Cadet 'Specilization'

[DC]

Idea: In a large squadron (minimum 30 in-flight cadets) how about having cadets organized into flights based on their primary interest in the program.

Example: Cadets mainly interested in ES could be placed in an ES Flight that will focus on Ground Team, Communications, Flight Line, etc. Cadets interested in AE can go into the AE Flight, which will work on an AE heavy curriculum, activities like Model Aircraft and Rockets, Ground School, etc. And, finally, a more 'cadet' based flight that will be heavy on military subjects, Honor Guard/Color Guard, Drill, Air Force related subjects, etc.

Obviosly each group will have to have some knowledge in the other areas, because they would not be well rounded cadets if they weren't...

I also though about maybe a Command Prep flight, with NCOs getting ready for assignment as Flight Sgts, First Sgt, etc.

This is just a random idea I came up with at 0200 last night morning, but I thought is might be cool. Cadets could recieve a lot of training where they want it, and not have to put up with as much of the stuff they are not interested in... I think it would also make for better GT members or a better HG, etc, because they could really focus on it.

As I said, random idea....

[Eclipse]

Cadets "specializing" is a problem, not a reason to segregate them and encourage that behavior.

[CASH172]

... they would not be well rounded cadets if they weren't...

I think you kinda said it right there why this isn't such a great idea. 

[MIKE]

Cadets "specializing" is a problem, not a reason to segregate them and encourage that behavior.

Ditto.  The same could be said for units themselves that tend toward this in some respects. i.e. ES squadrons or AE squadrons.

[IceNine]

Specializing early on leads to close mindedness

The program is based on 3 missions for a very specific reason, and to me a C/CMSgt or C/Capt.  that can't tell me who Robert Goddard was, and what the difference is in a leader and a follower, and the difference in a GTM and a IC... Are of very little use to me.

All too often we have cadets that are gung ho Drill team, that couldn't tell you what a fuselage is, or a close minded ES "guru" who couldn't lead a flight of 4 cadets in a right flank.

It just leads to inappropriate actions based off of one sided views

[DNall]

I was at a Sq about 10 years ago where we did something kind of cool. We ran 3 flights, one was always basic trng flight of course. Then cadets would progress thru an ALS, specialty schools, & SNCOA (we did a SNCOA & OTS, but they weren't run in flights). Each of the schools was quarterly. If they'd done thru NCOA then they could do other spec schools or just hold a staff position. The spec schools were stuff like drill tm, comm, GT, etc. However, they were only a quarter long & then over. The cadet couldn't stay locked down in that field for the long term.

[pelican]

The program is based on 3 missions for a very specific reason, and to me a C/CMSgt or C/Capt.  that can't tell me who Robert Goddard was, and what the difference is in a leader and a follower, and the difference in a GTM and a IC... Are of very little use to me.

that sounds closed-minded to me....i think that when you have certain people that are very good at something, you utilize them for what they are good at. balance is great and i'm not saying i disagree, but look at the officer side. why do you think they have specialty tracks? because they need people that are very good at some things in many different places. do you think that people who are trained in the ARCHER system can typically tell you how to drill or manage a cadet squadron? i think that those who are more inclined to one specific part of the cadet program should not be withheld from pursuing their interests actively. what do you think would happen if everyone had to have the same overall knowledge/experience in the program? i think what would happen would be you would have an average organization. when you have uncommon talent to lead common talent, that's when everybody's game elevates because there is someone who is so passionate about something that they want to drive higher, reach farther, and train harder. i know i've kinda gone on and on, but i wanted to put a story in about henry ford. (roughly remembering) he was asked one time if he knew everything that was going on in his plant. he said no and then called his managers into his office and said, if you need to know something specific, ask them. my point is that henry ford maybe had a general knowledge of what was happening, but to really function well and to save him time and from going insane, he had to have managers who managed specific parts and who were very good at managing specific parts of his plant. just my 3.14 cents

[BlackKnight]

My cadet staff and I were actually kicking around the idea of forming an Advanced Training Flight.  If you have too many Cadet NCOs and not enough Cadet Airmen, you form an ATF flight that focuses on advanced leadership topics for the C/NCOs that don't have a flight sergeant or element leader position.  I can see a lot of advantages to the concept for both retention and for class planning.  The senior C/NCOs stay challenged and don't have to sit through the Curry/Arnold/Feik class presentations every month.

That was several months ago.  We've had an influx of C/AB's so new C/NCO leadership positions have opened up and the need for an ATF flight has subsided. But given the right circumstances I think an ATF flight could work beautifully.

Now with that said, I want all of our cadets to be knowledgeable in both Leadership and AE.  ES is a optional specialty. We're heavy into it as a squadron, but I always tell cadets that it's optional.  They don't HAVE to do ES, just like they don't HAVE to do rocketry or O-flights.  It's alacarte.

[DC]

My cadet staff and I were actually kicking around the idea of forming an Advanced Training Flight.  If you have too many Cadet NCOs and not enough Cadet Airmen, you form an ATF flight that focuses on advanced leadership topics for the C/NCOs that don't have a flight sergeant or element leader position.  I can see a lot of advantages to the concept for both retention and for class planning.  The senior C/NCOs stay challenged and don't have to sit through the Curry/Arnold/Feik class presentations every month.

That was several months ago.  We've had an influx of C/AB's so new C/NCO leadership positions have opened up and the need for an ATF flight has subsided. But given the right circumstances I think an ATF flight could work beautifully.

Now with that said, I want all of our cadets to be knowledgeable in both Leadership and AE.  ES is a optional specialty. We're heavy into it as a squadron, but I always tell cadets that it's optional.  They don't HAVE to do ES, just like they don't HAVE to do rocketry or O-flights.  It's alacarte.

The Advanced Flight is something I have been thinking about for use in the future. Around the time I was a C/SSgt or C/TSgt we had more Cadet Officers and NCOs then we did Airmen, and it caused huge problems for us, too many staff quality cadets, not enough positions. We lost several of them simply because they got bored going over the same stuff over and over. We are currently in the process of establishing a Basic Training Flight, which should alleviate the problem of having to go over the basic information over and over again, and our regular flight could move into more advanced classes.

[Capt M. Sherrod]

i think that when you have certain people that are very good at something, you utilize them for what they are good at. balance is great and i'm not saying i disagree, but look at the officer side. why do you think they have specialty tracks? because they need people that are very good at some things in many different places.

You're right that the officer side is set up that way by design.  However, the cadet side is set up to give them a large exposure to many facets of leadership, aerospace education, physical fitness, and character development.  You give them the exposure to everything so that they can figure out what they want to specialize in when they get out of the cadet program.

[flyguy06]

Thats a bad idea because what if you have 25 cadets interested in GT and 5 interested in aviation? There would be a lopsidedness there dont you think?

[jimmydeanno]

Oh, I'm sorry cadet - O-Flights are only for those cadets in the aerospace flight... 

[DNall]

adults can join & specialize all they want. It's designed for them to do that, but even there we encourage them to try some other things out over the course of a career. Cadets are here for the cadet program, and that's it.

the cadet officer side with the staff position rotations is designed to be a brief exposure to many fields while also sustaining balance in AE & Ldrshp dev. it does NOT allow for specialization.

The enlisted side is required to be balanced btwn AE, Ldrship, ML, & PT. They hold line or short term support positions as part of that matrix. They are only allowed to do other things (like ES) as a secondary addition if & only if they first accomplish that well rounded balance in the cadet program.

The regs are written clearly to explain & reinforce this philosophy. It is a program requirement to follow that.

[DC]

Oh, I'm sorry cadet - O-Flights are only for those cadets in the aerospace flight... 

I never suggested that only the AE cadets would do O-Rides... But based on the responses I have gotten, this does not seem to be a real great idea.. Like I said, random idea...

[masamuel2]

I think it's a good idea that could improve attendance and retention.  I don't think it's necessary to assign cadets to flights based on their "specialty", but they could divide up into classes during meetings to focus on their area.  Using the quarterly schedule in CAPR 52-16 as an example, all of the cadets would complete the Emphasis Items and Core Curriculum for the meeting and then would break off during the Special Training portion.  Some cadets could do ES, others could practice Color Guard, and the rest could do Model Rocketry.  Obviously this would require a good number of dedicated cadets and senior members, but it would be an improvement over having everyone sit through an ES class that only 3-4 cadets really care about.

[jimmydeanno]

I never suggested that only the AE cadets would do O-Rides...

I know, just giving you a hard time  

I think you did a great job proposing an idea that you thought might help build interest and excitement in your squadron.  It never hurts to throw the idea out there (unless it's here, then it's like throwing yourself to the wolves   )

The separate 'command prep flight' might not be a bad idea, but it would depend on how you implement it, or if it is practical for your cadet corps.

For example, you have a bunch of C/NCOs that fall in together.  During D&C time they learn about more advanced parts of drill - command voice development, large formation drill, etc.  If you have a leadership oriented class, you might have one that focuses on basic subject matter that the C/Amn need to know like how to shine your boots, while you could teach your "command prep flight" how to be better public speakers.

So while they wouldn't be missing entirely from the other activities (PT, ML, AE, etc), there would be a more advanced curriculum that would develop them as leaders in more advanced subject matter.  Then as they get assigned to positions of responsibility they get to execute those newly taught lessons.

[afgeo4]

Although many (maybe even the majority of) adults understand how to handle specialization properly, I am convinced, through my years of working with cadets that teenagers are not quite there yet.

A person has to already be well-rounded before being able to decide to specialize in something. Paying most attention to one thing while not knowing much of anything about everything else isn't called "specialization", it's called "ignorance" and it's not what we're trying to achieve.

I see nothing wrong with having "clubs" in your CAP unit while off-duty... such as teams of cadets who meet to drill or who meet to do AE stuff or something, but while at meetings, they all do the same stuff. Remember, cliques destroy unit cohesion.

[sarmed1]

There are  a lot of variables that can make or break the idea of specialized flights.  Regardlessly you still have to maintain a well rounded program that invloves all cadets in all parts of the program.
When I was a Sq CC I set up a similar program. Again though I had like 60 something on the books and like 30 or so showing up on a meeting night.
4 flights:
Basic Training
Color Guard
Emergency Services
and one we'll call "everyone else" (I Think it was just the alpha flight).....building up to SrA/SSgt, good test and study habits, combination of trainig in all of CAP's areas looking to see what they were interested in.  The holding flight for those working staff NCO/Officer postions

Had to be a C/SrA to move to color guard or ES.

The way we worked it was that there were classes that everyone was combined in usually an hour every night and then the second hour of the night they broke off into a specilty class.  Balanced in with Safety briefing, Moral leadership, PT test and regular testing, everyone did GES, ROA (usually the ES flight did or assited with instruction, same thing fo rthe color guard flight as relted to D & C, uniform inspections.  One thing that helped was that as least as far as the ES group went, if they did an aerospace related class, it was maybe on weather, or aerial navigation, leadership related to how to organize and manage teams in search/field conditions, operations related tasks etc etc.  You get idea.

I had a lot of success with it, and didnt notice that anyone seemed to be "falling behind"  or missing out on any part of the program.

mk

[DC]

The separate 'command prep flight' might not be a bad idea, but it would depend on how you implement it, or if it is practical for your cadet corps.

For example, you have a bunch of C/NCOs that fall in together.  During D&C time they learn about more advanced parts of drill - command voice development, large formation drill, etc.  If you have a leadership oriented class, you might have one that focuses on basic subject matter that the C/Amn need to know like how to shine your boots, while you could teach your "command prep flight" how to be better public speakers.

So while they wouldn't be missing entirely from the other activities (PT, ML, AE, etc), there would be a more advanced curriculum that would develop them as leaders in more advanced subject matter.  Then as they get assigned to positions of responsibility they get to execute those newly taught lessons.

I am considering either that, or a weekend NCO school instead. I think the NCO school would be easier to do, but the flight would get more training accomplished.

If I do the weekend school it would probably be an extension of our BCT program (which I just got the go ahead from my CC last night on, HOOAH!) which is soon to be started. I'm considering making it a requirement for promotion to C/MSgt, like a CAP,  watered down equivalent of USAF NCO Academy...

[jimmydeanno]

Can't add requirements for promotion, like requiring that if you want to be a C/MSgt you need to complete a squadron school.

[DC]

Can't add requirements for promotion, like requiring that if you want to be a C/MSgt you need to complete a squadron school.

In a technical sense, no, you're right. But technically, we cannot require cadets to own and wear BDUs. If you start such a school and tell cadets that they need to go trough it before they can strike for C/MSgt they will do it.. The only purpose of it would be to make better NCOs, and it wouldn't be a hard long activity, just a weekend in a classroom environment...

Squadrons have the option of holding promotion boards to acertain a cadet's competency, which, in effect, makes passing Promotion boards a requirement...

[jimmydeanno]

It doesn't have anything to do with a PRB - it is about setting standards for promotion that aren't real.  If a cadet possesses all the skills that would be taught in the NCO academy and doesn't go, why would that be a deterring factor for promotion? 

I think that NCO schools are a great idea to help build the skills of your staff, but telling them if they don't go, they don't get promoted is a no go.

The PRB itself isn't even another 'check box' for promotion, it is a feedback session.  It isn't supposed to set any more expectations than what is listed in 52-16.  it is to talk about the cadets current abilities, their progress, answer questions, etc - not make sure they can answer 9 out of 10 memorization questions. 

The PRB is a tool, not a task.

[BillB]

If you check, Promotion Review Boards are not required for cadet promotions. I=f a Squadron has one, the DCP or CC can overrule the PRB. Other Squadrons do very well without them, with the DCP recommending to the CC that Cadet Doe be promoted, or not.

[DC]

It doesn't have anything to do with a PRB - it is about setting standards for promotion that aren't real.  If a cadet possesses all the skills that would be taught in the NCO academy and doesn't go, why would that be a deterring factor for promotion? 

I think that NCO schools are a great idea to help build the skills of your staff, but telling them if they don't go, they don't get promoted is a no go.

The PRB itself isn't even another 'check box' for promotion, it is a feedback session.  It isn't supposed to set any more expectations than what is listed in 52-16.  it is to talk about the cadets current abilities, their progress, answer questions, etc - not make sure they can answer 9 out of 10 memorization questions. 

The PRB is a tool, not a task.

We do not make a box to check off, but we do require a cadet to go through the board. We also avoid asking memorization questions, instead focusing on scenarios, and other questions appropriate to what the cadet is expected to know. It allows us to make a decision that is not based on just the written tests. We conduct a 'feedback meeting' between the officer that does the Form 50 and the cadet, more of a one on one thing. Our system works for us.

As for the requiring the NCO School, if it can't be a 'requirement' then it won't be...

[notaNCO forever]

The PRB is a tool, not a task.

We do not make a box to check off, but we do require a cadet to go through the board. We also avoid asking memorization questions, instead focusing on scenarios, and other questions appropriate to what the cadet is expected to know. It allows us to make a decision that is not based on just the written tests. We conduct a 'feedback meeting' between the officer that does the Form 50 and the cadet, more of a one on one thing. Our system works for us.

I hope they at least have to memorize general knowledge cadet oath, moto, honor code, core values, and the chain of comand. Also the twelve general orders. i have these all memorized it is not that hard.

Tags - MIKE

[arajca]

There is no "honor code" or "twelve general orders" in CAP.

[Ned]

There is no "honor code" or "twelve general orders" in CAP.

Unless, of course, a unit or activity commander says there is for their unit or activity.

[mikeylikey]

As far as honor code goes......"I will not lie, cheat or steal" is more about being a good citizen than memorizing some sentence.  I hope everyone here lives up to those words.  If not, please feel free to turn yourselves in!   

[JayT]

Can't add requirements for promotion, like requiring that if you want to be a C/MSgt you need to complete a squadron school.

In a technical sense, no, you're right. But technically, we cannot require cadets to own and wear BDUs. If you start such a school and tell cadets that they need to go trough it before they can strike for C/MSgt they will do it.. The only purpose of it would be to make better NCOs, and it wouldn't be a hard long activity, just a weekend in a classroom environment...

Squadrons have the option of holding promotion boards to acertain a cadet's competency, which, in effect, makes passing Promotion boards a requirement...

There really isn't a 'technical sense.' There's what the regs say to do, what they say is optional, and what they say isn't allowed.

It's a terrible idea, because CAP isn't just an ES agency, or a AE teaching association, or a poor mans JROTC. It's all three, and should be treated as such. A cadets main job is to learn. Their job is to learn so called leadership skills. Their job is to learn the purely military stuff (D & C, rank, etc etc.) Their job is to learn stuff about aviation. Etc etc.

The last thing we need is more lifer Cadet Airmen who are 'Ground Team Guys'

[Nathan]

We did something that worked without subverting or reinterpreting regulations for a while.

Because the cadets have AE requirements built right into the schedule, they don't need any extra exposure to that, but that still only covers 2/3rds of CAP. So after a cadet made C/A1C, we would put them through a 2-3 week course (depending on the instructor) that would basically cover the fundamentals of ES. The goal was to get them ready to earn the ES 101 card, though it wasn't required. If they liked ES, then we have now provided them with the opportunity to move on and attend SAREX's, NESA, Hawk, and so on. If they didn't like it, then it was only 2-3 weeks out of the year that they "wasted", and even then, they had a familiarization with the material, which never hurts anything.

It stopped working when our resident ES expert on the cadet side of our program became the C/CC, but it worked very well and got many cadets who joined for the ES part of CAP some exposure and open doors.

[DC]

We did something that worked without subverting or reinterpreting regulations for a while.

Because the cadets have AE requirements built right into the schedule, they don't need any extra exposure to that, but that still only covers 2/3rds of CAP. So after a cadet made C/A1C, we would put them through a 2-3 week course (depending on the instructor) that would basically cover the fundamentals of ES. The goal was to get them ready to earn the ES 101 card, though it wasn't required. If they liked ES, then we have now provided them with the opportunity to move on and attend SAREX's, NESA, Hawk, and so on. If they didn't like it, then it was only 2-3 weeks out of the year that they "wasted", and even then, they had a familiarization with the material, which never hurts anything.

It stopped working when our resident ES expert on the cadet side of our program became the C/CC, but it worked very well and got many cadets who joined for the ES part of CAP some exposure and open doors.

Thats an idea, to offer schools a few times a year, where cadets can earn their GT cert, or their Model Rocketry Badge, or what have you...

[DC]

There is no "honor code" or "twelve general orders" in CAP.

I have never heard of CAP having General Orders, but I have never come across a cadet (in SER at least.) that did not know a CAP Honor Code.

[JayT]

There is no "honor code" or "twelve general orders" in CAP.

I have never heard of CAP having General Orders, but I have never come across a cadet (in SER at least.) that did not know a CAP Honor Code.

It doesn't matter that they know it.......

[SarDragon]

There is no "honor code" or "twelve general orders" in CAP.

I have never heard of CAP having General Orders, but I have never come across a cadet (in SER at least.) that did not know a CAP Honor Code.

WIWAC, there were General Orders of a Sentry that we were required to memorize. There was a three page chapter in the Lead Lab Manual on Interior Guard in the Civil Air Patrol, and they were in there.

[afgeo4]

Can't add requirements for promotion, like requiring that if you want to be a C/MSgt you need to complete a squadron school.

In a technical sense, no, you're right. But technically, we cannot require cadets to own and wear BDUs. If you start such a school and tell cadets that they need to go trough it before they can strike for C/MSgt they will do it.. The only purpose of it would be to make better NCOs, and it wouldn't be a hard long activity, just a weekend in a classroom environment...

Squadrons have the option of holding promotion boards to acertain a cadet's competency, which, in effect, makes passing Promotion boards a requirement...

We can require them to wear BDU's. That is addressed in the CP regulations. BDUs and blues are the officially prescribed uniforms for cadets.

[afgeo4]

There is no "honor code" or "twelve general orders" in CAP.

No, but there is a Cadet Oath.

[sarmed1]

We can require them to wear BDU's. That is addressed in the CP regulations. BDUs and blues are the officially prescribed uniforms for cadets.

Someone correct me if I am wrong here but the only uniform that is required is the short sleve blues combination, as it is the only uniform that is provided to cadets.  BDU's or other combinations can only be required if the unit is able to provide them to cadets free of charge. (I will have to hunt for where I saw that)

Can't add requirements for promotion, like requiring that if you want to be a C/MSgt you need to complete a squadron school.

No but you could make participation at "Cadet NCO acadamy" a requirement for selection ot the postion of Flight sergeant or First Sergant or whatever other positions you squadron might have.  If they want to be "that guy" they will make the time to do the activity.

mk

[davidsinn]

We can require them to wear BDU's. That is addressed in the CP regulations. BDUs and blues are the officially prescribed uniforms for cadets.

Cite please?

[afgeo4]

Can't add requirements for promotion, like requiring that if you want to be a C/MSgt you need to complete a squadron school.

Nope, but you can add requirements for promotion to leadership positions. As in... if you want to have a leadership position past element leader, you will need to complete the NCO Academy. We've done this in one of my past squadrons and it worked quite well. This is one of the ways in which we can make sure that our cadets are up to the leadership tasks we expect them to take on.

I would love to do that for senior members too, but I'm afraid the ones who'd volunteer to do leadership training would be the same exact ones who'd volunteer not to take on a leadership role (because they know better).