CAPR 52-16 CADET PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DRAFT (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/R052_016_draft.pdf)
I got an e-mail today that contained a summery of the proposed changes to CAPR 52-16 today. i am not sure if i like every thing that has changed. it seems to be making the program a lot easier for people to get through. i am not saying that we should have it extremely hard but there is some pride in knowing that you had to really work to get something. what does every one else think about the summery of changes below.
General Policy
-Mission Statement: Revision the mission statement of the Cadet Program to read "To develop young people into responsible citizens and aerospace leaders." It would summarize the Cadet Program's reason for being.
-Training Leaders of Cadets: Define the goals and scope of the TLC program. Even though its an optional program, it would specify that TLC be conducted at group level or higher, and directed by a senior member with a master rating in the Cadet Programs.
-Safety on Obstacle Courses: It would require activity directors to conduct a walk-through and safety briefing before cadets participate in obstacle or confidence courses.
-Naming Phase III & IV Achievements after Aero space Pioneers. Since there is no need for achievements be named after staff positions, it would promote knowledge of aerospace heritage as it did in Phase I & II achievements.
Cadet Promotions
-Separation Between Achievements and Milestones: It would eliminate minimum time between phases, and adopt 60-days separation for every promotion.
-Challenge Option: It would allow cadets over 16 years of age to complete achievements every 30-days up to the Mitchell Award.
-Milestone Exams: At every milestone exam, cadets will b e tested on what they learn in the preceding phase, except the Spaatz Award is over all 15 achievements.
-Leadership Expectations: Defines what leadership skills cadets should be demonstrating in each of the phases in the Cadet Program. This provides basis for commanders to use to promote cadets or in promotion boards. CAPF 50s will be altered for each phase, allowing commanders to focus on the expectations and provide meaningful feedback.
Leadership Element
-Staff Du ty Analysis: Eliminated; no longer required for cadet officers
Aerospace Education Element
-Aerospace Education at Achievement 1: Integrate aerospace education into Achievement 1 through a simple hands-on activity. No written test.
-Aerospace Outreach: Tap the cadets' aerospace knowledge and leadership skills to provide aerospace education to the public. Since cadets make excellent advocates for aerospace, this proposal would have Wright Brothers, Earhart, and Eaker cadets involved in some type of aerospace outreach activity.
-Aerospace Career Explorations: Integrate aerospace career explorations into the aeros pace education element. This would have cadets perform different "AE Careers" tasks for achievements 8, 11, and 16.
Physical Fitness Element
-Cadet Physical Fitness Test: Incorporate into the regulation the "run plus two out of three" scoring rule approved by the NEC in November 2004 and ordered by the National Commander on 18 Feb 2005.
-Physical Fitness in Achievement 1: Require cadets to attempt the CPFT in Achievement 1, but not require them to meet any performance standards. This will give the new cadets the basic introduction/orientation into the CPFT.
Character Development Element
-Character Development: Change the program element known as "moral leadership" to "character development."
-Character Development in Achievement 1: Require new cadets to participate in an introduction to the Core Values during Achievement 1.
-Frequency of Character Development Forums: Require cadets to complete just one character development forum per achievement. The required participation of one-half of the forums offered since last achievement completed will be eliminated.
-Discussion Leader & Recorder Requirements: Remove the discussion leader and recorder requirements from the character development forums.
The drafted CAPR 52-16 2006 and "A summary of and rationale forthe policy changes proposed in CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management" can be found at http://www.cap.gov/cadets and click on Cadet Programs Updates.
Already got a topic for the actual draft of the regulation. Check it out here (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=489.0).
this is just all of the changes taken out and writen out in plain english.
I'm appending this thread to the other one on the same subject matter. :)
Carry on.
I was totally opposed to the Challenge Option when I first read it, but after consideration It's not a bad idea. It allows teenagers who join after the 12-14 year age group to catch up with their own peer group.So I think the concept has value.
My problem with the draft of 52-16 is the CAC. At all levels it's the Commander that APPOINTS the CAC rep. The original idea for the CAC was to give cadets a voice in CAP, offer suggestions for change, and follow their own command line. ( I know this since in the 1950's I was one of 4 ex-cadets that wrote the original CAC reg.) By allows Commanders to appoint the CAC rep rather than have the cadets elect them, reduces the effectiveness of the CAC. It basically eliminates the alternate chain of command. If a Squadron has a poor commander, there is no way to carry this information up the chain of command if that poor commander can pick a weak CAC rep. CAC Reps should be elected from the Squadron to Group CAC, Group CAC should elect the Wing CAC officers, etc.
Otherwise it's not a Cadet Advisory Council, only an arm of the commander. and a roadblock to communications up the chain.
At least the membership is being more vocal and producing feedback about these revisions.
At the NER Conference, the Region
DCP held a CP seminar in which a number of Senior members expressed their concerns, etc. which he was relaying up to NHQ and Curt Lafond.
In addition, in my Group, I am hosting a Group-wide discussion forum and encouraging all cadets and seniors to attend. We'll be distributing the change summaries, explaining the proposed alterations to the cadet program, and recording everyone's feedback and forwarding it up the chain of command.
Everybody, especially all cadets, have a vested interest in giving their opinions on these proposals. Nothing is written in stone yet, but we can't only complain to each other and then expect the proposals to alter accordingly. We
must pass our sentiments up the chain of command, so that the National CAP personnel receive our input. Without our feedback, they can only assume what we want. :)
Quote from: Chris Jacobs on November 17, 2005, 01:09:05 AM
i am not sure if i like every thing that has changed. it seems to be making the program a lot easier for people to get through.
Try to look at the positive side. It is generally the practice to write documentation meant for vast audiences and age ranges to be on a 5th grade reading level. This then allows for those with mild learning disabilities to participate. There are many people, who while very intelligent have some form of learning disability, myself included.
Remember Civil Air Patrol should attempt to make such allowances for everyone. This may help in the long run to improve membership numbers.
I also have a learning disability. basically i can't write very well and am awful at spelling (i have test scores issued by my school service to back up my disability). so i take manners into my own hands and take advanced writing classes. by pushing myself further and harder then i would have normally been pushed i have surpassed most of my peers and am now an average or above average writer. if you really want something and push your self you can achieve great things. but if you say that you have a problem and just give up you will go now where in life.
i can understand trying to accommodate people and make them feel welcome and i like the idea, just don't take it too far. when i became a cadet no one in the squadron lowered their expectations to meet that of a 12 year old. this was great for me because now at 16 years old i have my solo wings, I am my squadrons C/CC, and have done so many other things i can't list them all. this is all because no one lowered the standard for me but instead i raised up to the occasion. I under stand that we need to make some accommodations for people but we will send all of our older cadets packing if we lower are expectations to a 5th grade level.
Quote from: WICAPMOM on November 19, 2005, 03:13:23 AM
Remember Civil Air Patrol should attempt to make such allowances for everyone. This may help in the long run to improve membership numbers.
But what will it do for the quality of the members?
Quote from: arajca on November 19, 2005, 04:33:51 PM
Quote from: WICAPMOM on November 19, 2005, 03:13:23 AM
Remember Civil Air Patrol should attempt to make such allowances for everyone. This may help in the long run to improve membership numbers.
But what will it do for the quality of the members?
You would be surprised.
As I said I am learning disabled.
This does not mean that I am not intelligent. Quite the opposite, for one thing I graduated college second in my class with a 3.95.
It just takes more time to get information into my head, once it is there it really sticks.
Don't judge the kids you go to school with because they may be in the "LD" class.
Teaching someone who is learning disabled can be a rewarding experience and should help the instructor to learn many very valuable things. Most of all is patience, which seems to be lacking from a lot of people now a days.
The learning disabled people that I know are very dedicated to the things they enjoy.
Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Walt Disney, Edison, Albert Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell, General George Patton, George Washington, Woodrow Wilson were all learning disabled.So you tell me, what could this mean?
I agree cadets with learning disabilities require patience. When I held state teaching certification, I was often called on to teach in a Special Education class, students with physical and learning disabilities. I always found that with a little help, they could do as well as mainstream students, often better.
However, the point here is lowering the standard of material for younger cadets. I would like to see CAP members go to eBay and bid on CIVIL AIR PATROL MANUAL Vol 1, book 1 and Vol 1 book 2, to see how much more was included in both aerospace education and military leadership. That manual came out in 1949, and was designed for cadet, mainly 16-21 years of age. Younger cadets had a harder time, but they also learned the more advanced material. Where the current aerospace manuals barely go into the material, the older manuals provided a better understanding. And ever since those 12949 manuals, the cadet program has been made simpler and simpler. Instead of being designed to produce cadets with a thorough background in aviation, aerospace and military subjects, it only allows a basic understanding of the material.
CAPR 52-16 and the older CAPR 50-16 was written by educators and designed for younger cadets. This is one of the reasons CAP keeps losing the more experienced, older cadets. They get bored. And when was the last time National came up with a regulation on the cadet program that they asked for comment from the National CAC, or even the cadet membership at large?
Quote from: WICAPMOM on November 19, 2005, 06:02:24 PM
Quote from: arajca on November 19, 2005, 04:33:51 PM
Quote from: WICAPMOM on November 19, 2005, 03:13:23 AM
Remember Civil Air Patrol should attempt to make such allowances for everyone. This may help in the long run to improve membership numbers.
But what will it do for the quality of the members?
You would be surprised.
As I said I am learning disabled.
This does not mean that I am not intelligent. Quite the opposite, for one thing I graduated college second in my class with a 3.95.
It just takes more time to get information into my head, once it is there it really sticks.
Don't judge the kids you go to school with because they may be in the "LD" class.
Teaching someone who is learning disabled can be a rewarding experience and should help the instructor to learn many very valuable things. Most of all is patience, which seems to be lacking from a lot of people now a days.
The learning disabled people that I know are very dedicated to the things they enjoy.
Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Walt Disney, Edison, Albert Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell, General George Patton, George Washington, Woodrow Wilson were all learning disabled.
So you tell me, what could this mean?
What would it do for membership?
Well to give you an idea, I was a drill team commander last year and four of the sixteen members had learning disablities. That is one fourth of a wing drill team - you can decide if we should try to accomidate for them or not.
Wow, that's a decent ratio. Especially since they really didn't show much of an LD... it's a wonder what a little patience, persistance, and willingness do.
It just seems to be the way of things lately.
We seldom ever raise the bar, we just continue to lower it.
It is not lowering any bars.
This is allowing for more people to participate at levels appropriate for them. Which has been denied in a lot of organizations for a long time.
The "bar" as you put it should continually be set by yourself. Starting at what ever level of which you are able and then pushing yourself to work to your best potential.
If you want your cadets to achieve a higher "bar" then show them the way. Offer them more. You are not limited to teach only from the books that CAP provides. In fact CAP encourgages members to expand in all educational areas. Especially Aerospace Education.
When did everyone get limiting in their views of the outside world.
Look out side the box and allow for modification for any individual preference.
I suppose as a Cadet myself in 1979 I will always compare the current requirements to those of my cadethood. And based on that, the "bar" has been lowered quite a bit. Much less is asked and required of cadets now than it was then.
But you are 100% correct, that because of this far more people can participate.
When we use the lowest common denominator model it always increases volume, but not always quality.
Quote from: abysmal on December 16, 2005, 09:23:41 PM
I suppose as a Cadet myself in 1979 I will always compare the current requirements to those of my cadethood. And based on that, the "bar" has been lowered quite a bit. Much less is asked and required of cadets now than it was then.
But you are 100% correct, that because of this far more people can participate.
When we use the lowest common denominator model it always increases volume, but not always quality.
I am really becoming very offended with the "quality" remark.
Regardless of what they do the program we will always get some less than intelligent individuals in to the organization. That will be true where ever we go in the world. We will all just have to learn to deal with it as a sad fact of life.
Try to look on the hopeful side we really could get some HIGH QUALITY people, who just need help to realize their potential. Hopefully we have enough patient members who will be around to help.
I am severely dyslexic. This was not diagnosed until later in my life. I require a different means by which I have to assimilate the information. One of the only reasons I made it through the cadet program was that my learning disability teacher used my interest in Civil Air Patrol to get me to understand my disability. Then, when I understood what I had to do differently, I became able to push myself and set that bar higher. It still takes me longer than most to learn things, but that is something I will have to live with.
I believe that the cadets I know with learning disabilities are of the HIGHEST QUALITY. They may not make it through the cadet ranks as fast as what we may like. But they do work harder, seem to be less arrogant, more willing to pass on what they have learned, are more tolerant of others, and are very dependable. They have also brought there friends into the organization. Plus it seems to me that retain their membership into the senior ranks.
You have more learning disabled people around you than you know.
Quote from: WICAPMOM on November 19, 2005, 06:02:24 PM
Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Walt Disney, Edison, Albert Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell, General George Patton, George Washington, Woodrow Wilson were all learning disabled.
Has anyone noticed a change that National doesn't say is a change? Look up the CAC section and you will find that all CAC representatives at all levels are APPOINTED. No longer are they ELECTED by cadets at that level.
The entire concept of the CAC was to provide cadets an avenue to bring suggestions and report local problems to higher levels (Group or Wing usually) This is taken away if commanders appoint. For example, the Commander of the Mickey Mouse Cadet Squadron, appoints his son/daughter as the Squadron representative. Do you think Group or Wing will hear of any problems in the Mickey Mouse cadet Squadron?
I was one of three seniors (all former cadets that drew up the original regulation for CAC back in the 1950's. The CAC had it's own chain of command to bring up issues and suggestions OUTSIDE of senior control. With commanders appointing their favorite cadets as CAC representatives, this chian in broken.
I never knew CAC reps were elected. Usually, the cadet who volunteered/voluntold for the job got it. The only CAC reps that I thought were elected were those who represented lower CAC's to higher CAC's, i.e. group to wing.
Quote from: BillB on December 16, 2005, 10:21:50 PM
Has anyone noticed a change that National doesn't say is a change? Look up the CAC section and you will find that all CAC representatives at all levels are APPOINTED. No longer are they ELECTED by cadets at that level.
The entire concept of the CAC was to provide cadets an avenue to bring suggestions and report local problems to higher levels (Group or Wing usually) This is taken away if commanders appoint. For example, the Commander of the Mickey Mouse Cadet Squadron, appoints his son/daughter as the Squadron representative. Do you think Group or Wing will hear of any problems in the Mickey Mouse cadet Squadron?
I was one of three seniors (all former cadets that drew up the original regulation for CAC back in the 1950's. The CAC had it's own chain of command to bring up issues and suggestions OUTSIDE of senior control. With commanders appointing their favorite cadets as CAC representatives, this chian in broken.
The old system allowed commander's to appoint as well, if they really wanted to do so. It was appoint or elect.
Even if the commanders now must appoint, the commander can tell the CAC to hold an election and give him the names of the winners as recommendations, who he or she will then "appoint" to the position.
Like I said before, if Commander Corrupt of the Mickey Mouse unit had wanted to appoint "pet" CAC reps to hide their problems, he could have done it under the guidelines currently out there now.
;D The commander of the Mickey Mouse Cadet Squadron would always be the best. And would always have the best personell, cadet or senior.
The commander of the Donald Duck Cadet Squadron on the other hand... >:D
(Matt & Airforcecolors - who will be the first to tell Major Sorenson ~ Sir (Ron)? :)
Quote from: WICAPMOM on December 16, 2005, 09:18:55 PM
It is not lowering any bars.
This is allowing for more people to participate at levels appropriate for them. Which has been denied in a lot of organizations for a long time.
The "bar" as you put it should continually be set by yourself. Starting at what ever level of which you are able and then pushing yourself to work to your best potential.
If you want your cadets to achieve a higher "bar" then show them the way. Offer them more. You are not limited to teach only from the books that CAP provides. In fact CAP encourgages members to expand in all educational areas. Especially Aerospace Education.
When did everyone get limiting in their views of the outside world.
Look out side the box and allow for modification for any individual preference.
Are you saying there should be no standards? That cadets should be able to design their own program but everyone should get the same awards? Lowering the standards so low that everyone achieves the goal is no achievement at all.
Please let me be the first one to bring up a Senior issue in Cadet Programs. I am one of few seniors in NY Wing to have TLC credit. I can tell you that it is going to be very hard to find enough Master rated seniors to conduct TLC courses to seniors in ALL squadrons such that every Cadet and Composite squadron has at least two qualified senior members. This just isn't feasible. Considering that TLC is mostly a hazing recognition and reaction seminar, would it not be easier to simply update the CPP training materials?
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 17, 2005, 07:46:25 AM
Considering that TLC is mostly a hazing recognition and reaction seminar...
Um, have you read the TLC materials (http://level2.cap.gov/visitors/programs/cadet_programs_for_all_youth/tools_for_leaders/tlc_2005/tlc_course_directors_instructors/) lately? Seems like it's a lot more than that. They even make clear that TLC should be a Group or Wing activity, to open the instructor and student pool enough to make the course worthwhile.
Methinks you're remembering the old TLC, which was pretty lame.
Quote from: arajca on December 16, 2005, 11:22:03 PM
I never knew CAC reps were elected. Usually, the cadet who volunteered/voluntold for the job got it. The only CAC reps that I thought were elected were those who represented lower CAC's to higher CAC's, i.e. group to wing.
To my rememberance, CAC reps are appointed by the commander.
Within the CAC, there may be elections for the various duties (ie. chair, vice chair, recorder), etc.
Para 3-2 in the current 52-16 talks about the composition of CACs. It specifically says "appoint," not elect.
I do not think the word "elect" has been used as it pertains to CAC in a long time. (20+ years, maybe?)
How many Master Rated CP seniors do we have in CNY Group? Do we have ANY? Sounds like a lot of us seniors are going to have to travel to take this course.
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 19, 2005, 02:54:50 AM
How many Master Rated CP seniors do we have in CNY Group?
Two. Me and Capt Jones.
How conveeeeenient. For me that is. You... well... you're umm... you're going active duty as the group's TLC instructor. hehehehe
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 19, 2005, 03:07:36 AM
How conveeeeenient. For me that is. You... well... you're umm... you're going active duty as the group's TLC instructor. hehehehe
Don't worry George. Already ahead of you. We're putting together a TLC, Target Date: February.
Thread back to topic. ;)
Quote from: PA Guy on December 17, 2005, 05:44:08 AM
Are you saying there should be no standards? That cadets should be able to design their own program but everyone should get the same awards? Lowering the standards so low that everyone achieves the goal is no achievement at all.
No, I am not saying there should be no standards... What kind of statement is that... :o
But as a public non profit organization, allowances must be made to allow others of lesser means to partake in the program. We can not discriminate. So if we take the money of those who have issues with making it through the program then help must be provided to those who need it. The program should start at an national average level with allowances made to help those below that level. And extra incentives for above that level. Yes it should be made possible for all the cadets with the drive to attempt the Spaatz.
The fact that a total of 1521 Spaatz awards having been giving since it's inception (in 1964) as apposed to the Eagle Scout Award (established 1969) being earned by 50,377 in 2004 alone. With a current boy scout membership of 988,995 that is 5% of the membership and that is on the increase. Civil Air Patrol's Cadet membership is currently at 26,537 members with 33 Spaatz award earned in 2004 that is 0.1%.
Am I really the only one seeing a problem here?
With regards to wether or not cadets should be able to design their own program and everyone should get the same awards... YES & NO... It is the
cadets program they learn leadership by running the program so Yes. But the ultimate goal, IE the Spaatz, should be something that needs to be WORKED hard for. HOWEVER, with only 0.1% being earned I see a problem.
It seems to me that many people are afraid of change and are afraid of letting "dumb" people into the program. I posted to let others know to have faith it will work out for the best in the end. More optimism and less pessimism.
I obtained the above information form the Boy Scouts national web site and Civil Air Patrols 2004 Report to congress
This is an excellent thread even though it could lead into a politically explosive area.
As someone who's been a CAP member for two seconds compared to the rest of you, I can't comment on how "the bar" for cadets has changed over the years.
But I have to say that I agree with "Abysmal" generally. The trend in our society has been to "lower the bar" as opposed to demanding that people meet the established standards. Only the military, to some degree, has rejected this trend.
Quote from: WICAPMOM on December 28, 2005, 04:31:35 AMThe fact that a total of 1521 Spaatz awards having been giving since it's inception (in 1964) as apposed to the Eagle Scout Award (established 1969) being earned by 50,377 in 2004 alone.
I think the percentages are different because Eagle Scout is the only progression path in Boy Scouts. If you're in the Boy Scouts for that many years, you are clearly there for the sole overarching purpose of making Eagle Scout.
In CAP, someone can be a cadet for many years, and do many different things that make for a successful cadet career: command encampment, run a drill team, attend NCSAs, become a pilot, gain ES ratings, etc. The
rank progression is only one facet of the program.
Combine that with the fact that the Spaatz is not administered locally, and a lot of Eaker cadets got there with at least a little pencil whipping (sometimes a
lot), and the supposed mystery and elitism surrounding the award, and you end up with a lot of cadet officers for whom testing and promotion are not their thing.
Personally, I think retention is a bigger problem than milestone percentages. But that's another thread for another day... ;D
Quote from: justin_bailey on December 28, 2005, 05:17:12 PM
I think the percentages are different because Eagle Scout is the only progression path in Boy Scouts. If you're in the Boy Scouts for that many years, you are clearly there for the sole overarching purpose of making Eagle Scout.
I categorally deny that. I was in scouting for 13 years, Tiger to Eagle. However, toward the end, as the few on here truly know me, it almost didn't happen. I had side-tracked to training, camp/council staff. I hadn't put my khaki uniform on for well over a year prior. Then one day, coming off of two weeks of mono, I whipped up a project finished 3 merit badges and handed my "Eagle Packet" in 1 day before I turned 18 (14 prior to be exact).
The goal that I found was not for the Eagle, it was to give back. The Eagle is not the end goal. The end goal is to return to scouting what you have gained. Eagle is something that one has to put their mind toward, yes it's a little check mark to go work at NASA, but, realistically, the leadership and character are the end goals of scouting.
Just my 2 cents.
Don't get me wrong, I don't view Eagle Scout as something people just get for vanity or ego. I hope you didn't read that in my remarks. I know there is the "greater good" factor as well (as there is in CAP).
However, I would still say that people who stay in scouting that long, by and large, are there to finish up what they started (i.e., get Eagle Scout). The same is not true for long-time CAP cadets, who are often still in the program for different reasons.
It's just a guess, and I could be way wrong here, but it seems to me that Boy Scouts are probably on a path to Eagle if they're still in the program through high school. At least, that's my perception. Whereas, your average 18+ CAP cadet is probably nowhere near Spaatz, and for many, it's not even on their radar.
Anyway, it's all hand-wavy generalizations, because I don't have statistics in front of me (and I doubt CAP has statistics on what 18+ cadets do). I was just fishing for ideas on why the percentages are so different. I think it's because the focus of the program is different for cadets/scouts approaching the "age out" point.
I just finished reading the book "Get Off My Honor", written by an Eagle Scout. He is trying to defend the Scouts from the Homosexual Onslaught. What I found particularly interesting was the discussion of the history of the Boy Scouts and why it started. At the turn of the 19th century a man in England noticed how the boys were becoming lazy, crude, rude, and morally corrupt, and he started a group of young male scouts in England. His goal was to get the boys back into being morally clean, and to become the leaders that the country needed for the future.
Vision Statement
The Boy Scouts of America is the nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.
In the future Scouting will continue to
Offer young people responsible fun and adventure;
Instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character as expressed in the Scout Oath and Law;
Train young people in citizenship, service, and leadership;
Serve America's communities and families with its quality, values-based program.
I doubt if the author ever knew about CAP and what we offer boys. Our leadership program has so much to it, but unlike the local boy scout groups, the training for the cadet can also be ongoing through encampments, Wing events, and National events. Yet, as Justin and Julie Anne says, there is so much to offer the cadet, that he (also she) can spend seven years doing things that won't automatically get you to Spaatz if you don't push the pencil. But you can be a pilot, a whiz at search and rescue, color guard expert, you name it - these things can be used as employment opportunities and aren't found in the Boy Scouts. You get the Eagle Award and you don't have a qualification to be an Eagle....you get a pilot's license and you are on your way in the blue sky! I'd say the comparison of a boy scout vs a CAP cadet can be closely similar, or vastly different - it all depends on how much the cadet wants to learn and work in the leadership program. If the scout doesn't do much, he's like the cadet who doesn't do much. But for the Scout who becomes an Eagle Scout, he still can't compare to a cadet who's done it all. The Boy Scout only does Leadership, which is just a third of our program! CAP has three different paths and the Boy Scouts has only has one path, so its comparing apples to oranges!
And Matt, being an Eagle Scout is great too!
Quote from: justin_bailey on December 28, 2005, 08:35:05 PM
Don't get me wrong, I don't view Eagle Scout as something people just get for vanity or ego. I hope you didn't read that in my remarks. I know there is the "greater good" factor as well (as there is in CAP).
However, I would still say that people who stay in scouting that long, by and large, are there to finish up what they started (i.e., get Eagle Scout). The same is not true for long-time CAP cadets, who are often still in the program for different reasons.
It's just a guess, and I could be way wrong here, but it seems to me that Boy Scouts are probably on a path to Eagle if they're still in the program through high school. At least, that's my perception. Whereas, your average 18+ CAP cadet is probably nowhere near Spaatz, and for many, it's not even on their radar.
Anyway, it's all hand-wavy generalizations, because I don't have statistics in front of me (and I doubt CAP has statistics on what 18+ cadets do). I was just fishing for ideas on why the percentages are so different. I think it's because the focus of the program is different for cadets/scouts approaching the "age out" point.
Nah, mate, just simply stating that like CAP, scouts has other tracks. The programs within are are actually totally seperate, whereas ours are intertwined. Scouting has Boy Scouts, Venturing, Exploring (Fire, Rescue, SAR, Police, Aviation, Communications, Etc.), Varsity, Learning For Life. There's a lot within the program, we just need to tap into
thier resources, of which, they have a lot.
However, I must concur with the Spaatz goal. I started out at 16 aiming for it, flew like an F-16 through my enlisted grades and look where I'm at at just under 20, 2nd Lieuy. I got involived in Pro. Dev. because it caught my interest, no, it's not part of the CP, by no means, but that is what caught my interest. Same as ES. My overall goal is to earn my Earhart and become a C/Maj, which I can minimally do by 21. It's doable, I've just got to put forth effort and time. Which is the biggest catch with 18+ cadets, they run low on time because of school, work, and mostly life.
Quote from: ladyreferee on December 28, 2005, 09:15:51 PM
I just finished reading the book "Get Off My Honor", written by an Eagle Scout. He is trying to defend the Scouts from the Homosexual Onslaught. What I found particularly interesting was the discussion of the history of the Boy Scouts and why it started. At the turn of the 19th century a man in England noticed how the boys were becoming lazy, crude, rude, and morally corrupt, and he started a group of young male scouts in England. His goal was to get the boys back into being morally clean, and to become the leaders that the country needed for the future.
Vision Statement
The Boy Scouts of America is the nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.
In the future Scouting will continue to
Offer young people responsible fun and adventure;
Instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character as expressed in the Scout Oath and Law;
Train young people in citizenship, service, and leadership;
Serve America's communities and families with its quality, values-based program.
I doubt if the author ever knew about CAP and what we offer boys. Our leadership program has so much to it, but unlike the local boy scout groups, the training for the cadet can also be ongoing through encampments, Wing events, and National events. Yet, as Justin and Julie Anne says, there is so much to offer the cadet, that he (also she) can spend seven years doing things that won't automatically get you to Spaatz if you don't push the pencil. But you can be a pilot, a whiz at search and rescue, color guard expert, you name it - these things can be used as employment opportunities and aren't found in the Boy Scouts. You get the Eagle Award and you don't have a qualification to be an Eagle....you get a pilot's license and you are on your way in the blue sky! I'd say the comparison of a boy scout vs a CAP cadet can be closely similar, or vastly different - it all depends on how much the cadet wants to learn and work in the leadership program. If the scout doesn't do much, he's like the cadet who doesn't do much. But for the Scout who becomes an Eagle Scout, he still can't compare to a cadet who's done it all. The Boy Scout only does Leadership, which is just a third of our program! CAP has three different paths and the Boy Scouts has only has one path, so its comparing apples to oranges!
And Matt, being an Eagle Scout is great too!
I would have to concur. We offer a great deal, however our retention is not as vast as scouting. No matter where you go in the WORLD, scouts are there. Almost everyone that I have encountered knows what the scouts are and what they're about, however, CAP they scratch their heads.
We're a great kept secret, but perhaps we need to spread the word. We need to draw to concurrent membership in scouting. Most scouts in CAP are more than willing to preach the program, and most scoutmasters are more than willing to allow CAP to come and speak.
Another major key that boils down is the funding involved in programs. In scouting, most of everything can be covered at the troop or council expense with the exception of camps and trips. However, in CAP, we have to update uniforms, invest time in the uniforms, and invest a vast amount of time in the programs. If we could simply offer the program and everything that goes with it without having to worry about funding, and to give benefits to the cadets we'd not only retain more, but we'd gain more.
Has anyone sent in comment to National about the 52-16 Draft?
Quote from: BillB on December 30, 2005, 12:00:43 PM
Has anyone sent in comment to National about the 52-16 Draft?
Not yet. But, I am "Drafting" the official response from the Wisconsin Wing Cadet Programs Directorate.
(We had our last meeting a few weeks ago, and discussed the various changes.)
Does anyone have the lastest draft approved at the Summer Boards or when they will be release final version to members?
I heard that the approved version should be out in Oct.