CAP Professional Development - Problems and Solutions

[catrulz]

I want to attempt to pull the PD discussion away from the NCO thread.  I think most people agree there are issues with PD, the main problem is with the voluntary nature of the organization, how do you motivate the membership to learn.

PD/PME is a requirement for promotion in the Military and within some civilian corporations. Some have indicated that the only purpose of PD in CAP is to advance.  While I agree that PD is often viewed this way, I also think this is a very poor attitude.  This attitude only serves to check boxes and does not encourage learning.  Training should enhance ones self esteem within the organization.  So that when your at Wing Conference standing among your peers, you are an equal stake holder in the conversation.

There are also requirements that seem extraneous.  There is a thread on proving Conference attendance.  While I think members should attend conference, I also think there are many excellent reasons why people cannot attend regularly.  If that member is highly active in other areas, why should this hold them back.  Isn't there a better way to encourage Conference attendance other than incorporating it into PD requirements? 

PD needs to be validated to verify that the member has received some cursory bench mark from the PD course.  Simply sitting through SLS, CLC, UCC, RSC, TLC isn't sufficient.  The problem with testing for pass on these courses is the lack of consistency in instructors.  But, perhaps an online pre-course like they have instituted for NSC, that has to be passed before you can take the instructor led portion.  Eliminating the Instructor led portion IMHO would be counter productive.  These session open senior members to other members of CAP and allow discussions in their experiences from units and activities they have attended. 

Any thoughts on this?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I see several issues.

I know CAP means "Come And Pay," but for someone on a fixed income, as I am, attending some of the events can be cost-prohibitive.  For those who live in regions where events are really spread-out in terms of distance, paying for transport (including sometimes an airline ticket; I have not heard of USAF airlift support in a long, long time - one of my commanders went to a National Conference in California and got flown aboard an ANG C-21, but that was back in the mid-1990s), lodging (if billeting on an AFB/AFRES/ANGB installation is not available; anyway most ANG and AFRES bases do not have on-base billeting) and other associated costs...unless a National/Region conference happens to be held within driving distance for me, it just is not going to happen.  And honestly, I would really like to attend a National Conference, but I do not see it happening.

Others have mentioned proof of attendance.  I know most conferences give proof-of-attendance certificates now, but it was not always so.  One thing leading to my first departure from CAP was that I had attended a Region Conference (virtually driving all night to get there) and my Wing PDO would not accept my proof of attendance.  Even a letter from the hosting Wing Commander on letterhead was not acceptable (I was told "he could be a personal friend of yours and you are calling in a favour").  There needs to be standardised proof-of-attendance procedures.

This may be restating the obvious, but Squadron and Wing PDO's need to know what they are doing!  I have dealt with PDO's whom I have had to shepherd through the process of making sure the right forms were turned in, credited, etc., and I have never been a PDO.  At least require a Technician rating for someone to be permitted to serve in that capacity. 

Those who instruct (again restating the obvious) need to be experts on their subject matter.  I have "instructed" at an Observer School and an SLS.  In both cases the hosting unit (my unit hosted the Observer School) basically handed me a piece of paper from the syllabus with a few bullet points on it and said "read off that."  In the Observer School case, it was quite embarrassing to lecture to a roomful of pilots on what the control surfaces of a C172 were.  I got certificates for both, but I do not feel I really did anything.

This is probably impossible, since it is impossible for human beings to be totally objective, and no-one is without prejudices of some sort.  Those who are in the position to promote/award need to stick to the published standards for such things and not let personal feelings colour the process.  However, I have even written letters of recommendation for those whom I would not particularly care to socialise with, but whom I knew were qualified for what they needed.  In many cases, not all, I am fortunate that I do have the detachment for such things.

Maybe this is too much to expect out of a volunteer organisation.  I do not know.

[catrulz]

PD value from Conferences is suspect, just as PD value from a non-prepared instructor at any course is suspect.  At any given conference how many seminars pertain to you?  An what value did you receive from the seminar.  I'm not saying you shouldn't attend conference or conference seminars, I'm saying that there should be connection to PD requirements.

IMO impromptu hallway meetings with peers provide the greatest value at Conference. 

[Eclipse]

Until you make PD mandatory in regards to staff positions and duties a member may want / need to perform, the
entirety of the conversation is extraneous, and extraneous things tend to be treated that way.

There is also zero vetting or expectations of instructors, which means in many cases the least informed
person in the room on a given subject is "teaching" actual SMEs on something they are clueless about
because they "need this for promotion".

If CAP ever wants PD to be taken seriously it needs a cadre of "professional" instructors just as any other organization
would have who are actual SMEs with relevent experience within CAP, and it needs to add the weight of
requirement to the classes and OJT training, etc.

CAP also needs better objective verification of the completion of the specialties.  Right now there is nothing
except for a CC's mouse.  Approval is entirely subjective - for every member held to answering the questions in
writing, documenting service and discussing the reading lists and duties, there's more then a few who get the
"Oh, you're a fireman? Click, ES Tech.  Remind me next year to click Senior.." (etc.)

[Eclipse]

PD value from Conferences is suspect, just as PD value from a non-prepared instructor at any course is suspect.  At any given conference how many seminars pertain to you?  An what value did you receive from the seminar.  I'm not saying you shouldn't attend conference or conference seminars, I'm saying that there should be connection to PD requirements.

IMO impromptu hallway meetings with peers provide the greatest value at Conference.

I agree the networking is generally of the most value.

Frankly conferences in general are suspect, be they CAP or business.  There's too much background noise
in just getting people hots and cots so they can sit in the same room.

And in regards to the curriculum - in most cases the conference PICs are reaching just to have something to
talk about.  This isn't 1975 where the nets are the only immediate news source and everyone wants to
hear about the new regs - there's nothing "new" in CAP that isn't on the web seconds after it's announced.

There's a reason why beyond CES there are few major product conferences any more and that the
tradeshow market in general is shrinking it's a part of a bygone era before the days of ubiquitous instantaneous
information  (and this comes from someone who make a good % of his income form the tradeshow industry).

It'd be one thing if they were presented and attended on CAP's nickel, a nice benefit of membership to
get out and about with members you don't know, but it's a hard pill to spend a few hundred bucks
for a hotel in mid-state no where to eat rubber chicken and listen to people tell you about things
which haven't been news for 8 months.

[Eclipse]

This TIG http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19600.0 discussion really highlights how broken CAP PD really is.  Like most things in CAP, the program
itself is fine, there's simply no expectation of doing it. 

Two members of the same vintage, activity level, staff position, and even grade can stand in the same room,
one has done SLS/CLC/TLC/RSC/NSC and be doing the same jobs as one who has never done anything but
a weekly meeting. Both are considered "active" members.

I pointed out the same dichotomy with the uniforms.  Two people in the same room, one in the golf shirt,
one in full service dress, both are "right". 

You can't have an organization like CAP with this sort of disparity, press the significant administrative requirements,
and then not expect serious issues in expectations, performance, and the lack of both.

As we've said elsewhere, comparing the BSA to CAP is easy, but generally doesn't work, however it might
surprise many people here the level of training and certification required >before< you can be appointed
to various positions in a troop.

Every position requires specific training, generally a "you go there" day or weekend >before< you get the job,
even committee positions, which are a loose equivalent to squadron staff, have any number of pre-requisite classes
and online training before appointments can be made.  They want me to be the STEM coordinator because I mentioned
I saw an airplane once, I have to take like 3 or 4 classes to be considered.

And they are serious about it, no cert, no job.  And the Scouts have no planes or operational role (though they do have plenty of $$$).

Compare that to the average CAP unit CC who is chosen based on presence and can assume command as soon as
his Level I is complete, never to attend another class whatsoever, and who is somehow expected to manage and lead adults
in a life-saving role.

[ProdigalJim]

PD value from Conferences is suspect, just as PD value from a non-prepared instructor at any course is suspect.  At any given conference how many seminars pertain to you?  An what value did you receive from the seminar.  I'm not saying you shouldn't attend conference or conference seminars, I'm saying that there should be connection to PD requirements.

IMO impromptu hallway meetings with peers provide the greatest value at Conference.

Concur. However, PD from a knowledgeable and prepared instructor is a good thing, no? Likewise, a solid, well-thought-out conference program can deliver real value. Earlier this year we did a Wing conference as a joint effort with Virginia Wing, NatCap and Middle East Region folks, and the program was really outstanding. A highlight for me: a briefing from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, in which they described how the imagery we shoot from the air gets turned into intelligence and air-reconnaissance products during disasters and other contingencies. There was real nuts-and-bolts stuff about, for example, why it's important to fly precisely at 90 knots, and shoot precisely with a 45-degree angle...because we saw examples of how it gets used and why the details matter. That kind of rich conference programming can be done with PD as well, and if it were, it would be a benefit.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Frankly conferences in general are suspect, be they CAP or business.  There's too much background noise in just getting people hots and cots so they can sit in the same room.

Fully agreed.  I am no schmoozer and make no secret of it.

When I have gone to wing/region conferences I am selective about which seminars/training sessions I attend.

I was a Safety Officer for uncounted years; ergo, when I would go to a wing conference I would seek out anything to do with safety.

[Eclipse]

Concur. However, PD from a knowledgeable and prepared instructor is a good thing, no? Likewise, a solid, well-thought-out conference program can deliver real value. Earlier this year we did a Wing conference as a joint effort with Virginia Wing, NatCap and Middle East Region folks, and the program was really outstanding.

That scale mirrors my experience - in your case it took 2 wings and region to pull off a decent conference, I've seen similar issues myself.

You really don't get much "new" until you get to at least a Region scope, otherwise it's just the mostly the same people you saw at the last SAREx or whatever
in a banquet hall.

[catrulz]

PD value from Conferences is suspect, just as PD value from a non-prepared instructor at any course is suspect.  At any given conference how many seminars pertain to you?  An what value did you receive from the seminar.  I'm not saying you shouldn't attend conference or conference seminars, I'm saying that there should be connection to PD requirements.

IMO impromptu hallway meetings with peers provide the greatest value at Conference.

Concur. However, PD from a knowledgeable and prepared instructor is a good thing, no? Likewise, a solid, well-thought-out conference program can deliver real value. Earlier this year we did a Wing conference as a joint effort with Virginia Wing, NatCap and Middle East Region folks, and the program was really outstanding. A highlight for me: a briefing from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, in which they described how the imagery we shoot from the air gets turned into intelligence and air-reconnaissance products during disasters and other contingencies. There was real nuts-and-bolts stuff about, for example, why it's important to fly precisely at 90 knots, and shoot precisely with a 45-degree angle...because we saw examples of how it gets used and why the details matter. That kind of rich conference programming can be done with PD as well, and if it were, it would be a benefit.

Instructor led courses are invaluable if quality control is applied to the instruction that is given.  I have been very fortunate to have had excellent instructors at every CAP course I've attended.  But I have taught at courses where some of my fellow instructors did zero prep, and it showed in the quality of their presentation.

If Eclipse is who I believe he is, then he was one of the instructors at my CLC course at Scott AFB back in 1999.  I returned a couple of years later and instructed  a CLC seminar for LtCol Gale at Scott AFB. 

It's not the curriculum at issue, it is the instructors of the material.  Some individuals just do not have a talent for speaking to groups.  But our current PD requires people without this talent to injure training of new membership, by forcing them to instruct at a corporate course.  I don't have to have a PD need to instruct, so I think you could staff corporate courses without making instruction a PD requirement.   Require the member instead to give a Wing or Group Level briefing, which is demonstrating the same requirement without damaging the learning of newer members.

[catrulz]

Concur. However, PD from a knowledgeable and prepared instructor is a good thing, no? Likewise, a solid, well-thought-out conference program can deliver real value. Earlier this year we did a Wing conference as a joint effort with Virginia Wing, NatCap and Middle East Region folks, and the program was really outstanding.

That scale mirrors my experience - in your case it took 2 wings and region to pull off a decent conference, I've seen similar issues myself.

You really don't get much "new" until you get to at least a Region scope, otherwise it's just the mostly the same people you saw at the last SAREx or whatever
in a banquet hall.

It is quite possible to receive credit for attending your two Conferences, without attending any of the break out sessions (seminars).  Once again, not sure why Conference attendance needs to be a PD requirement.  Attendance should be encourage without it being considered part of the members learning.

[Eclipse]

If Eclipse is who I believe he is, then he was one of the instructors at my CLC course at Scott AFB back in 1999.

Your personal journey of mystery must continue - I've never been a PD instructor at Scott.

[catrulz]

If Eclipse is who I believe he is, then he was one of the instructors at my CLC course at Scott AFB back in 1999.

Your personal journey of mystery must continue - I've never been a PD instructor at Scott.

Not really trying to solve a mystery, just thought you might be that individual and we may have crossed paths.  If not that's okay also. 

[RiverAux]

You know, all the CG Aux really requires to be eligible for "command" positions is the completion of an online test relating to Aux administrative procedures.  There are some opportunities for PD-like training in some specialties relating to running a flotilla, but they're very limited and only a tiny percentage of Auxies go to them.  There are some online courses available for some others (public affairs, for example).  There are some in-person courses available for various levels of leadership (flotilla commander course, etc), but although strongly encouraged, are not required.

I would say that despite having no PD system at all that the Aux is probably run at the same level of competency as CAP.  That being the case, I'm less enthused about even having the CAP PD system, much less "fixing" it.  I don't see that we've gained anything by it so far.

But, if we're going to play that game...

1.  Revamp all the PD specialties so that they are equivalent in requirements put on those completing them. 
2.  Focus more on specific accomplishments being done rather than time spent in position. 
3.  Agree with Eclipse with making it a requirement that a certain PD level be required to hold certain positions BEFORE they can be put into them.  Yeah, you're going to look around and say "hey, I don't have anyone with these qualifications", but thats the same thing we see in the Aux with that Admin procedures course.  No one takes it until they're told that they're going to be elected to office, and what do you know, but they do it then. 
4.  After revamping the PD requirements -- in order to retain their PD level everyone must complete any new requirements that weren't there when they originally obtained it.  If they don't do this, knock them back to the last level for which they've done everything.  Adjust their rank accordingly.  This would be a shock, but we basically do this in ES -- you have to re-perform the current requirements to maintain the qual no matter what they were when you got it. 

[arajca]

4.  After revamping the PD requirements -- in order to retain their PD level everyone must complete any new requirements that weren't there when they originally obtained it.  If they don't do this, knock them back to the last level for which they've done everything.  Adjust their rank accordingly.  This would be a shock, but we basically do this in ES -- you have to re-perform the current requirements to maintain the qual no matter what they were when you got it.

Except, there is not a requalification requirement for specialty tracks like there is for ES quals. If a task is added to an ES qual, completion is caught by the requal, not by dropping everyone who hasn't completed it by a certain date down a level. So, it's not like ES quals.

It's more like an ex post facto rule - yes, you did everything proper for the award when you earned it, but we just changed the rules, so if you don't meet the new rules, you lose your award even though you met the requirements when you earned it.

[Fubar]

Once again, not sure why Conference attendance needs to be a PD requirement.

Without it, you probably wouldn't have anybody at the conference...

[Eclipse]

4.  After revamping the PD requirements -- in order to retain their PD level everyone must complete any new requirements that weren't there when they originally obtained it.  If they don't do this, knock them back to the last level for which they've done everything.  Adjust their rank accordingly.  This would be a shock, but we basically do this in ES -- you have to re-perform the current requirements to maintain the qual no matter what they were when you got it.

Except, there is not a requalification requirement for specialty tracks like there is for ES quals. If a task is added to an ES qual, completion is caught by the requal, not by dropping everyone who hasn't completed it by a certain date down a level. So, it's not like ES quals.

It's more like an ex post facto rule - yes, you did everything proper for the award when you earned it, but we just changed the rules, so if you don't meet the new rules, you lose your award even though you met the requirements when you earned it.

That's tricky, but a fair point and probably necessary.

We have a lot of "masters" of "x" who have no idea about WBP, WMIRS, ORMS, TLC, or whatever is new since they
earned it and the decade started with a 19.

Under a plan to require "x" level for "x" job, they'd have the box checked, but still be behind the curve.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to demote people, any more then we take away earned badges,
but a system that removed a user's "PD Quals" in the same way as we do with ES is a good idea.

Want to be Wing Director of Looking Out the Window (DLW)?  You have to be have a Transparency Master
that shows as current. Don't have one?  Requal or no job.

[EMT-83]

What to be Wing Director of Looking Out the Window (DLW)?

Think I just found a reason to update my CAP resume...

[Private Investigator]

Once again, not sure why Conference attendance needs to be a PD requirement.

Without it, you probably wouldn't have anybody at the conference...

And the whole world of CAP as Bubba knows it, is at Petticoat Junction Squadron and what Major Gomer and Captain Goober tells him. Some members really do not know about the other 58,000 +/- members. Knowledge is awesome and for some members the Knowledge Base and CAP Talk is the only way to get a straight answer to a question that Gomer or Goober is just guessing at.   

[RiverAux]

4.  After revamping the PD requirements -- in order to retain their PD level everyone must complete any new requirements that weren't there when they originally obtained it.  If they don't do this, knock them back to the last level for which they've done everything.  Adjust their rank accordingly.  This would be a shock, but we basically do this in ES -- you have to re-perform the current requirements to maintain the qual no matter what they were when you got it.

Except, there is not a requalification requirement for specialty tracks like there is for ES quals. If a task is added to an ES qual, completion is caught by the requal, not by dropping everyone who hasn't completed it by a certain date down a level. So, it's not like ES quals.

Correct, there is no requal required now.  That is what I'm basically proposing. 

Oh, when I was writing this I had something in there about giving them 2 years to meet the new requirements before losing the rating, but somehow erased it.  That would have put it much like the ES situation.