Should we return to the old PD requirements?

[SAR-EMT1]

I have been informed that back in the day courses like SOS, ACSC, AWC and a DoD Industrial Course were required to promote in CAP, they were not in other words optional as they are today.

How much of an effect would this have on our membership if we were to REQUIRE these courses? (Coorespondance of course)

And what if we required these courses whilst requiring CAPSOC
(renamed CAPOC) AND the Reserve Course (00017) and SLS for 2LT
---------------
Would it improve our reputation with the Defense Department?

Would the Air Force shower us with gifts and fine wines?

Would it cause a revolt and would membership numbers drop accordingly?

-------------------
I am suggesting this as a way to increase our professionalism and reputation WITHOUT demanding a college degree. And if nothing else, hopefully the DoD would see we are making an effort.
(Although ACSC can now give you a Masters) 

(I dont know too much anything about the industrial course, feel free to fill us in)

[BillB]

The old program required the PD courses for promotions. I don't remember which Air University course was required for each grade but they were in order
ECI 7C replaced by ECI 13
Squadron Officer School
Air Command and Staff College
Industrial College of the Armed Forces (now National Defense University)
Air War College (required for LtCol promotion)

The current ECI 13 covered about half of what the old ECI 7C covered. All the rest of the ECI courses are basically the same, updated every two years. The Insustrial College was an Army course offered to all RM and often could be found as a seminar course at various military bases for reservists (but the corrospondance course was required for CAP promotion, not the seminar) Air War College, was an Air University Course separate from ECI
If CAP went back to this PD concept, you'd find that to a great extent the time required to take the courses extended the time in grade requirements. Most could NOT complete the advanced courses in one year and had to request an extention.  Air War College for example required an in-depth paper at the end of the course on a military or aerospace subject. The paper usually would run 40-60 pages or so. Oddly enough once accepted by AWC it went to the Air University Library and was classified RESTRICTED, so a CAP member couldn't read it after he wrote is since CAP had no clearances. (I think that has changed to For Official Use Only or some minor classification) I still have my 1972 AWC paper around somewhere, and I even wrote a 20 page update to it I never submitted to AWC.

[RiverAux]

This is a very intriguing idea that I'm not sure has been brought up before.  To integrate it into other discussions we might end up with something like this:

Senior Member: current Level 1
2nd Lt.:  CAP SLS
1st Lt: CAP CLC
Capt:  AF Squadron Officer School
Maj: Air Command and Staff College
Lt. Col: Air War College

Of course we would need to get rid of the almost all the current special promotion system for pilots, etc to make it meaningful.  I would probably even consider relaxing my general opposition to giving equivalent CAP rank to military officers provided they completed SLS and CLC before getting it. 

The only real issue that might arise is whether these courses stray too far into stuff that isn't at all relevant to CAP. 

[dwb]

From what I understand, the CAP Region and National Staff Colleges are excellent in-residence PD programs.  For people who cannot attend these courses, for one reason or another, there are the alternative non-residence AU courses (SOS and ACSC).

I haven't seen the 000013 course lately, but when I took it (when it was called ECI 13), it was terrible.

I think there is a very important aspect to CAP PD courses that you're overlooking: interaction with other CAP officers.

These courses are where you can meet people from all over the Wing, Region, or nation. and exchange ideas (and contact information).  Just as encampment exposes cadets to other cadets outside their unit, so too does a CAP PD course expose officers to other officers.

The SLS and CLC curriculums have been overhauled in the last year or so, and are much better than their predecessors.  It's, like, not even a comparison.  TLC is the diggity bomb.

The problem with SLS, CLC, UCC, and TLC is that, if you don't get a good director who will line up good instructors, you don't get as much from taking those courses.  And that's a shame.

Finally, the change you're proposing is going to put an immense strain on Wing PD departments.  We don't have as many SLS and CLC courses offered as we probably should.  For example, requiring SLS for 2d Lt is going to place a big demand on those courses, and in my Wing, there is a dearth of qualified people willing to serve as directors.

[Trung Si Ma]

I'd like to see a combination of the old and the current.

2ndLt - SLS + 12 months TIS
1stLt - ECI-13 + 18 months TIG
Capt - CLC + 24 months TIG
Maj - RSC + 36 months TIG
LtCol - NSC + 60 moths TIG + 12 months command time (possibly waived by commanding two encampments?)

Special promotions eliminate TIS/TIG but do not waive PD requirements
Exception - Wing CC promotion if approved by unanimous NEC vote, must complete all PD within 12 months of appointment.

Equivalencies:
ECI-13 - Military Commision or Spaatz Award

I agree that CAP PD course value is mostly class interaction

[RiverAux]

Perhaps we NEED to be stressing our professional development departments a bit.

Unfortunately, the Region and National Staff Colleges, while maybe excellent courses, are week long courses held in only a few places across the country and are basically inaccessible to most of CAP, especially working age individuals. 

By the way, no argument for me on ECI-13.  Terrible course.  Thats why I left it off my list. 

[mdickinson]

The SLS and CLC curriculums have been overhauled in the last year or so, and are much better than their predecessors.

I generally instruct at one SLS and one CLC each year. I haven't gotten to use the new course syllabii and materials yet, but the ones in use up through last year were certainly very poor. When I would present at an SLS or CLC, I would have to take the provided PowerPoint and completely overhaul it to remove unneeded/useless material, remove stupid caricature drawings, and add in important information that would be useful to the people taking the class.


Here he is referring to the course called "Training Leaders of Cadets":

TLC is the diggity bomb.

So... would that make it very good?  Or very bad? 

The problem with SLS, CLC, UCC, and TLC is that, if you don't get a good director who will line up good instructors, you don't get as much from taking those courses.  And that's a shame.

Well said. The classes at an SLS or CLC are taught not by the course director, but by instructors who are chosen by the director. A course director who goes out of his way to bring in the very best instructors from across the wing (or other nearby wings - why not?) is going to run a course of great quality. On the other hand, a course director who just offers a teaching spot to every senior at the local squadron/group is going to end up giving a course with very uneven instruction. Some local staffers might be good at lecturing / leading class discussion; others may be terrible at it. All too often, the person chosen to lead the class uses it as a forum to air their own grievances with wing/region/national, or spends too much time talking about how things were done "up until the current program was put into place" - the one thing that relatively new members do not need to hear about.

The lack of any qualification needed before someone can teach (I have even seen SLSs where some of the instructors were people taking the course for the first time!) makes me wish there was some sort of prerequisite required before a person could serve as an SLS/CLC instructor. Something that would require the person to prove they are a good lecturer. The "Train the Trainer" class that was taught in 2000 - 2002 was a step in that direction, but is no longer offered/required.

Here are some links that will be of use in this discussion:

Unit Commander's Course (UCC): http://cap.gov/visitors/members/professional_development/index.cfm?nodeID=6709&audienceID=4

Training Leaders of Cadets (TLC):
http://www.cap.gov/visitors/members/cadet_programs/tools_for_leaders/tlc/

Squadron Leadership School (SLS) course materials:
http://cap.gov/visitors/members/professional_development/index.cfm?nodeID=6701&audienceID=4

Corporate Learning Course (CLC) course materials:
http://cap.gov/visitors/members/professional_development/index.cfm?nodeID=6702&audienceID=4

Region Staff College (RSC) course materials:
http://cap.gov/visitors/members/professional_development/index.cfm?nodeID=6703&audienceID=4

National Staff College (NSC) information:
http://cap.gov/visitors/members/professional_development/index.cfm?nodeID=6704&audienceID=4

CAP Professional Development Course:
http://cap.gov/visitors/members/professional_development/pd_course/

Notes from CAP's "Professional Development Summit" in March 2007: http://cap.gov/documents/PDSummitMar07.pdf

[dwb]

TLC is the diggity bomb.

So... would that make it very good?  Or very bad? 

Very good.  Sorry, I was using Darin Ninness lingo. 

[mikeylikey]

(Although ACSC can now give you a Masters) 

No it does not.  It only will give AF 0-4 or AF 0-4 Selects the opportunity to get their Masters.  If you go to the Air University site where it is residing, they explain it more clearly.  Readers Digest Version....... Majors or Major Selects, with a College Degree, only in the Air Force.  All others take ACSC by correspondence with no Masters Credit to include CAP, DoD Civilians, other Commissioned Officers of Sister Services of the O-4 variety.  I read nothing about them opening it up anytime soon to get your Masters Decree.  Heck I applied and got through the system, only to get an email stating "at this time only AF Majors or Selects are permitted to enroll. 

[mikeylikey]

Lt Col - NSC + 60 moths TIG + 12 months command time (possibly waived by commanding two encampments?)

I have seen Encampment Commanders that could barely get their own uniform on.  What I mean to say is you may find Those ENC CC's appointed because they are "friends" of the Wink King or Wing CP Officer.  I say if there must be command time, then there must be command time.  Allow it to only be waivered by NHQ after everyone in the chain approves it, and it better be for a good reason!

[Trung Si Ma]

Lt Col - NSC + 60 moths TIG + 12 months command time (possibly waived by commanding two encampments?)

I have seen Encampment Commanders that could barely get their own uniform on.  What I mean to say is you may find Those ENC CC's appointed because they are "friends" of the Wink King or Wing CP Officer.  I say if there must be command time, then there must be command time.  Allow it to only be waivered by NHQ after everyone in the chain approves it, and it better be for a good reason!

Hey, I resembled that remark!!

In my fantasy PD/promotion system above, I was offering that as an alternative to unit command - despite the fact that I believe ALL field grades should have command experience.

[Eclipse]

I'm all for raising the bar on the level of knowledge and professionalism in CAP.

However, if you increase the requirements for various grades, what you will wind up with is less
people in positions of grade which still meaningless in terms of any authority.

You also run the risk of depressing the grade structure and winding up with even more SMWOG as unit commander's and above.

A pilot, GTM, or an IC will be no more or less effective as a SMWOG than as a a Captain, and since the majority of members join to "do something" (and then pursue the PD later), IMHO the "doing something" would take the priority over PD, just as it does today.

I think, as a matter of course, we should increase the time as a member before >any< grade or authority of any kind is granted to new people, but that is so they gain operational experience, not to convey more "wuffle" to their bling.

[RiverAux]

In my wing less than a dozen have gone to National Staff College and only about 3 dozen have gone to Region Staff College.  A handful have done Air War College and less than a dozen have done Squadron Officers School.  We don't seem to be suffering a major shortage of Lt. Colonels either.  So, our current requirements don't seem to be a major problem and they're utilized not a whole lot more than the AF course option.

Seems to me that our current CAP PD requirements are only be utilized by a tiny handful of our members in the first place.  Therefore, changing them to the AF courses probably wouldn't make much difference.  Frankly, since attendence at RSC and NSC is geographically and time-limiting, putting more of an emphasis on the correspondence course option might actually increase interest in taking these courses to get higher rank. 

[dwb]

Actually, we're spending all this time talking about Levels III, IV, and V, but I'm willing to bet we're the weakest (as an organization) at dealing with senior members in Level II.

Someone comes in, they get an orientation, perhaps wedged into a job... then what?  There's no clear "here's your next step".  Again, I'm talking about this from the organization's standpoint; I'm sure local commanders here and there are good about shepherding their officers through Level II and motivating them to pursue Level III.

There's a lot of great stuff in the CAP PD program, but it's sort of concentrated in IV and V (and III to a lesser extent).

I don't have a good answer for how to change this culture, but if I were to get a bunch of bright minds together to ponder CAP professional development, I wouldn't focus on whether people should be taking SOS vs. RSC to get IV and make Lt Col, I would be focusing on what to do with a 2d Lt.  YMMV.

[mikeylikey]

However, if you increase the requirements for various grades, what you will wind up with is less
people in positions of grade which still meaningless in terms of any authority.

See there is the thing.  What happened in the 1950's that made CAP move away from grade=authority?  They had in WWII, then it seems like it went away before the 1960's.  Iowa has started to move back to that.  I think we need to all move back to that.  It will take a long phase in time, but it may be woth it. 

[Eclipse]

However, if you increase the requirements for various grades, what you will wind up with is less
people in positions of grade which still meaningless in terms of any authority.

See there is the thing.  What happened in the 1950's that made CAP move away from grade=authority?  They had in WWII, then it seems like it went away before the 1960's.  Iowa has started to move back to that.  I think we need to all move back to that.  It will take a long phase in time, but it may be worth it. 

No idea why the decision was made, but I know that based on our numbers today, we'd have a lot of open command positions if we required people to hold a grade commensurate with their posting, and again, if you grant authority to grade in an organization which has no limit to service, you still wind up with a whole group of heavies with no job, who now think they can have a say in things.

The RealMilitary® cycles most people back into the private sector before this is an issue, and limits the actual number of officers in the force, as well as where they can be stationed, etc.  That simply is not possible in CAP.  Not in today's program.

As to how Iowa's might be doing things, I don't know how that is possible within the current program, the regulations clearly state that no extra requirements can be placed on promotion outside those set forth
in the documents.

Other wings have attempted to place service requirements, etc., on promotions and have seen their plans
knocked back when members challenge the idea.

One wing's grade cannot, by definition, have any more "anything" than any others.

[CAP_truth]

Couple of items The old PD requirements were


ECI7C for Level II & 2nd Lt.


SOS for Level III
ACSC for Level IV

AWC for Level V.

At that time we had warrant officer grades.

AU requires that the grade of Capt. or selectee is required to enroll in SOS, Maj. or selectee for ACSC and Lt. Col. or selectee for AWC.

Why not CAPOC and SLS for 2nd. Lt., Level II for 1st Lt., Level III for Capt., Level IV. for Maj. and Level V for Lt. Col.

A senior rating in a specialty to hold a position above squadron, a master rating to hold any wing position. Also the UCC course should be completed prior to a member being assigned as commander not after, as well as deputy commanders. The WRCC should be completed prior to a member being assigned as Wing/CC or Wing/DC.

[Psicorp]

I'd like to see a combination of the old and the current.

2ndLt - SLS + 12 months TIS
1stLt - ECI-13 + 18 months TIG
Capt - CLC + 24 months TIG
Maj - RSC + 36 months TIG
LtCol - NSC + 60 moths TIG + 12 months command time (possibly waived by commanding two encampments?)
//
Equivalencies:
ECI-13 - Military Commision or Spaatz Award

I'd actually like to see the 2nd LT and 1st LT PD requirements above reversed.

A new Senior Member needs as much of a basic knowledge information as early in his or her career as possible and 2nd LT is much more of a learning phase than 1st LT is.

As far as the equivalencies go, given that the minimum passing score for the ECI-13 is 65%, making it eqivalent to Spaatz is rediculous.  Earhart through Eaker award recipiants are appointed to 1st LTs and they have learned nearly all of the ECI 13 material where as the Spaatz exam is essentially a test on all the information they learned up through the Eaker award, not to mention there's a much higher minimum score required. 

I'd like to see SLS and SOS be required for Captain.  The Air Force requires that enrollees to SOS be Captains or Captain-selectees.   If we were to prohibit enrollment into SOS until the last 6 months of the 18 month TIG, they'll be close enough to Captain and by that point the majority of members will have been in CAP for at least two and half years.   

Yes there are those who will have recieved advanced appointments, but most of those will have been for military grade reasons and a military Captain will have either already taken SOS or will soon (most likely).

Just a thought.

[dwb]

I'm currently enrolled in the non-residence SOS course.  While the information I have seen thus far is interesting and informative, it's not all applicable to CAP.  Maybe the last two core areas (communication studies, leadership and management) will be, but it is first and foremost a military officer course (obviously).

I don't support making SOS or any of its follow-on courses a requirement for CAP promotions, although I'm happy I'm enrolled.  Heck, I'm just happy I have the opportunity as a non-military dude to enroll and get all this great information.

I've never been to a Region Staff College, and assuming I complete SOS, I'll never have to go to RSC.  However, I know enough people who have gone to assure me it is a very worthwhile undertaking.

[davedove]

2ndLt - SLS + 12 months TIS
1stLt - ECI-13 + 18 months TIG
Capt - CLC + 24 months TIG
Maj - RSC + 36 months TIG
LtCol - NSC + 60 moths TIG + 12 months command time (possibly waived by commanding two encampments?)

That's a minimum of 12 1/2 years to make Lt Col.  The minimum time for the services to make Lt. Col. is 10 years, based on the regs I have read.  Why would CAP require longer?

[Eclipse]

2ndLt - SLS + 12 months TIS
1stLt - ECI-13 + 18 months TIG
Capt - CLC + 24 months TIG
Maj - RSC + 36 months TIG
LtCol - NSC + 60 moths TIG + 12 months command time (possibly waived by commanding two encampments?)

That's a minimum of 12 1/2 years to make Lt Col.  The minimum time for the services to make Lt. Col. is 10 years, based on the regs I have read.  Why would CAP require longer?

For one thing, we're not full time, for another, most of us never get formal front-end training.  If we're going to have parity to the RealMilitary® for time-in, we should probably double-up everything.

[RiverAux]

I don't think anyone would argue that we would drop all CAP requirements in favor of the AF courses.  There is still a need for them. 

By the way, to those who think that "stifling" promotions would hurt CAP membership, I've got serious doubts.  Though "rank" doesn't exist as such in the CG Aux, they still wear rank insignia based on their administrative office.  As a result, you will very rarely see an CG Aux member with inisignia higher than that equivalent to AF/Army/Marines "Captain".  This doesn't seem to bother anyone.  So, if CAP ended up with even higher percentages of folks more or less permanently at 2nd or 1st Lt. rank, I doubt it would be a problem. 

[scooter]

I don't think anyone would argue that we would drop all CAP requirements in favor of the AF courses.  There is still a need for them. 

By the way, to those who think that "stifling" promotions would hurt CAP membership, I've got serious doubts.  Though "rank" doesn't exist as such in the CG Aux, they still wear rank insignia based on their administrative office.  As a result, you will very rarely see an CG Aux member with inisignia higher than that equivalent to AF/Army/Marines "Captain".  This doesn't seem to bother anyone.  So, if CAP ended up with even higher percentages of folks more or less permanently at 2nd or 1st Lt. rank, I doubt it would be a problem. 

I agree.

[Dragoon]

To be honest, huge sections of USAF Officer Professional Development are pretty useless for our folks.  Sure, it's cool to learn about the tenets of Air Power, and dissect Tooey Spaatz's bombing campaigns, but is that the best use of our officers' time?

I've seen AFSC graduates come in to CAP and have the same problems as any other new member - because we are different enough that what works there doesn't work here.  Different cultures, different missions, differentexpectations of the members, different reward systems, etc.

Now, if we just make it official that grade is irrelevant, and that our grade insignia is really just our "Air Force Professional Development Awards", then yeah, link it to USAF courses.  What the heck.

But as others have pointed out, it won't make our leaders better officers.  Because, frankly, most of our leaders won't do it.  And they'll STILL be the ones in charge, because their the best ones for the job who are willing to do it.  And, frankly, some of the folks with the time to take the correspondence courses and "earn" the grade will still be the kind of folks you wouldn't want leading a round of "Row Row Row Your Boat" much less a CAP squadron.

Book learnin' is great (I've got a few  Master's Degrees lying around here somewhere myself), but it's only valuable if the material is relevant to the job  Only some of that stuff would really help make you a better CAP leader.  And then only if you've got some leadership talent to begin with. 

I've yet to see a correspondence course that produces leaders - it's the kind of skill that requires hands-on training.

[Dragoon]

And here's the less smarmy answer.

Tell me what you expect a CAP Lt Col to DO, and we can figure out what kind of training he needs in order to do that.

Ditto a Captain or a Major.

We really need to focus on deciding why we have grade, and how we should use it. What role do we expect high ranking CAP officers to play?  What do we expect them to do that we don't expect of lower ranking members?

From that it will be easy to figure out what the requirements for promotion should be.

In the absence of that analysis, it really doesn't matter.  Grade becomes just a merit badge - you can set the requirements however you like.

[Dragoon]

2ndLt - SLS + 12 months TIS
1stLt - ECI-13 + 18 months TIG
Capt - CLC + 24 months TIG
Maj - RSC + 36 months TIG
LtCol - NSC + 60 moths TIG + 12 months command time (possibly waived by commanding two encampments?)

That's a minimum of 12 1/2 years to make Lt Col.  The minimum time for the services to make Lt. Col. is 10 years, based on the regs I have read.  Why would CAP require longer?

Is there anywhere in DoD today where a guy goes from 0-1 to 0-5 in 10 years?  Last time I checked, the average was around 16.  10 might be the minimum in public law, but I don't think any of the services are doing it that way.

[mikeylikey]

I read through the ACA regs on this subject, very interesting.  A lot is being said of the ACA now, both here and elsewhere, but what they have down on paper and with whom I have spoken, they seem to have a better grasp on PD and appointments, promotions than CAP.  You may ask why.......simply put they copied the Military way of doing things.  

I quote them...."Not everyone will be an Officer, we are in need of civilian instructors, NCO's, Warrant Officers.....".

CAP is "hung up" on everyone being an Officer.  That was the first mistake.

[Dragoon]

Very true - all officers doesn't work.  All chiefs and no indians.

Where ACA will begin get in to trouble, I think, is when a former Lt Col just wants to hang out at a local unit and not be in charge.  Ir when the best guy to run the local unit is just an NCO, and there are two officers willing to help, but neither is a good choice to run things.

It will happen, and will begin to fray their "just like the military" model.

Because that's the one thing seperating us from the Real Military - we don't (and shouldn't) have an "up or out" policy.