

LMS says "20 time limit"  Quiz itself says no time limit.

Nothing earth shattering in either the curriculum or the test itself.

[Ned]

Ooooh!  I got 100% first time out of the box. [/brag]

Now I have to find someone to sign off my summary conversation.  This could get interesting.

[Storm Chaser]

+1.  I completed the basic course test and just need the summary conversation before I can take the advanced course, which became "required" on 1 February 2015.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Same here...just need to talk to...my boss.

[Tim Medeiros]

Guess I need to contact my wing commander for a conversation....

[Eclipse]

Guess I need to contact my wing commander for a conversation....

The Senior Leadership must enter completion of the summary conversation to receive credit for the Cadet Protection Basic Course.

The following Duty Postions(sic) can enter evaluations for this skill:
Commander, Deputy Commander, Deputy Commander for Cadets, Deputy Commander for Seniors, Director of Cadet Programs, Director of Personnel, Director of Professional Development, Personnel Officer, Professional Development Officer & Vice Commander

Presumably the respective proper staff officer at the lower levels may also have the conversations and enter credit - no Directors or Vice below Wing.

[Tim Medeiros]

However, who gives them their conversation and says they can give it to others? 

I can't in good conscience direct my PDO to give me a summary conversation without them having had it first.  For that matter, where the heck is the guide for it?

[dwb]

I tried approving my own summary conversation, but it didn't work.

[dwb]

I can't in good conscience direct my PDO to give me a summary conversation without them having had it first.  For that matter, where the heck is the guide for it?

At some point somebody has to give the first summary conversation. That person will be signing off before they themselves are signed off. It's like when TLC first launched in 2006. The first directors in every Wing were running the course before they took it as students.

You can find the case studies, etc. here: http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/cadet_protection/cpb-classroom/

[Eclipse]

I can't in good conscience direct my PDO to give me a summary conversation without them having had it first.  For that matter, where the heck is the guide for it?

At some point somebody has to give the first summary conversation. That person will be signing off before they themselves are signed off. It's like when TLC first launched in 2006. The first directors in every Wing were running the course before they took it as students.

You can find the case studies, etc. here: http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/cadet_protection/cpb-classroom/

+1 You're simply "discussing" the case studies.  There's no pass/fail, and since the whole thing is in the text, hard to misunderstand.
As has been mentioned, there's really nothing new in here that isn't already in the ether - more stress on grooming, but beyond that,
just common sense and procedure.

[Eclipse]

Conversation complete, approvals entered, now sitting for approval.

A few issues - the approval cycle is a bit wonky - about the same as a typical SQTR, it also shows
a date of 01 01 1900 at times.

Also the "review questions" button just pops a blank screen.

[Storm Chaser]

However, who gives them their conversation and says they can give it to others? 

I can't in good conscience direct my PDO to give me a summary conversation without them having had it first.  For that matter, where the heck is the guide for it?

I agree with others. There's no requirement for the officer giving the summary conversation to have done it first. The regulation, case studies and all the CPPT materials are there, available for them to read.

[Майор Хаткевич]

3-5. Cadet Protection Parents' Guide.
CAP makes a Parents' Guide to the CAP Cadet Program available to the parents or guardians of all cadets. Although not formatted as a course of study, this resource communicates to parents basic facts about CAP, the Cadet Program, the CPP in particular, important strategies for preventing child abuse, how to report concerns or potentially abusive incidents, and other topics. Squadron commanders will point parents of cadets who joined before this regulation took effect to the Parents' Guide at capmembers.com/parents.

I'm assuming a rewrite of said guide is planned, as currently the "CPP" gets ZERO mention directly, and only the following overall: .

Adult Supervision
CAP takes its responsibility to safeguard youth very seriously. The adults who interact with cadets (known as CAP senior members) have been fingerprinted and screened by the FBI. Senior members supervise all cadet activities. During overnight activities, at least two senior members are present. CAP does not tolerate sexual abuse, physical abuse, hazing or the use of exercise as punishment. All activities emphasize safety.  As part of their leadership training, advanced cadets mentor and lead new cadets under the guidance of senior members.

Not quite what the reg currently describes.


Also, the implementation guide is twice as long as the reg (at least by page count!).

[Eclipse]

Advanced done, approved, and recorded for posterity.

Approvals are going direct to, and only to the Wing CC.  I can't imagine that will stay like that very long, after the first hundred or so emails
I would posit the Wing CCs will be asking for them to go to the DCP and other staff. 

Took two passes on the quiz because a couple of questions are a little wonky.

Interestingly, in the guide there's a reference to "a space for Mom to sign..." in regards to the F32 - I guess
Dad's aren't allowed to?[/nitpicky]

There are also some syntax issues between the quiz and the regs or forms.  "Must"
on the quiz where it's "should" on the reg or form, etc.  They really should all match end-to-end.

In general the material covers the information necessary and does so pretty comprehensively. I just wish
we didn't live in a world it was necessary, both in terms of the abusers out there, and in terms of CAP
leaders and staff making better common-sense decisions, but such is life.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Advanced done, approved, and recorded for posterity.

Approvals are going direct to, and only to the Wing CC.  I can't imagine that will stay like that very long, after the first hundred or so emails
I would posit the Wing CCs will be asking for them to go to the DCP and other staff. 

Took two passes on the quiz because a couple of questions are a little wonky.

Interestingly, in the guide there's a reference to "a space for Mom to sign..." in regards to the F32 - I guess
Dad's aren't allowed to?[/nitpicky]

There are also some syntax issues between the quiz and the regs or forms.  "Must"
on the quiz where it's "should" on the reg or form, etc.  They really should all match end-to-end.

In general the material covers the information necessary and does so pretty comprehensively. I just wish
we didn't live in a world it was necessary, both in terms of the abusers out there, and in terms of CAP
leaders and staff making better common-sense decisions, but such is life.

At the very least, no one can claim ignorance when they get smacked for letting bad things happen and not following procedure.

[Tim Day]

Just checked on line, they must have completely removed the "New" CPPT, not there.

It's there, in the professional development category of LMS.

Seems to be in the Cadet Programs category now.

[Eclipse]

At the very least, no one can claim ignorance when they get smacked for letting bad things happen and not following procedure.

You would be surprised at the human capability for claiming ignorance.  Not to mention the propensity to "know better, but act anyway".

How many cadets and seniors do we see just here that are looking for any loophole to drop cadets for push-ups, etc., or maintain
their hazing "tradition".

I'm all for flexibility and sometimes you have to punt, but generally if you have to do too much mental gymnastics to justify a position,
you probably need to reconsider the action. However there there are a lot of "leaders" and staff who use "divide by zero" as their guide, not the
exception.

This certainly isn't unique to CAP, I see it with my kid's Scout Troop all the time, but it seems to come out more in CAP
because of the paramilitary environment, and inconsistent leader training which is a much about watching movies as being mentored.

[Майор Хаткевич]

At the very least, no one can claim ignorance when they get smacked for letting bad things happen and not following procedure.

You would be surprised at the human capability for claiming ignorance.  Not to mention the propensity to "know better, but act anyway".

How many cadets and seniors do we see just here that are looking for any loophole to drop cadets for push-ups, etc., or maintain
their hazing "tradition".

I'm all for flexibility and sometimes you have to punt, but generally if you have to do too much mental gymnastics to justify a position,
you probably need to reconsider the action. However there there are a lot of "leaders" and staff who use "divide by zero" as their guide, not the
exception.

This certainly isn't unique to CAP, I see it with my kid's Scout Troop all the time, but it seems to come out more in CAP
because of the paramilitary environment, and inconsistent leader training which is a much about watching movies as being mentored.

Oh, they can act dumb, but once they get caught, and get 2B'd/removed/demoted/etc for it, they can't claim ignorance, because eServices will have the date of their completion.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Eclipse-

Developers have seen too many/much? Hollywood material.

If you remember Hollywood movies and TV shows, dads are dumb or clueless, abusive, and generally cannot be trusted to take care of their kids.        

[Eclipse]

Developers have seen too many/much? Hollywood material.

I didn't say devs (or at least not the new material devs).

If you remember Hollywood movies and TV shows, dads are dumb or clueless, abusive, and generally cannot be trusted to take care of their kids.

((*sigh*)) sadly you are all too correct.  We're not even needed in the build process anymore, yet people wonder what's wrong with society.

[THRAWN]

Developers have seen too many/much? Hollywood material.

I didn't say devs (or at least not the new material devs).

If you remember Hollywood movies and TV shows, dads are dumb or clueless, abusive, and generally cannot be trusted to take care of their kids.

((*sigh*)) sadly you are all too correct.  We're not even needed in the build process anymore, yet people wonder what's wrong with society.

We are way too busy watching sports in our briefs, ranting about raising morons, and getting fat to be that involved.

[dwb]

I thought the advanced course was top notch. Lots of really useful information. The basic course was fine, but it is definitely basic. I need to go through the final version of the wingman course to see how it came out (a couple of our squadrons field tested it late last year).

[Майор Хаткевич]

How does one get into it? The online system won't let SMs in.

[Eclipse]

Same here...just need to talk to...my boss.

It's classroom training...

http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/cadet_protection/cp-wingman/

I wonder what it costs to license a chunk of a major motion picture like that?
In that there are >no< titles or copyright notices anywhere on that clip, one has to ask if it was posted without consideration
of rights or licensing.

Also, is it really that hard at the national level to find video that >doesn't< contain improper uniform wear and policy violations?
Or has it just gotten so bad that it's not worth trying?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Oh, that I saw. I'm wondering about the online cadet version of CPP

[NIN]

Also, is it really that hard at the national level to find video that >doesn't< contain improper uniform wear and policy violations?
Or has it just gotten so bad that it's not worth trying?

I didn't see anything that really raised my hackles.  Did you have some specific concern?

(I mean, there was the usual "plastered on drill team/color guard uniform" and maybe some minor collar insignia positioning, but nothing I saw really hit my "if it looks wrong it is wrong" filter. )

[PHall]

How does one get into it? The online system won't let SMs in.

DWB has powers and abilities that you don't have. We'll leave it at that.

[Майор Хаткевич]

How does one get into it? The online system won't let SMs in.

DWB has powers and abilities that you don't have. We'll leave it at that.

Fair enough, but as a CP officer, maybe I should...

[PHall]

How does one get into it? The online system won't let SMs in.

DWB has powers and abilities that you don't have. We'll leave it at that.

Fair enough, but as a CP officer, maybe I should...

You're at what level, squadron?  He ain't.

[dwb]

You're going to blow my cover, Phil!

I'm a Region DCS/CP, but I don't think that has anything to do with it. Here are direct links to the new training --

Basic Course:
https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.LMS.Web/Course/course_start.aspx?c=72

Advanced Course:
https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.LMS.Web/Course/course_start.aspx?c=73

All the kinks should be worked out now. I was able to get in to the basic course, complete it, talked with my Region CC then he approved, then I did the advanced course and CC approved. All pretty frictionless, really.

[Eclipse]

Basic Course:
https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.LMS.Web/Course/course_start.aspx?c=72

Advanced Course:
https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.LMS.Web/Course/course_start.aspx?c=73

When I click those it just takes me to the Senior-member courses.

[Eclipse]

Also, is it really that hard at the national level to find video that >doesn't< contain improper uniform wear and policy violations?
Or has it just gotten so bad that it's not worth trying?

I didn't see anything that really raised my hackles.  Did you have some specific concern?

Several senior members clearly too heavy for BDUs, and cadets in the field with either no vest or a patrol-boy belt instead of a vest.

"Meh, what's the big deal?"

Videos like this get into the zeitgeist and the overall attitude of "whatever" is propagated.  NHQ videos should strive to be the textbook example of the way CAP should look for everyone, not just "whatever we can find that is close".

Also, there's no way that other video is legal.  You can't take a chunk of somebody's IP, edit and repurpose it, and
not, at a minimum, include credit and copyright notifications.

[ProdigalJim]

Also, there's no way that other video is legal.  You can't take a chunk of somebody's IP, edit and repurpose it, and
not, at a minimum, include credit and copyright notifications.

Actually, the courts have held that a teacher or instructor can copy a small snippet of a copyrighted work to include in a lesson under the Commentary & Criticism portion of the Fair Use doctrine; it's even easier when the lesson involved is being distributed free of charge and inures no benefit to the publisher.

Parody is the other use, and I suppose we could make the parody case for this particular video...but I digress...

[ProdigalJim]

DWB has powers and abilities that you don't have. We'll leave it at that.

Having been in the reflected glow of dwb's Presence on a few occasions, I can confirm this to be true. We recently got him to stop levitating, however; it was scaring cadets...

[JeffDG]

I wish folks would proofread announcements before posting them and see that they acutally match other regs...like this:

http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/cadet_protection/

Members must complete Cadet Protection Advanced Course before being assigned to the following positions: commanders, deputy commanders, vice commander (group or higher), chief of staff (wing or higher), director of cadet programs (group or higher), and inspector general. Further, encampment commanders, commandants of cadets, and NCSA directors and deputies are also required to complete the course.

Vice Commanders are Wing or higher (Groups have Deputy Commanders...I know, I is one), and same with "director of cadet programs"

[Eclipse]

^ noted previously.

It is somewhat flabbergasting how many members not assigned to wing level refer to themselves
as "Vice", "Director", "Chief", etc.

[arajca]

^ noted previously.

It is somewhat flabbergasting how many members not assigned to wing level refer to themselves
as "Vice", "Director", "Chief", etc.

Part of that is ego and part is that Eservices let's them be assigned as Director of Operations at the squadron level.

[LSThiker]

http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/cadet_protection/[/url]

Holy Crikey.  There are two C/Amn that have the Curry and Encampment Ribbons mixed around on that page.

[Eclipse]

http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/cadet_protection/[/url]

Holy Crikey.  There are two C/Amn that have the Curry and Encampment Ribbons mixed around on that page.

Wow - missed that.  Nice that a mosquito has already been to encampment, not so nice that no one locally, or at NHQ bothered
to notice.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Prodigal-

You are right in that the courts agree that teachers can copy a snippet for face-to-face instruction. However, the copy cannot be kept seculora seculorum. (Sorry if I mangled that phrase, it was supposed to mean forever and ever.)

In the 1980's a school system in Indiana, Ivy Tech requested the Library record and keep videos of programs transmitted  by TV in the case that teachers wanted to use them for their curriculum. The company producing the program sued, and Ivy Tech lost. They had to erase all their programs so recorded. I think that Ivy Tech was also obligated to buy the programs so recorded by the court.

In the 1990s Kinko's, a national photocopy company was sued and lost. They would collect magazine articles, book chapters, and others from teachers, and photocopy those and sell them to students of said teachers. Both Kinkos and professors were doing it as a "Fair Use doctrine, protected by the Copyright Law." Several book publishers sued Kinkos. Kinkos lost.

This issue affects me in my regular job.

I am a school librarian, and used to work inb several college libraries. Many times, teachers would request college librarians to place copies of a particular article for their class reserve. So we have to tell teachers "we cannot do this for ever and ever."

Basically Fair Use says this: A. Purpose and Character. How will it impact the commercial aspect. B. Ammount of copyrighted work. What is the length of the material so copied? C. Nature of the copyrighted work. What is it? The comparison is made of a painting and a book. A painting can be so unique that copying it will not fall under Fair Use, but several photos of a book could be copied.  D. Effect on the market.

Although as a Librarian I have been asked by teachers to interpret it, I am not a lawyer. Before an institution tries to use copyrighted material, their lawyers must be consulted. Real lawyers, not the "armchair lawyers" that are in here. 

So I will not say that CAP is violating the Copyright Law. Nor will I say it is not.

This is really more so in the realm of Ned.

[JeffDG]

Although as a Librarian I have been asked by teachers to interpret it, I am not a lawyer. Before an institution tries to use copyrighted material, their lawyers must be consulted. Real lawyers, not the "armchair lawyers" that are in here. 

So I will not say that CAP is violating the Copyright Law. Nor will I say it is not.

This is really more so in the realm of Ned.

"Fair Use" is just about the definition of a "Dog's Breakfast" in law if there ever was one.  I'm not a lawyer either, but do a fair amount of work with respect to intellectual property law for my profession (IT software licensing) and I've probably read more than your general-purpose family lawyer on Title 17 USC, but no way in he-double-hockey-sticks would I offer any kind of fair-use opinion on anything not blindingly obvious (for example, my quoting your post in this reply is clearly fair-use!)

[Garibaldi]

When I was in journalism school, I had to take a couple of law courses dealing with media and such. Fair Use, as it applied to our educational purposes, was defined to us students in Broadcast classes, in short, as "You may use copyrighted material as part of your coursework as long as you are not using the material for personal or financial gain." That covered our butts when it came to using music and video materials for a PR spot for our university television and radio stations and in class projects.
Since we are NOT an educational institution as such, that leads me to believe ANY use of copyrighted materials, even though we are not using them for the above said reasons, can have the copyright holders on us faster than Walt Flanagan's dog. I suppose it could loosely be argued that our mandate includes education but that's a fine line. We are not paid professionals.

[Eclipse]

We are not paid professionals.

Wait, what?...

...that explains soooooo much...

Fair Use would probably allow for the "public" showing of the parts of the movies needed for SLS/CLC classes (though honestly having the clips
captured for those classes is probably a no-no, convenient or otherwise.

Posting an unattributed clip on the publicly-accessible side of the website of a national organization seems to me that it would be a problem.
If for no other reason then the lack of credits or attribution.

[Ned]

If you will forgive the observation, but this is sadly typical of CAPTalk. 

In a thread devoted to resolving some important technical issues with a new training program designed to protect cadets (which has apparently been resolved), the usual suspects would rather nitpick and sharpshoot photographs of actual cadets and engage in a legal debate by non-lawyers.

This forum has such potential to be a useful resource for the membership and our stakeholders.

It can even serve the same sort of social component as the conversations we all have in the squadron parking lot (or local coffee shop) after our meetings.  A mixture of camaraderie and professional development.

But no, we are going to further dilute the signal to noise ratio endlessly playing "Uniform Gotcha" and listening to legal trivia contests.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

[Eclipse]

But no, we are going to further dilute the signal to noise ratio endlessly playing "Uniform Gotcha" and listening to legal trivia contests.

So...

Posting pictures which show proper uniform wear and don't violate safety policies, that's not an option? 

Not discussing it is better?

Also, how about rolling out systems that are tested and working instead of beta testing things in the field?
Which was the genesis of the thread.

[Майор Хаткевич]

There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere, when adressing issues somehow negates the important training...somewhere.

I suppose the end DOES justify the means?