Senior time spent on Cadet matters

[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  The nitwit with a patch on his sleeve got double whammy points, since it was also an outdated wing patch, but since I had already concluded that he was an idiot, I'm not sure how many whammy points to assess.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.