Recently,
A member took initiative to schedule a tutoring session for a group of cadets prior to their testing. Good.
He notified the cadets of his availability by group email with parents and unit leadership on the cc line. Good.
He scheduled the event at the public library. Good.
He reiterated that parents must remain onsite during for CPPT purposes. This is where it's fuzzy, IMO.
Although we have often used parents to avoid appearance of impropriety, I wonder if it may be skirting the rules on having a TRAINED and VETTED member present for CPPT purposes. Or is this an over analysis of CPPT requirements?
Your instincts are correct: as described, this event violates one of our Universal Standards of Practice.
Take a look at the current 60-2, paragraph 2.6.4 - this kind of activity requires the presence of two adult leaders in approved status. Not one approved member and a parent.
That said, it sounds like everyone involved is trying to do the right thing, and any risk to the cadets for this particular violation of our best practices feels low to me.
I'm glad that cadets are getting some tutoring, and the tutor is volunteering extra time to help our cadets. That is normally a Good Thing. Just fine tune this a bit and everything will be fine.
Ned Lee
National Cadet Team
As Ned said, the event must have two trained ("approved") members current in CPPT.
The regulation is not intending to say that parents can't remain at the activity just as it is also not saying that parents can substitute as supervision.
Here's an example:
We had a squadron cookout last week. Hot dogs and hamburgers in the park. We did some ES training beforehand, and then had families hang around and dine with us, play some games, etc. That activity requires at least two adult leaders (CAP members, CPPT current). Although the parents are there, it's a CAP activity; thus, the CAP supervision applies.
Just yesterday, I had to cancel the squadron meeting due to another event that a couple of us senior members needed to be at elsewhere. We had two senior members scheduled to be present plus a parent who was going to help with rifle drill instruction. That parent is not yet a CAP member (although is intending to put in an application). One of the two senior members had to cancel due to a last-minute work issue, leaving us with one senior member. Under the old CPP guidance, we could make it work. Under the current guidance, absolutely not. We did not have the adequate supervisory coverage.
I have seen instances recently where units have asked parents to stick around to provide extra supervision (which they are NOT supervision at CAP activities; not according to regulation) or to even ask squadron senior members to supervise their own cadets at wing-level activities (which is also not a regulatory requirement).