Shifting Up

[capme]

I was just reading over the posts concerning Senior Member Professional Development "Shifting Up" requirements for advancement.  A few of us have discussed this in CP also.  What do you think of "Shifting Up" cadet advancement requirements?

Moving basic encampment attendance requirement to Lindbergh instead of Mitchell.
Moving RCLS to Mitchell instead of Eaker.
Leaving COS at Eaker.

Just a thought.

[lordmonar]

To what end?

[capme]

I see far too many Cadet senior NCO's and Cadet Officers with zero leadership abilities.  They seem to fly through the ranks too fast and miss the journey in their quest toward the destination.

Phase I goals are to teach cadets to be good followers - thus attendance at Airman Academy and basic encampment should be in order.

Phase II goals are to teach cadets to lead small teams - thus RCLS.

A more stair-step approach.

[DC]

I could see something to that effect, but I would not push the RCLS/COS requirement down as low as the Mitchell. Having just gone through COS, I can tell you that I would not have been able to do that activity when I was a 15 year old C/NCO.

Ideally national would publish guidelines for a comprehensive set of Cadet PME activities like a few wings have. I would like to see Encampment a requirement for the Wright Brothers, some sort of NCO academy a requirement for Lindbergh, a Basic Officer Leadership School for Earhart, and leave the RCLS/COS requirement for Eaker.

Some sort of 'program in a box' that individual wings, or even groups, could take and very quickly set up and run. I think the NCO Academy and basic officer course could even be done as 2 or 3 day weekend activities, making them much easier to schedule and run, as well as reducing the financial burden to cadets and their families.

This would also have the effect of slowing down cadet promotions somewhat, forcing cadets to take some more time to 'smell the roses' at each level and actually learn something.

Coupled with Encampment, the Great Start program (which I'm really not a fan of, but it's better than nothing), and the awesome new Learn to Lead textbooks, we could see a major change in the quality of the leadership education cadets receive. Instead of 99.9% of the cadet experience being left up to the squadron, which generates wildly varying results, there would be a centralized 'quality check' at each level of the program, keeping cadets on the same page and reducing the number of cadet officers that can't lead a horse to water or plan a trip to the grocery store.

[SarDragon]

Requiring an encampment earlier will slow down promotions in an unsatisfactory manner. It could place a really sharp cadet in the situation of having only one opportunity to attend an encampment, before being stuck at C/TSgt for as much as a year, until another opportunity arises.

Also, if cadets are achieving upper grades w/o leadership skills, then the unit leadership isn't doing their jobs right.

[capme]

I understand what you are saying, however there are many smaller squadrons that cannot offer leadership opportunities to their up and coming cadets. 

What's the rush?  Yes, cadets are "allowed" to promote every 86 days, but what's the rush?  Your really sharp cadets will gain valuable leadership experience at a slower pace.  This is not a race to the top.

[lordmonar]

Requiring an encampment earlier will slow down promotions in an unsatisfactory manner. It could place a really sharp cadet in the situation of having only one opportunity to attend an encampment, before being stuck at C/TSgt for as much as a year, until another opportunity arises.

Also, if cadets are achieving upper grades w/o leadership skills, then the unit leadership isn't doing their jobs right.

+1

Cadets (and every other leaders I have ever known) learn leadership while doing it not attending a class or course.

In my years on AD when ever I took a PME course....I did not really learn anything new.  It gave me the names and theories of practices that I had already leaned how to do by watching my NCO's and officers.

Not saying that course work is not important....but your propsed fix....does not really address the problem.

If C/CMSgt is not a strong leader...a week long course is not going to make him any better if there is not program to use the lessons learned.

Promotion speed is again not in and of itself a problem so much as an adhearance to the program standards.

One of my biggest pet peeves is that there are a lot of people out there with an inflated sense of what the standards are supposed to be.

a C/CMSgt is not supposed to know it all and be it all like are real CMSgt.  A C/CMSgt is just topping off one phase of his training and moving on to the next.

[SarDragon]

I understand what you are saying, however there are many smaller squadrons that cannot offer leadership opportunities to their up and coming cadets. 

Then they have to work a little harder at it. Maybe schedule a joint activity with a nearby unit, if possible. IIRC, the next closest unit to yours is less than two hours away.

What's the rush?  Yes, cadets are "allowed" to promote every 86 days, but what's the rush?  Your really sharp cadets will gain valuable leadership experience at a slower pace.  This is not a race to the top.

86 days? How about 56?

You ask "What's the rush?", but you seem to be in an earlier post that that's exactly what's happening. Help me out here on where you're going with this.

[capme]

Typo - 56 days

I don't know how it seemed I was advocating the rush.  I do not like to see cadets in the race for the top.  They miss the whole experience on the way.  I saw way too much of that in the Bay Scouts - the rush to get all the merit badges they can to gain rank.  No real life learning along the way.

I could possibly advocate for removing cadet officer ranks and restructuring the cadet program based on enlisted ranks.  But that's for another thread.

[DakRadz]

I could possibly advocate for removing cadet officer ranks and restructuring the cadet program based on enlisted ranks.  But that's for another thread.

Adults without prior military experience can also join the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps- the uniform looks better anyway.

(They utilize the cadets-are-enlisted-only structure)

I guess I'm saying I like the program structure fairly well. With so many achievements, it's true that only the dedicated make it to the Spaatz.

[capme]

Way OT - DakRadz, thank you for the advice to transfer to USNCC however I am retired military, and I disagree about the uniforms looking better.  I was a Sea Cadet Officer many years ago.  I have also been a Cub Scout Leader, Boy Scout Leader, D.A.R.E. Officer, DEFY Camp Director, etc, etc

Back on point - I see cadets advancing far too often/far too fast and they are missing the valuable experience along the way to race to the top.

Is the focus supposed to be on learning leadership or gaining rank?

[DakRadz]

If they are advancing too far too fast, then it is the DCC's responsibility to halt their progress until they are mature enough to hold the next achievement or rank. If the DCC isn't doing their job, that's a whole 'nother topic, as you said.

RCLS isn't available for all regions. Just a thought. I can't afford airfare to New Jersey or wherever else, and RCLS is like encampment; they aren't reimbursing you.

To me it sounds like more of a senior leadership problem by not telling them (cadets) "Hey, you need to stay in this rank right now and get your act together. You want to be a cadet officer, great. You're still going to stay another month at MSgt and prove you can be mature."
YMMV

[High Speed Low Drag]

I have to agree with the previous posters. The problem is not in requirements, but in how the program is administered.  I know a squadron that tests every two weeks, their cadets go up quickly, but (IMO) haven't learned proper manners, etiquette, and leadership along the way. 
In our squadron, I allow only one test a month.  If you fail a test, it was an extra month to promotion.  It (was) a natural way to slow progression.  However, there have been a couple cadets that passed every test every month.  However, they showed they had "the right stuff" too; they worked hard, participated every chance, and showed leadership.  I didn't have a problem promoting them.
With the new online testing, we are having to change the dynamics a bit.  However, with more of an emphasis on performance review, I hope to accomplish the same thing.  If cadets are promoted too quickly for their individual skill level, then it damages the squadron as well as the cadet.
Promotions should come from in-squadron, not more or different requirements by national.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Meanwhile, things like squadron of Merit are partially based on cadet progression. # of Wright Bros., Mitchells, Earharts, etc.

No credit for holding a C/CMSgt there for grow up time. Just a bit of a mixed message.

[DC]

Meanwhile, things like squadron of Merit are partially based on cadet progression. # of Wright Bros., Mitchells, Earharts, etc.

No credit for holding a C/CMSgt there for grow up time. Just a bit of a mixed message.

That's true, but it seems to work okay in my experience. The units that allow rampant promotion without regard to anything but test scores are usually smaller, and their program for cadets isn't the best. They have a large ratio of milestone awards to Phase 1 cadets, but not a large number overall.

The units that do often have a healthy, robust program and are large enough to support a large number of NCOs and Cadet Officers.

[lordmonar]

Meanwhile, things like squadron of Merit are partially based on cadet progression. # of Wright Bros., Mitchells, Earharts, etc.

No credit for holding a C/CMSgt there for grow up time. Just a bit of a mixed message.

No not a mixed message at all.

Just a way to rack and stack squadrons.

The numbers are just a way to quantify some of the objectives of the cadet program.  Just because squadron X had 10 Mitchelles does not make it a squadron of Merit or squadron of distinction.

If the wing CP thinks that they have become a promotion mill they can always make a Staff Assist Visit and get them back on track.

Over all I don't see too many cadet promoting too fast.  I am sure that there are some out there who are....just as there are some out there who have been stagnating on one rank for way too long.

They tend to even out over the long run.

Either way....I don't see using RCLS or COS as a way to really stop or help the process...it will road block some of the cadets who need to be road blocked...but it will bottle neck those who are ready to move on.

If you got a squadron or a cadet who is promoting too fast....the real fix is to have a wing/group Director of CP who is engaged with what his composite and cadet squadrons are doing and provides useful guidance and/or intervention as needed.

[Capt Rivera]

Although I understand the argument that it might hold a cadet up for a year... When I look at the larger picture... I think CAP and cadets would be better served in the long run if you had to have attended encampment as a GA to make Cadet SSgt. Want exceptions? Sure... If there was a JROTC equivalent that they graduated from, encampment could be waived for a year and that cadet would not be able to complete Mitchel without it...

In most if not all cases I would also support that a cadet should not be on staff at an encampment unless they had already attended encampment as a GA. Yes I've seen a cadet attend as cadet staff the 1st encampment due to the rank attained prior to encampment...

[DC]

In most if not all cases I would also support that a cadet should not be on staff at an encampment unless they had already attended encampment as a GA. Yes I've seen a cadet attend as cadet staff the 1st encampment due to the rank attained prior to encampment...

I know there is no official requirement for this, but it has always been the practice in my area. To staff an activity you should have to see it from the participant's view first.

[Capt Rivera]

I know there is no official requirement for this, but it has always been the practice in my area. To staff an activity you should have to see it from the participant's view first.

DC, unfortunately, commonsense is anything but common... Without that rule in writing, I would not be surprised to see it happen again at some point... I fully agree that to staff an activity, you should first have the participant's view... especially if your a cadet. If an exception was made I think it should require squadron CC written (e-mailed) recommendation.

[DakRadz]

Unless the cadet has attended an AFJROTC event such as COLS (Cadet Officer Leadership School), they shouldn't be staff at their first encampment. Even then, I'm not sure I'd want Line Staff who don't know how OUR training is supposed to run.

Capt Rivera, I'm only familiar with GA because of my Navy JROTC experience- if you mean Graduate Assistant as in staff, then you're saying a cadet should be on staff before reaching the rank of C/Staff Sergeant? GAWG (with VERY few exceptions, and those only for support staff positions) doesn't let cadets lower than the rank of C/SSgt even be on staff. And they must have been a previous encampment graduate.
So it would take 2 years to be a C/SSgt, one year as a basic/doolie at encampment, another as staff.

If you mean something else entirely by GA, disregard the above and enlightenment me

[Capt Rivera]

GA = General Attendee  ... sorry if that is a non CAP standard abbreviation... 

General Attendee = any cadet who is not cadet staff, a cadet who is just there to experience, follow... not lead...  At least that is my understanding...

[DakRadz]

I've heard "basic" or "doolie/dooley/dooly" used, but never GA for Civil Air Patrol. But maybe that's just me.

Someone please tell me how to spell that word I gave three variations of.

I still don't think any cadet without a previous encampment credit should be staff. That's rather odd to me.

Before trying to facelift (or transplant) the CP, get basic changes such as "Cadet must attend as a GA/basic/doolie(sp) before serving on staff at encampment."

YMMV.

[HGjunkie]

I've heard "basic" or "doolie/dooley/dooly" used, but never GA for Civil Air Patrol. But maybe that's just me.

Someone please tell me how to spell that word I gave three variations of.

I still don't think any cadet without a previous encampment credit should be staff. That's rather odd to me.

Before trying to facelift (or transplant) the CP, get basic changes such as "Cadet must attend as a GA/basic/doolie(sp) before serving on staff at encampment."

YMMV.

"Doolie" is what we use in FLWG.

[MSG Mac]

There is no requirement that anybody senior or Cadet be advanced in grade due to meeting the minimal requirements. A Cadet can be counseled that he's not ready for advancement and the steps needed to become ready.

[lordmonar]

I think the orginal poster was really complaining about the practices of other units.  "I see to many SNCO and Officer cadets get promoted too fast".  Is a lament that they want to slow everyone up because of the few units that either do not know the standards or don't care about the standards.

So instead of really saying "Wing CP Director, you need to go see what the East Fourty Cadet is squadron is doing over there"...they are saying let's put up road blocks for everyone to "slow up" promotions.

Well if East Fourty is not aware of the standards....changing the standards does not make the problem better...it just means they have a new set of standards that they will not be aware of.

If East Fourty is aware of the standards and doesn't understand them or simply ignoring them....same situaiton...they will still not understand the new standard and or continue to ignore them.

The fix is supervision and intervention by the wing/group Director of Cadet Programs and/or his staff.