Senior time spent on Cadet matters

[dogboy]

I'm interested in what proportion of their CAP time Senior members spend working with Cadets or direct support of the Cadet program. Direct support means working for the Cadet program although Cadets are not present (e.g. planning). However, general work for the unit should not be counted as direct support (for example: a Squadron Personnel Officer in a Composite Squadron would not be direct support even though he/ she processes Cadet membership applications). All Senior members who are staff in a Cadet Squadron are in direct support.

Please, votes from Senior members only.

[Ned]

Out of curisoity, why wouldn't a personnel officer at a cadet squadron be considered "supporting the cadet program?"

Along with the logistics officer, chaplain, admin, and the testing officer?

[bosshawk]

How about 0 %?  I am in a Composite Sq and have nothing to do with cadets.

[PHall]

How about 0 %?  I am in a Composite Sq and have nothing to do with cadets.

You don't interact with them at all? Do the seniors in your squadron meet on a different night from the cadets?

[JohnKachenmeister]

I command a senior squadron.  My only cadet involvement is O-flights.  Your mileage may vary.

[bosshawk]

Phil:  yes.  About twice a year, I am roped into sitting on a cadet promotion board and I do not do O flights.  So, to be completely accurate, I guess that I spend less than 1% of my time supporting cadets.

To be completely honest, I have little or no interest in the Cadet Program.  I never had kids and have never spent much time around teenagers.  My primary interest is in ES.

[dogboy]

Out of curisoity, why wouldn't a personnel officer at a cadet squadron be considered "supporting the cadet program?"

Along with the logistics officer, chaplain, admin, and the testing officer?

A valid point. Poll instructions have been altered to conform to your constructive comment.

Thanks

[spacecommand]

"Please, votes from Senior members only."

Interesting for a poll to have an option "not a senior member" when you are trying to elicit answers from senior members.

Any case I spend about 60%+ of my time working with the cadets.
Interestingly  though, when I first joined I really didn't envision myself working with the cadets, just doing operations/air crew stuff, however I ended now working more with the cadets.

[Ron1319]

I can't think of anything I do that isn't in support of the cadet program.

The thing I haven't been able to do as much of as I would like is ES.  I've tried to even not do any ES training where I didn't bring cadets along as I see it as short sighted and selfish not to ensure their involvement.  I can't think of many ES examples where I would not like to see cadets in some form of training role, even IC/base command type of activities.  Are cadets part of air crews elsewhere in the country?  I don't know any cadet scanner/observers here.  I was.

[dogboy]

"Please, votes from Senior members only."

Interesting for a poll to have an option "not a senior member" when you are trying to elicit answers from senior members.

This was quite deliberate. Even though the instruction state "Please, votes from Senior members only", I knew some non-Senior members would take a look. This option allows them to look without voting.

[Major Carrales]

More "anti-cadet" nonsense.  Do you folks not realize that the cadet program is a facet of Civil Air Patrol going back to the days of WWII and that that aspect, along with Emergency Services, is what makes contemporary CAP appeal to its supporters in government and the community?

Being against the cadet program is unbecoming and serves no constructive purpose here, that is, of course, my opinion here. 

However, if CAP were suddenly "pure ES" with no cadet element I feel it would be on the chopping block faster than you could say "Jack Robinson." Also, if we eliminated out ES function becoming a cadet only organization, we would also be eliminated because AFJROTC already covers that function...and with funding.  Why "double" an entry in the ledger for two cadet programs?

CAP is able to exist because of its current structure, not despite it.  Food for thought.

My advice to those with the type of thinking suggested by the spirit of this poll is to tolerate the cadets, do your ES and kindly go about your business. 

[Dad2-4]

I became a SM as an AE Officer, so I started off directly involved with cadets. That was the biggest reason I joined, and that's OK since my 2 sons joined at the same time.
Since then I've stayed in the cadet program, earning the CP Officer rating, AE Senior rating, as well as GT Leader and teaching ES to cadets. Since my boys are long out of CAP I plan on spending more time on Scanner/Observer certification and on Communications. But CP will always be part of my involvement.

[flyboy53]

I'm an AEO as well who doubles as a DDR instructor/officer. The rest of the time is spent with my ES duties. I'm an observer.

[JohnKachenmeister]

For Sparky Carrales:

I don't think these comments are "Anti-cadet" and I don't see any sentiment-- on or off this board-- for eliminating the cadet program.  But a lot of us get annoyed by clueless 12-year olds bumbling around missions and flight lines.  I have encountered cadets who could not tie their shoes (I am NOT making that up) and who did not know right from left or where to look when I said that there is an aircraft at "4 o'clock."

I have stopped cadets on a flight line who were running toward an aircraft with a spinning propeller, and two cadets on a GT exercise had to be stopped before they ran into an 8-foot alligator as they tried to use the box method to navigate around one of the lakes here in Florida.

Personally, I would like to see the cadet age raised to 14, like it was back in the 60's.  Putting pre-teens in CAP should be considered an experiment that has failed.

[BillB]

The disagreement between Kach and Sparky demonstrates the difference between cadet/composite Squadrons and Senior Squadrons. Senior Squadrons are involved in ES only and want nothing to do with cadets. Yet these seniors are the ones that should be providing ES training to cadets. Yet as Kach suggests there is a big problem in the cadet program when you have cadets ranging from 11 to 21 in ages. (now I'll be flamed by Ned) CAP needs to look at the entire cadet program, and consider splitting the program into various segiments. In the past there was the Eaglet program for the youngest age group and another program for the 18-21 year old as a Warrant Officer (not Flight Officer) program. Even the Boy Scouts have different levels based on age grouping.
CAP has no distinction between a 12 year old and a 20 year old. Maturity is not considred, cadets are still children regardless of age. Thus cadet participation in ES is limited in the eyes of many seniors. And training of the children has no place in ES. Considering somewhere about 40% of the membership of CAP are cadets, a vast pool of manpower for ES is ignored.

[JohnKachenmeister]

^  Agree.

Among the things National should consider:

1.  Raising the cadet entry age to 14.  Make it a high school program like it used to be.

2.  Ending cadet participation at 18.  In the 60's this was a done deal, since we had a draft.  The cadet program has very little to offer college-age folks, and they could be better utilized as flight officer senior members... in a leadership role over the cadets, but still officer members and adult leaders.   Call them warrant officers if you want.

3.  QUIT MOTHERING the cadets.  Demand excellence and performance.  There are too many lame officers who want to make excuses for failure of cadets to meet the standards of CAP.  Example:

A cadet activity is imminent, yet Cadet Nitwitt does not have the proper patches on his BDU uniform.  An officer who demands excellence will say:  "I'm sorry, Cadet Nitwitt, but you cannot participate, since you do not have a proper uniform."  Too many of our officers, however, say:  "I know you don't have patches, but I don't want you to miss this activity."  or "I'd stop him from coming, but he really wants to come with his buddies, and if I don't let him participate, we will lose him."  or:  "His parents have not ordered the patches yet from Vanguard.  We can't hold it against the cadet for the failure of his parents."

All excuses for failure to meet standards.

[coudano]

almost 100%
every once in a while i answer a PD question or run a PD report for the 'non cadet side', or talk non-CP squadron biz with the commander, but that's about it.  The rest of it is cp, even the ES portion.

[Eclipse]

The disagreement between Kach and Sparky demonstrates the difference between cadet/composite Squadrons and Senior Squadrons. Senior Squadrons are involved in ES only and want nothing to do with cadets. Yet these seniors are the ones that should be providing ES training to cadets.

Which is why the designator and the allowance for units and members not participating in 100% of the mission of CAP should be eliminated.

[Ned]

But a lot of us get annoyed by clueless 12-year olds bumbling around missions and flight lines. 

That's fair.  A lot of us get annoyed by clueless seniors bumbling around CP activitiers that have not figured out how to wear a uniform or master the basics of military customs and courtesies.   

Personally, I would like to see the cadet age raised to 14, like it was back in the 60's.  Putting pre-teens in CAP should be considered an experiment that has failed.

Well, we have re-raised the lower age limit in recent times.  And I suppose reasonable minds can differ as to what the lower age limit should be.  But out of curiosity, other than your personal opinion, what criteria are you using to say that lower limits have "failed" or that 14 is the magic number?"

Yet as Kach suggests there is a big problem in the cadet program when you have cadets ranging from 11 to 21 in ages. (now I'll be flamed by Ned) CAP needs to look at the entire cadet program, and consider splitting the program into various segiments. In the past there was the Eaglet program for the youngest age group and another program for the 18-21 year old as a Warrant Officer (not Flight Officer) program. Even the Boy Scouts have different levels based on age grouping.

Some quick responses:

1.  Neither the Eaglet nor the warrant program drew a significant number of participants.  Which is pretty much why they are no longer with us.

2.  We have been down this road numerous times before, as you will recall.  Advanced Cadet Transition programs and Junior Cadet programs have come and gone with no visible signs of success.

3.  Maybe, just maybe, the Scouts are wrong and we are right.

CAP has no distinction between a 12 year old and a 20 year old. Maturity is not considred, cadets are still children regardless of age.

Bill, you know I greatly respect your contributions to CAP, but this is just utter nonsense.

The training and treatment of younger and more mature cadets is dramatically different.  As different as the way we treat C/ABs and C/Cols.  Not a lot of 20 year olds in Phase I; nor many 12 year olds in Phase IV.

And to repeat myself yet again, the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are simply unrelated.  Cadets are students, regardless of age.  As you read this, your Uncle Sam has thousands of cadets under the age of 18, and thousands of cadets over the age of 18.  If Uncle Sam doesn't care about the artificial distinction of the 18th birthday in his cadet programs, why should we?

[Camas]

I can only share something that occurred in our wing some years ago.  A former member was most active in establishing what was probably one of the best glider programs in our region at the time. He and other members got a program going which was the envy of many. He made it clear that, while he was a senior squadron member, his team was working to benefit the cadet program. In his case he also did powered O-rides along with the glider program. He was awarded the MSA for his efforts. Sadly he has moved and is now with another wing.

I am currently attached (not assigned) to a squadron as their interim professional development officer along with serving in my wing assignments so yes, my contact with cadets based on my current duty assignment is somewhat limited. But I still help out when asked by the unit commander such as sitting in on promotion boards and the like. I really enjoy the contact with these fine young people.

It's unfortunate that there are those who seem to feel that participating in the cadet side of things is something they don't enjoy doing. It continues to be one of our three missions as well as it should.

That's fair.  A lot of us get annoyed by clueless seniors bumbling around CP activitiers that have not figured out how to wear a uniform or master the basics of military customs and courtesies.   

Thank you. I couldn't agree more.

[CAP Producer]

Out of curisoity, why wouldn't a personnel officer at a cadet squadron be considered "supporting the cadet program?"

Along with the logistics officer, chaplain, admin, and the testing officer?

Or how about the unit PAO? If a unit has a good PAO he/she is telling the stories of all of the unit's members, their activites and their achievements. This includes the cadets.

PAOs work to support all 3 of CAP's missions and the one I enjoy the most.

Just sayin.

[Eclipse]

CAP has no distinction between a 12 year old and a 20 year old. Maturity is not considred, cadets are still children regardless of age.

Bill, you know I greatly respect your contributions to CAP, but this is just utter nonsense.

Sorry Ned, we've been down this road before.  In CAP there is no distinction.  We may give older cadets the illusion they have
more responsibility, but CAP, Inc., says they are no more responsible for their own behavior than the slick-sleeves.  What happens
outside CAP is irrelevant to the conversation.  This is frustrating for everyone involved, and I fully support anything NHQ does to change that, but until they do, it is, what it is.

[JohnKachenmeister]

For Ned:

Of course you are right about bumbling senior members, and I will wholeheartedly agree with you that our junior officers as a group are our weakest asset.  I sometimes feel like a lonely voice in the woods when I find OFFICERS still wearing "CAP" on their left collar, or still wearing a wing patch on the AF blue shirt.  (Both conditions I have encountered within the past 30 days).  The nitwit with a patch on his sleeve got double whammy points, since it was also an outdated wing patch, but since I had already concluded that he was an idiot, I'm not sure how many whammy points to assess.

In another thread, I moaned about the substandard officer leadership in CAP.  Since the schools are no longer teaching anything except left-wing indoctrination, CAP officers SHOULD be taking up the slack and teaching history, basic writing skills, and stuff that takes little minds full of mush and turns them into leaders.  Since so many of our officers are themselves mush-heads, AND these mush-heads tend to gravitate to cadet units (where they can be the least mushy among a squadron of mush-heads), we can never achieve much beyond mediocrity as an organization.

I selected 14, because that is the age at which most people start high school.  I have worked as a substitute teacher for many years, and the difference one sees between the 8th and 9th grade is dramatic.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Sorry, forgot.

We should end participation in the cadet program either at 18, OR completion of high school, whichever comes last.  Cadets in college should be in ROTC, not CAP.  Cadets not in college should be in the military.  Cadets not in college or the military should be CAP officers.  Part of that whole "Prepare to be of service" thing.

One chapter in life ends, another begins.  Go ahead and turn the page.

[Eclipse]

3.  QUIT MOTHERING the cadets.  Demand excellence and performance.  There are too many lame officers who want to make excuses for failure of cadets to meet the standards of CAP.  Example:

A cadet activity is imminent, yet Cadet Nitwitt does not have the proper patches on his BDU uniform.  An officer who demands excellence will say:  "I'm sorry, Cadet Nitwitt, but you cannot participate, since you do not have a proper uniform."  Too many of our officers, however, say:  "I know you don't have patches, but I don't want you to miss this activity."  or "I'd stop him from coming, but he really wants to come with his buddies, and if I don't let him participate, we will lose him."  or:  "His parents have not ordered the patches yet from Vanguard.  We can't hold it against the cadet for the failure of his parents."

All excuses for failure to meet standards.

I agree in principle, but it fails at practical.  The reality is that many parents (assuming there are two and both are around at all) are disconnected and treat their kids extracurricular activities as a drive-by drop-offs.

We don't have the consistency of training or program to hold all cadets, nation-wide, equally responsible for their end-to-end participation.

In your example -

Did the unit provide the patches?  If not, how does Joe Cadet order them w/o a credit card?

Did the unit provide instruction on how to sew?  And detailed training on laying out a uniform?
(most people in the military just drop off a bag of parts and a shirt at the tailor or parachute shop)

etc., etc.

As someone who annually deals with 100+ interpretations of uniform regs, insignia placement, and attention span, I can tell
you that a cadet who doesn't know left from right probably needs our help the most, but with that said if they are someplace
where they are not ready, or worse, unsafe, that is always the unit cc's fault.

An aircraft at 4 O'Clock?  How many kids today ever see an analog clock, let alone equate that with spatial position - most seniors
would have to take a pause as well.  How about just "halt!"?

[Eclipse]

Sorry, forgot.

We should end participation in the cadet program either at 18, OR completion of high school, whichever comes last.  Cadets in college should be in ROTC, not CAP.  Cadets not in college should be in the military.  Cadets not in college or the military should be CAP officers.  Part of that whole "Prepare to be of service" thing.

One chapter in life ends, another begins.  Go ahead and turn the page.

So you want to basically make this a junior-high / high school program?

You might as well close the doors.

4 years may be within the minimum amount of time to make Spaatz, but for most cadets, with today's divided attention and
heavy homework and sports requirements simply don't have the ability to do it - that isn't a game ender, but it is a game changer,
since the Spaatz clock is the excuse many cadets use to quit.

Further, if you haven't captured them by 14-15, you likely won't.  Rare is the new cadet joining at 16.

At 12 they are eager for anything and the world is still has a lot of "magic", by 16-17, thanks again to today's parents, much of the magic
of life is squeezed out of them, and that assumes the kid hasn't already made a poor choice that impacts his entire life.

[JohnKachenmeister]

E:

The aircraft I saw at 4 o'clock was on an orientation flight.  I was pointing out traffic.  It is hard to halt an airplane.  Cadets SHOULD know certain things.

I have seen cadet senior airmen who did not know military time.

As long as we keep making excuses, excellence will continue to elude us.

Our job is to create leaders, not to engage in social therapy, family counseling, or any other coddling.  Demand excellence, and you will get excellence.  If they are incapable of excellence, they can learn to ask: "You want fries with that?"

[Eclipse]

As long as we keep making excuses, excellence will continue to elude us.

I agree 100%.

The rest is just background noise.

Read and heed, seniors and cadets alike.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Sorry, forgot.

We should end participation in the cadet program either at 18, OR completion of high school, whichever comes last.  Cadets in college should be in ROTC, not CAP.  Cadets not in college should be in the military.  Cadets not in college or the military should be CAP officers.  Part of that whole "Prepare to be of service" thing.

One chapter in life ends, another begins.  Go ahead and turn the page.

So you want to basically make this a junior-high / high school program?

You might as well close the doors.

4 years may be within the minimum amount of time to make Spaatz, but for most cadets, with today's divided attention and
heavy homework and sports requirements simply don't have the ability to do it - that isn't a game ender, but it is a game changer,
since the Spaatz clock is the excuse many cadets use to quit.

Further, if you haven't captured them by 14-15, you likely won't.  Rare is the new cadet joining at 16.

At 12 they are eager for anything and the world is still has a lot of "magic", by 16-17, thanks again to today's parents, much of the magic
of life is squeezed out of them, and that assumes the kid hasn't already made a poor choice that impacts his entire life.

I non-concur.

The reason we cannot recruit 14-16 year olds is the fact that they cannot accept being led by a 12 or 13 year old.  I think the cadet program should be a high school program only.

The Spaatz is cool, but the only milestone that has actual meaning beyond CAP is the Mitchell.  That is what the recruiters and the service academies look for.

[BillB]

Kach, and Eclipse and Ned all have different viewpoints of the cadet program, And all are right to a big extent. However it can be said the Cadet program is still in the 20th century. In talking to Jack Sorensen in the Pit at the Maxwell O-club we had a spirited discussion of the cadet program, and even Jack said it was failing the large number of cadets. The Eaglet program failed for the same reason the advanced Warrent Officer program failed, lack of direction and leadership from National. Like many CAP Regulations the guidlines for the various programs were vague and not followed up.
In 2004 National approved an experimental Eaglet program for one Squadron in Florida. It was very successful, although very limited in the numbers taking part. Staff study was sent to National with no response or action.
Years ago Florida Wing organized a Squadron with Flights at each major University of cadets attending that university. Overall it produced more Spaatz awards within an 18 month period than the rest of the Region combined. There is no reason why each Wing could not do the same and retain the older cadets attending colleges and universities.

[Ned]

Sorry Ned, we've been down this road before.  In CAP there is no distinction.  We may give older cadets the illusion they have
more responsibility, but CAP, Inc., says they are no more responsible for their own behavior than the slick-sleeves.  What happens
outside CAP is irrelevant to the conversation.  This is frustrating for everyone involved, and I fully support anything NHQ does to change that, but until they do, it is, what it is.

Well, we sure have been down this road before.

So let's try to see if this is just a semantic difficulty.

I agree that cadets are treated as cadets (i.e., students) within our organization, and that that means among other things, that they always have to be supervised by one or more senior members.

(I assume you agree with me so far, right?)

Part of the problem we are having here, is that I was responding to Bill's comment on there "being no distinction between a 12 and a 20 year old."  (Which is patently false, but we'll come back to that later.)  You used a new term here - "responsibility," which is a bit of weasel word in this context.

After all, it is certainly correct to note that cadets must be supervised by a senior member, and therefore can not be "responsible" for themselves.

But in another (more common) sense, being "responsible" is being held accountable.  And in that sense cadets are responsible for their actions everyday.  Indeed, I'll bet you've held cadets responsible for their actions many times.  Cadet staffers are hired and fired based on their performance.  Cadets may even be fired for the actions of their subordinates - a cadet flight commander that can not control her flight, for instance.

That's why I don't think using the term "responsible" is helpful in this context and actually may lead to the kind of miscommunication we are having.

Bill was saying that "CAP has no distinction between a 12 and 20 year old; maturity is not considered and cadets are still children regardless of age."  Which, as I mentioned, is clearly mistaken.

We have no end of distinctions ("the state of being dissimilar") between older and younger cadets, very few of which have anything to do with the local age of majority.

As cadets progress throught the program, they get older and presumeably more mature.  Indeed, we have specific "time in grade" requirements that gaurantee that point.  Statistically, there is a correlation between age and grade in CP.

Our leadership training program is progressive; it starts with a focus on followership and progresses through direct and indirect leadership.  The younger, less mature troops, are working on followership, the older more mature troops are working on fundamentally different types of leadership. 

Our PT program is progressive.  Standards are directly linked to age / maturity (and gender.)

Our CD program has ramped up requirements for our more "senior" cadets. (Recorder / discussion leader)

And so it goes.  But the most fundamental difference (or "distinction" if you will) is the role of our older / more experienced / more mature cadets in our program.  Because we employ a leadership laboratory, Phase One cadets tend to be be followers, and troops in the other phases tend to be acting as leaders.

A vertible boatload of distinctions.


And the reason that it is important to note what other cadet organizations do in this regard (including the largest "cadet owning" organization in the country - the US military), is to point out that this is simply a non-issue to everyone except a few individuals here on CT.

[Eclipse]

A vertible boatload of distinctions.

Plenty of them, mostly ceremonial, since in few instances do we have a bright line with regards to age, grade, or phase, when it comes to the selection of cadet leaders for either unit or larger activities.  Just like for the selection of our senior leaders, we have preferences, and then we have the reality of a literally all-volunteer structure.

We literally have cadet units with NCO's as cadet commanders, and far too many encampments with Lt's at the head of the line.

And by "all volunteer", I don't just mean the show-up part, I mean in the ability to pick and choose what people think is important.

To Kach's points, if we pushed harder on the standards already in place, and the consequences of non-performance would be emphasized, we'd all be better off.  We'd be smaller, but we'd be stronger.

[Major Carrales]

Again, as I said, untrained cadets should not be on the flightlines, on the ground teams or in the Mission Base/Staging area.  Cadets have to prove themselves, if that fail a that...then they have proven something as well, that they cannot yet or at all handle Emergency Services.

Kach and I are not so much disagreeing as we are dealing with the signs of the time.  I can say this, however, some of the 12 and 13 year-olds have greatly benefited from having true responsibility (many times for the first time in their lives, with supervision of course)  Many of you folks were of cadet age a bit of a while ago.  For me, growing up in the 80s, the life of a teenager is boredom tempered by the reality (especially if you were more mature for your age) that everything you did was somehow "false" or "baby games." 

Maybe this is the "babying" Kach speaks of.  We have dumbed down and really started to play to the "lowest common denominator."

That is why when given opportunities like true leadership, experience and worth in CAP, they rise to it and mature. 

I can tell you this, there is a group offering "real experiences," fire arms, opportunities to lead and genuine activities where they can rise up.  These are called "gangs."  Children as old/young as 12 are attracted to gangs because those are real.  They fight against school uniforms, yet, wear their gang colors as if they were sporting a military uniform.  Additionally, they respect these bandannas more than they do the US Flag.

It is our responsibility to try to offer alternatives.  We either provide a "culture" for them to enter our SOCIETY or we shut our collective mouths when they join these parallel "cultures" and gang structures.

One last thing, at the start of every school year we are given a presentation by local law enforcement authorities about gangs and violence in schools.  Most of these are routine, however, this year they added something different.

It seemed at some middle aged man in the town started a gang made up of 9 to 16 year-olds which robbed homes and collected the loot at his place.  When they would be caught, they would use some sort of gang "code of ethics" to protect the offender.  He had over 20 boys doing this.  He had an air-soft machine gun that he would show of and present as real.  They had to kiss it and all sorts of other nonsense.

Finally, on of these kids was caught and ratted the guy out.

It struck me somewhat earth-shatteringly that that fellow was the exact opposite, a negative, if you will of any of us.  It was like an "anti-cadet" program based on crime and every point we hold as negative in society.

I'm not saying its our job to save anyone...however, we offer an alternative to this which is a problem in all 52 of the Wings.  It is our duty to train and mold those that do come to us.  Not to infuse our ES programs with "hapless" cadets, but to take a cadet, train them with rigor and relevance and use them to multiply our forces when applicable.

[Major Carrales]

We literally have cadet units with NCO's as cadet commanders, and far too many encampments with Lt's at the head of the line.

Yes, we have that, mostly because of units that either are starting up or lose their "legacy cadets."  The prior is our case.  We have been at it in Kingsville since 2006, started as a flight attached to the Corpus Christi Comp Squadron and grew into a new unit charted this October.  It took years to get the singular C/1st Lt we have.  Cadets are having to fill positions early, and what is wrong with that?  They take on these duties, if not, no one will.  They eventually grow into the positions.

The latter occurred in Brownsville a few years back.  A gap in cadet recruiting resulted in a "command bubble."  One even got to Spaatz.  But when that group matriculated to college, they were left with a command structure made of C/TSgts and a who host of Airmen.  Necessity make such happen, but a unit adapts and pays it forward.

To Kach's points, if we pushed harder on the standards already in place, and the consequences of non-performance would be emphasized, we'd all be better off.  We'd be smaller, but we'd be stronger.

There is logic in these words.  As it happens we get, if we go with 10 cadets... 5 highly motivated cadet that will see it through on to bigger and better things, 3 who enjoy it but will lose interest (these are good reliable folks, but other activities pull them away when they get to high school) and two that sort of "orbit" the unit.  Their attendance is poor and they are not dedicated to the unit.  They either just want to wear a uniform or some other reasons (parents forcing them...which I blatantly point out to them when they show up with the "fix my kid" attitude)  Cadets need to want to be there.

Most likely, the cadets Kach refers to in a previous post are of those last sort.  They don't have the desire to be there and it reflects in their attitude (Ch. 1 Leadership)

[Eclipse]

Cadets are having to fill positions early, and what is wrong with that?  They take on these duties, if not, no one will.

They take on responsibilities before they are ready and burn out early.

The unit CC's owe it to their cadets to hold off their ascendancy until they reach a phase appropriate to the job, at which time, at least on paper, their training will have made them ready.

It also robs them of the followership experience, which IMHO, is probably at least as important as leading.  Since generally a good leader learned the skills by watching those before him.

There is no reason why the adults in the unit cannot run the show until such time as the cadets are ready.

Same goes for senior members with 1 month in and a command badge - unacceptable.  The same higher HQ that approved the charter should be sending mentors to the unit for the first year.

[Major Carrales]

They take on responsibilities before they are ready and burn out early.

You are assuming that they go unsupported, that we just "turn them loose" to run around like "Mini-Pattons" and "minor MacArthurs."  That is the height of folly.

I grow tired of the "leadership lessons" with no application or mentoring.  The test and the books don't make leaders, experience along with the knowledge do.  You just made a point of holding cadets to a higher standard...yet then time comes to teach them in the field, if you will, you negate their potential.  Call them by the honorable title of Cadet, but deny them the ability to learn "outside" of the "nose in the book."

I am of the great understanding that CAP in your area and mine operate differently to a different audience and with different realities and thus, needs.  We don't have the long established "CAP paradise" where Wing provides support tons of support to local units, Cadet Officers grow on trees and the nearest unit is less than 150 miles away.  We have to go with what we have and shine, not in spite of it, but because of it.

Followership is the the first step to leadership (Chapter 1, Leadership), but it is not a cop out.  Not all leaders are commanders, but every person has the potential to be a leader when the time comes.  In fact, we count on that.  If a C/A1C has to take on the role of element leader before they are a C/SrA, because there is no one else...and the cadets rises to the challenge and meets it...a service has been done to the cadet and the unit.  If the cadet is overwhelmed, you offer help and an honorable way out.  You don't leave them alone to fail and burn out.

That's what many units do to their staff.  Dump some responsibility on them and point them to regulations alone.  In reality, they should take up the position because someone has to and then you support them with help.  That way one body isn't doing it all...that is where the burnout comes from.

[spacecommand]

If you have a cadet who doesn't want to join in at 15 because he/she will be outranked or  being led by a 13 year old, then maybe that isn't the type of cadet you want joining anyway.  You have responsible 13 year olds out there and irresponsible 30 year olds out there as well.  If you have a adult not wanting to join because he's 49 and the Squadron CC is 25, do you really want a Senior member like that?

As for cadets walking into or about to walk into propellers, it's not a fault of the cadet program, it's a fault of leadership, cadet officers and senior members not properly doing their jobs in training and instruction.

However it goes away from the topic how much time Seniors spend with cadets, or back to the main point which started from the CAPC thread (uniform thread).  I think some would like to see a real distinction between the Cadet Programs and Seniors.  However simply changing the uniform isn't going to change public opinion on what CAP is about.  Educating the public about what CAP is about will.

[coudano]

to *any* cadet who doesn't like the people in leadership, i say:
get promoted,
and show us how to do it better.

some do.
some quit.

life goes on.

[JohnKachenmeister]

^ Not so.  The difference in the mind of the 12 year old vs. a 14 year old is remarkable and apparent even to the untrained eye.  Many young folk do not develop an interest in aviation or the military until their teens, and then they are confronted by a 12 year old "Sergeant."  They feel out of place, taking direction from what they consider to their social inferior.  It would be different if the "Sergeant" spent several years earning his stripes, but we have cadet SSGT's after... what... 8 months?

[Ron1319]

And in a world where there are 60 cadets in a unit with 4 in Phase IV and 6 in Phase III, having a 13 year old c/SSgt isn't a big deal as that c/SSgt with be an element leader or maybe a flight sgt operating under a c/1Lt as the flight commander.  By 14 as a c/2Lt and a junior cadet officer they have probably learned a lot and could do a great job as a flight commander.  Hopefully the unit has grown more at this point and there are 4-5 flight commanders for this cadet to learn from and work with as well as the previous c/1Lt is now a c/Maj and is in a position where he can continue to mentor and grow new flight commanders.

[coudano]

^ Not so.  The difference in the mind of the 12 year old vs. a 14 year old is remarkable and apparent even to the untrained eye.  Many young folk do not develop an interest in aviation or the military until their teens, and then they are confronted by a 12 year old "Sergeant."  They feel out of place, taking direction from what they consider to their social inferior.  It would be different if the "Sergeant" spent several years earning his stripes, but we have cadet SSGT's after... what... 8 months?

The cadet program is one where status is earned through participation and mastery of skills (and no other way); respect based on core values; and camaraderie based on shared experience.  Anybody who wants a piece of that will find a place in CAP.

If we fail to sell it in almost exactly these terms, we may be guilty of false advertising.  No different than telling people that we do 90% of all inland search and rescue, so they join up thinking they'll be going on actual missions 12 times a year.


If someone has prejudices that are going to preclude them from participation in the first place, they are going to have problems even if you raise the minimum cadet age.  What about those who don't want to be under the authority of a female, or someone of a different race?  How is such a person going to be an effective leader when they can not bring themselves to even *attempt*, let alone master, the most basic phase 1 skill, subordination.

Given the choice between 12 and 13 year olds,
or more 14 and 15 year olds, but ones with crappier attitudes
i'll take the 12-13 year olds, thanks.


Additionally, there is a quality control issue that comes into play.
I as a deputy commander for cadets (with authority of the squadron commander), certify all of my cadets' promotions.  Nobody passes out of phase 1 into phase 2 without mastering the phase 1 set, and being ready to start taking on official leadership roles.  This ensures that the cadet has got some skills to exemplify, which are one thing he can use to *earn* the respect of his subordinates.  goof troop sergeants aren't going to be respected by anyone, and they are caused by faulty administration of the program.  age is a false attribution of the problem in this case.

Sergeants who want to lean on their age and physical stature as the primary tools they use to influence are missing the boat on the leadership skills that we are trying to teach.


That eight months that it took the younger sergeant to get into phase 2 status is the exact same 8 months it might take a 15 or 16 year old to do the same thing.  That said, it has been my experience with *most* 12 year old cadets that they do not advance every 2 months, and they do not phase after 8 months.  I'm not saying it isn't possible, but most of the ones i've dealt with have typically promoted 2 or 3 times a year for the first year, or year and a half, and really get going somewhere between 13 and 14.  However, if a 12 yo was doing the things that needed to be done, and demonstrating the maturity and mastery of skills, i'd advance them, and put them in charge.  Because those are the things you do, to advance, and get put in charge.  That's a good example to everyone.

I have had multiple 13.5-14 year old SSgt's that I would stand up against *any* 15 or 16 year old phase 2 cadet that you can produce.


Likewise, i've had a few 15 and 16 year olds over the years who have copped some attitude about the age thing, despite joining.  Incidentally, they have demonstrated lack of motivation and follow through to even check off the administrative boxes for promotion, let alone the commander discretion things like attitude... and languish in phase 1.  Sucks to be them, but i'm not going to lose too much sleep over it.  Raising the minimum cadet age is not going to solve their problem...

The 15 or 16 year olds i've had over the years that got over it, did their time, and advanced rapidly, have gone on to not only take meaningful leadership positions in the cadet program at the squadron right away (like within 8 months) but also to get their mitchells, and full rides in rotc and academy appointments and so forth and so on.  If someone doesn't even want to TRY in the first place because my pretty rock awesome C/TSgt who just had his 14th birthday is younger, is going to teach them how to drill and salute and call them when they make a mistake or don't show up, then they can chart the course of their life wherever they want it to go.  We aren't at all worse off without them.



Let's not even talk about the 'real military' where people younger than you can and are in charge of you quite regularly (let alone the vast array of other 'real life' applications where this is true)

[Bluelakes 13]

However, if CAP were suddenly "pure ES" with no cadet element I feel it would be on the chopping block faster than you could say "Jack Robinson." Also, if we eliminated out ES function becoming a cadet only organization, we would also be eliminated because AFJROTC already covers that function...and with funding.  Why "double" an entry in the ledger for two cadet programs?

CAP is able to exist because of its current structure, not despite it.  Food for thought.

Well said  :clap:

[Bluelakes 13]

A lot of us get annoyed by clueless seniors bumbling around CP activitiers that have not figured out how to wear a uniform or master the basics of military customs and courtesies.   

Or just activities in general...

[Ron1319]

I was about 25 when I mentored a guy in his 60's (who looked just like Santa Claus, btw) and there were no problems.  I'm not at Intel anymore, but we still chat from time to time over email or Facebook.  He retired soon after I left to run my business full time.

[caphornbuckle]

Even the Boy Scouts have different levels based on age grouping

Just one question:

What groups are the Boy Scouts divided into to seperate age groups?

Scouts start as early as 10 1/2 and can remain a Boy Scout until 18.  There is no division except for patrols within the troop that involves age unless you are referring to Cub Scouts & Webelos which involve boys as young as First Grade.

[coudano]

iirc

cub scouts up to 12
boy scouts 12-18
venture crew 14-21

or something like that?

[caphornbuckle]

cub scouts
boy scouts
venture crew

Venture Crew boys can be a member of a Boy Scout Troop as well so that is a little different.  Venture is to Boy Scouts a little like the Civil Air Patrol is to the Air Force.

Ventures crews are a completely different branch from the Boy Scouts.  Girls can be venturers.

[Eclipse]

Also Explorer posts.

[caphornbuckle]

Also Explorer posts.

Which has the same criteria as Venture Crews.  As a matter of fact, Explorers is returning after a few years of being gone.  Until recently, the Explorers were Venture Crews (in the BSA's eyes).

[Eclipse]

Also Explorer posts.

Which has the same criteria as Venture Crews.  As a matter of fact, Explorers is returning after a few years of being gone.  Until recently, the Explorers were Venture Crews (in the BSA's eyes).

Well, I guess if you consider 1998 recent.  Venturing was split off of Exploring.

[caphornbuckle]

Also Explorer posts.

Which has the same criteria as Venture Crews.  As a matter of fact, Explorers is returning after a few years of being gone.  Until recently, the Explorers were Venture Crews (in the BSA's eyes).

Well, I guess if you consider 1998 recent.  Venturing was split off of Exploring.

You are correct.  However, Exploring went away for some time now but is returning in the near future.  BSA decided to keep the Venture program running and merge all of the Exploring activities/posts into the venture program.

Unfortunately at my age, 1998 doesn't seem that far away either! 

[flyboy53]

It just makes those of us former Explorer Scouts feel that much more ancient in the scheme of things.