Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 12, 2018, 12:33:16 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Weekly PT
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print
Author Topic: Weekly PT  (Read 2864 times)
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,570

« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2018, 12:00:37 PM »

"Lower attendance rates during dedicated PT nights" seems to be one of the root issues here.  If cadets are skipping PT, how are they advancing in the program?


From my experience (and as I visit my subordinate units and I've run PT with a couple of them now) I have had a couple of plain spoken cadets stating to the effect:

"Well, Sir, none of the new guys need to pass PT to promote so some of them skip PT. The rest of us only have to pass twice a year and PT is such a lame event now, a lot of guys skip". This from young people who are very physically active and who are (many of them) JV and varsity and travel team athletes.

Commanders look in the books and see a passing score from March, and sign off (Cadet Oath to "participate actively" notwithstanding). So the law of unintended consequences is alive and is operating well.


V/r
Spam

Re: New members skipping PT
I think there's a 50/50 from that crowd of new cadets. Solely talking about those who skip PT (not the go-getters who welcome it), a cadet who skips because they don't need to pass completely bypassed the whole aspect of "attempt the CPFT" as part of their promotion criteria. In that case, I would absolutely sustain them in grade. You have to at least try. If there is a cadet who skips because they are afraid of the CPFT ("it's going to hurt," "I hate running," etc.), I'll go the same route. You have to make the attempt. And I mean an actual attempt, not doing two push-ups and calling it quits.

*interjection*
I cannot stand someone who stops in the middle of their assessment and says, "That's all I have to do to pass." So much for that Core Value of Excellence.

Re: More advanced cadets griping
They're not wrong. For me, the new CPFT is what it is. I don't like it. My cadets don't like it. I can't do anything about that. That's the regulation I have to follow. On that note, I find it increasingly difficult to administer because people don't "get it," primarily with the curl-ups. If I'm not standing there supervising it myself, I can't trust that it's being administered correctly per the pamphlet.

I do not believe the CPFT is a reason to quit the program. There is nothing stopping a unit from conducting the CPFT for promotion assessment purposes one month, and then the next month, conducting the Spaatz fitness assessment. The CPFT has a curriculum for grading, but you're not prohibited from conducting other forms of fitness "tests" on the side so long as they don't conflict with the promotion requirements per CAPR 60-1. "Okay, we did the CPFT last month. This month, we're going to do 60 seconds of push-ups, 60 seconds of curl-ups, a one-mile jog."

I think units are getting themselves tied in knots over things that they have the flexibility to work out themselves. Perhaps their activities just aren't enjoyable, and they fail to recognize that; so they create these punishments which further exacerbate the issue.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,337

« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2018, 12:16:40 PM »

*interjection*
I cannot stand someone who stops in the middle of their assessment and says, "That's all I have to do to pass." So much for that Core Value of Excellence.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here - why would you continue an assessment, or do activities not required?
When you pass, you're done.[/quote]

Do you mean pushing for more then the minimum, push-ups, etc?

I think units are getting themselves tied in knots over things that they have the flexibility to work out themselves. Perhaps their activities just aren't enjoyable, and they fail to recognize that; so they create these punishments which further exacerbate the issue.

Agree.

What I don't "get" is that the PT itself hasn't really changed, only the promotion criteria- establish an HFZ, and continue to participate
and you get promoted (other academic notwithstanding, of course).  Otherwise, a unit is still supposed to have an active
PT program, test regularly,  and promote fitness.

If a unit had monthly (or at least regular) PT before, why would that change just because standard changed?
Logged


TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,570

« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2018, 01:18:26 PM »

*interjection*
I cannot stand someone who stops in the middle of their assessment and says, "That's all I have to do to pass." So much for that Core Value of Excellence.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here - why would you continue an assessment, or do activities not required?
When you pass, you're done.

Do you mean pushing for more then the minimum, push-ups, etc?

Yes, that exactly.

Someone who needs, say, 15 push-ups does the 15 and then stands up. "Well, I'm good."

I think units are getting themselves tied in knots over things that they have the flexibility to work out themselves. Perhaps their activities just aren't enjoyable, and they fail to recognize that; so they create these punishments which further exacerbate the issue.

Agree.

What I don't "get" is that the PT itself hasn't really changed, only the promotion criteria- establish an HFZ, and continue to participate
and you get promoted (other academic notwithstanding, of course).  Otherwise, a unit is still supposed to have an active
PT program, test regularly,  and promote fitness.

If a unit had monthly (or at least regular) PT before, why would that change just because standard changed?
[/quote]

I think the HFZ concept confused the heck out of people, considering that the assessment is marketed as a "not pass/fail" anymore, rather "attain HFZ." In order to attain HFZ, you have to meet certain scoring requirements during the test; therefore, it's a pass/fail. If you fail, you don't meet HFZ and subsequently cannot promote until meeting HFZ (i.e., passing). The concept isn't wrong, just difficult for some people to interpret (especially when they don't sit down and read the pamphlet but instead skim through it). Some of the test elements obviously did change, particularly the format in which push-ups, curl-ups, and sit-and-reach are conducted under new guidelines.

You still need to have 1 hour of monthly fitness. There is where, as I keep bringing up, you can do physical activity fitness, fitness forums (e.g., nutrition, healthy habits), or other activities that have a fitness element that keeps cadets moving about. It's to encourage that of the approximately 5 hours of contact one must have each month, as a minimum, at least one of those hours is fitness-related. The guidance also encourages that it's preferable each meeting have physical activity.

I understand some winter season challenges this can impose in space-limited facilities, but at least for the warmer (say, above 50 degrees), it's virtually impossible for a unit to struggle to keep cadets moving about. There's really no excuse for that. Maybe there's a lack of innovation, but there are so many resources and people to refer to where one can get some ideas to stay active during meetings that doesn't need to be a formation jog or the CPFT.

Our weekly meetings are 2.5 hours. Our schedule template, over a quarter, include:
Week 1: 15 minutes of a Fitness Forum
Week 2: 1-hour of Game Day
Week 3: 45 minutes of outdoor leadership lab
Week 4: 30 minutes of physical training exercises (muscular endurance or cardio)
*The months are virtually identical adding in the inclusion of the CPFT to alternate with the Game Day.
**This excludes other outdoor activities that can also be used to promote staying active, but these are the bare minimum contact times we try to meet for fitness---to get cadets off their behinds.

Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,337

« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2018, 02:18:13 PM »

I think the HFZ concept confused the heck out of people, considering that the assessment is marketed as a "not pass/fail" anymore, rather "attain HFZ." In order to attain HFZ, you have to meet certain scoring requirements during the test; therefore, it's a pass/fail. If you fail, you don't meet HFZ and subsequently cannot promote until meeting HFZ (i.e., passing). The concept isn't wrong, just difficult for some people to interpret (especially when they don't sit down and read the pamphlet but instead skim through it). Some of the test elements obviously did change, particularly the format in which push-ups, curl-ups, and sit-and-reach are conducted under new guidelines.

Not during Phase 1, which made it obvious this was a retention play (whether that is "bad" or "good" is a separate conversation).

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/static/media/cms/P060_050_Feb_2018_31F2689C8536C.pdf

CAPP 60-50, Page 5-6 (Dear NHQ, why are documents like this rendered so you can't easily copy text?)


You don't have to hit any objective number, or be in HFZ until Wright Brothers.

Which also means that any unit running a "meets minimums" ACFP that isn't working cadets towards their
HFZ, is probably going to lose the stragglers at that point.
Logged


TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,570

« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2018, 09:54:45 AM »

I think the HFZ concept confused the heck out of people, considering that the assessment is marketed as a "not pass/fail" anymore, rather "attain HFZ." In order to attain HFZ, you have to meet certain scoring requirements during the test; therefore, it's a pass/fail. If you fail, you don't meet HFZ and subsequently cannot promote until meeting HFZ (i.e., passing). The concept isn't wrong, just difficult for some people to interpret (especially when they don't sit down and read the pamphlet but instead skim through it). Some of the test elements obviously did change, particularly the format in which push-ups, curl-ups, and sit-and-reach are conducted under new guidelines.

Not during Phase 1, which made it obvious this was a retention play (whether that is "bad" or "good" is a separate conversation).

True, and I thought I made that implication in my previous post regarding "attempt," but I see where that could have been missed.

So, yes, to promote from C/AB to C/Amn, the cadet must have attempted the CPFT. They are eligible to promote regardless of whether or not they met HFZ. And from then until C/SrA, they must have attempted the CPFT within the previous 6 months.

I think this was a step to try and encourage advancement early on to motivate cadets to participate and stay in the program without being held up by a lack of fitness accomplishment, considering many newer cadets often join without much physical conditioning.

But this goes to that term "attempt," as previously discussed. "Attempt" can be subjective. For me, if the cadet gets down into the push-up position, cranks out two, then struggles for a third and stands up after 20 seconds, and then does the same for ab curls, I'm going to be peeved. That's not an attempt. That's a forfeiture. That cadet needs to take some time to perform some self-discipline and work towards an improvement (not even accomplishing the CPFT). If that same cadet comes back next month and does 10 push-ups, runs half the mile and then power walks the rest, that's an attempt, and obviously they're making the effort.

What we do with our unit is run an 8-week Basic Cadet Training (Great Start) class where the cadets will do PT for a period each week starting in Week 2, even if it's for 20 minutes. We try to schedule their first CPFT at Week 3 as their "attempt," and a final CPFT in Week 6 or 7. Sometimes the first CPFT isn't an actual CPFT but a mock exercise broken up, or shortened, just to help prep them and not shock them (depending on the entry group, considering we've already had those few weeks of them visiting to gauge their capabilities).

We used to have some challenges with promotions under the old system where, in a class of 8, one or two would not promote upon graduation. Frankly, for those cadets, and for me standing up there presenting the class to their parents, it's a bit of an embarrassment. It's not shameful, but I can assume how they feel. 6 weeks is not a lot of time to take someone who has never exercised a day in their life and get them to pass a mile-run.

My goal in this type of program is to prepare them for the cadet life and show them some accomplishment to motivate them to continue. I'm not weeding people out of CAP at this point. Half of them don't even know what they got involved in yet.

I'm not opposed to the "attempt" in the first phase. I think the promotion has to be reviewed carefully in there to see if the cadet is skipping out on PT every time over that 180 days since their CPFT attempt for C/Amn. If you skip out on every PT session and only show up for classroom training, or what you perceive is just going to be classroom, it's a serious point of discussion. I see a lack of involvement in that. This is a prime reason why I encouraging having physical activity in our training at every meeting if possible. If you don't want to perform any physical activity (and I'm not talking intense; I think this is average for the age group from when I was their age, playing outside in the summer time on the jungle gym and soldiering in the woods around the neighborhood), then I think you're in the wrong organization. Go join the mock United Nations team at your school (or start one).

The Cadet Program is a mix of physical involvement, trained skill, and intellectual stimulation---to build leaders who can play out different scenarios and take some responsibility for their own and others' development in their footsteps.


*steps off podium*
Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,145
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2018, 01:24:49 PM »


SkyHornet, I think that your post is one of the best things I've read on here about the new CPFT, ever.  "Drop the Mike", pal.


In particular, your comments regarding supporting a cohesive flow of a cohort BCT effort where all the classmates grad/promote together is very well said. Equally, your observations on not accepting a limp effort are on target; I have seen a significant variation in the field between Commanders and their staff who shake their heads and seem to think that PT is no longer much of a real requirement (and sign off based almost on mere presence on PT night - although that's a bit of hyperbole) and some CP officers whose needles are swinging perhaps too far the other way by over-augmenting, as they try to "make up for NHQ dropping the ball on PT" (a phrase from one young LT I spoke with).

In short, I'm concerned that units may be either dropping the weakened requirement, or may be pushing unauthorized "local" PT requirements contrary to the regs. Per NHQ, for the second two Achievements the requirement is:

"Participate in 1 Activity & Have Attempted CPFT in Previous 180 days"
Wow... that's underwhelming (paraphrasing here some very harsh language from my troops).


I'm not opposed to the "attempt" phrase either for the Curry Achievement, but given the two months to the Arnold (which is already on top of weeks spent in the Great Start curriculum), and the already low bar for HFZ, my opinion is increasingly that cadets should pass the test (not just attempt it) for everything past that first Achievement. That, to me, might support an 8 week Great Start cohort, plus another few weeks to help a cadet get fit, but on the other hand would help to address some of the comments from the field. I'd also strongly repeat my beta test comments that we need a clearer, simpler rewrite of the PT materials and better coverage in the TLC curriculum (I'm arranging for 5 TLCs in the next 90 days in three of my Groups, and am making fam with the updated program one of the priority items, btw).


R/S
Spam




Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,309

« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2018, 02:27:42 PM »

How the cadets see the APFT depends a bit on how you market it. I told the cadets in Phase I they needed to take the test to establish a baseline so we could document their improvements. That, coupled with the Fitness badge requirements (My unit was a beta test unit), drove a lot of peer pressure  and competitive spirit to always do the best they could. Inherent in the directions was the expectation of improving their scores.
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,570

« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2018, 02:39:07 PM »


SkyHornet, I think that your post is one of the best things I've read on here about the new CPFT, ever.  "Drop the Mike", pal.


In particular, your comments regarding supporting a cohesive flow of a cohort BCT effort where all the classmates grad/promote together is very well said. Equally, your observations on not accepting a limp effort are on target; I have seen a significant variation in the field between Commanders and their staff who shake their heads and seem to think that PT is no longer much of a real requirement (and sign off based almost on mere presence on PT night - although that's a bit of hyperbole) and some CP officers whose needles are swinging perhaps too far the other way by over-augmenting, as they try to "make up for NHQ dropping the ball on PT" (a phrase from one young LT I spoke with).

In short, I'm concerned that units may be either dropping the weakened requirement, or may be pushing unauthorized "local" PT requirements contrary to the regs. Per NHQ, for the second two Achievements the requirement is:

"Participate in 1 Activity & Have Attempted CPFT in Previous 180 days"
Wow... that's underwhelming (paraphrasing here some very harsh language from my troops).


I'm not opposed to the "attempt" phrase either for the Curry Achievement, but given the two months to the Arnold (which is already on top of weeks spent in the Great Start curriculum), and the already low bar for HFZ, my opinion is increasingly that cadets should pass the test (not just attempt it) for everything past that first Achievement. That, to me, might support an 8 week Great Start cohort, plus another few weeks to help a cadet get fit, but on the other hand would help to address some of the comments from the field. I'd also strongly repeat my beta test comments that we need a clearer, simpler rewrite of the PT materials and better coverage in the TLC curriculum (I'm arranging for 5 TLCs in the next 90 days in three of my Groups, and am making fam with the updated program one of the priority items, btw).


R/S
Spam

So the term "Activity" ..........

Under Chapter for of 60-1, "activities" seem to be suggested as those in addition to unit meetings. So I regard the expectation being that a cadet needs to participate in at least one non-weekly meeting activity to advance to C/A1C. For our unit, we're running a weekend activity every other week at this point, or at least have the opportunity to get involved in someone else's activity. We haven't had much of an issue with that. In fact, newer cadets are seemingly more involved than advanced cadets because they tend to think this is something they 'have to do,' or their parents push them to stay involved. This is an expectation that can easily be developed/expressed during the recruiting process before the application is submitted---"The quickest way for you/your cadet to promote is to get involved early on. Attempt PT, participate in the training, and show up to weekend events when you can."

That said, I'm right there with you when it comes to the requirements of passing the CPFT after the first achievement. If the first CPFT they take is their "trial run," then the second should be the passing score. It's kind of like an equivalent to ROTC-style PT. If you don't pass the first fitness assessment, you're still in, but you're taped and given a list of improvements you have to make by x-date (next assessment). If you don't pass the second one, you're still in, but you have to show an improvement by x-percent or you're risking being dropped from the program.


How the cadets see the APFT depends a bit on how you market it. I told the cadets in Phase I they needed to take the test to establish a baseline so we could document their improvements. That, coupled with the Fitness badge requirements (My unit was a beta test unit), drove a lot of peer pressure  and competitive spirit to always do the best they could. Inherent in the directions was the expectation of improving their scores.

I totally agree with this. But one of the things I found to be more competitive was the implementation of more fitness throughout the meetings that aren't the CPFT rather than the CPFT. I don't want them competing with each other to earn a grade. I want them competing with each to motivate each other and excel as a team.

Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,337

« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2018, 03:11:53 PM »

That said, I'm right there with you when it comes to the requirements of passing the CPFT after the first achievement. If the first CPFT they take is their "trial run," then the second should be the passing score. It's kind of like an equivalent to ROTC-style PT. If you don't pass the first fitness assessment, you're still in, but you're taped and given a list of improvements you have to make by x-date (next assessment). If you don't pass the second one, you're still in, but you have to show an improvement by x-percent or you're risking being dropped from the program.

Good intentions aside, that's not what the program says, nor can a CC even insinuate that is what it means.

The minimums are just that, the minimums, and as long as a cadet is meeting those minimums, they progress as indicated academically.

Pushing a struggling cadet past that, with a veiled threat of termination or non-progression if they don't run faster,
is a great way to lose a cadet, or invite a sustainable complaint.

In other words, when it's Feik time, and "struggling cadet" hasn't improved, that issue can be raised, but only generally,
and can't be a delimiter, in any way, to non-promotion.

Nor would a good CC make comments or conversations about "this should be harder", etc.  Those should be reserved
for up-channel suggestions to NHQ about what the program should be.

The real kicker here is that on the mean, competent / proficient CCs and CP staff aren't going to have issues with this,
and the problem children are going to ignore it because they "know better".

It's still a coffee-house discussion, but generally speaking, and the more I discuss this and see it properly implemented,
I am increasingly inclined to see why NHQ felt this was the direction to go.

CAP isn't going to fix the world, or kids. Just as with adult volunteers, it has to pull from the "real world", and
like it or not, the "real" world is sedentary and inactive.  This doesn't in any way impact those who are fit,
and CAP can't, in any way, help kids who aren't members because they quit after a year of non-promoting
and missing out on stuff they wanted to do like encampments and ES.


I know of far too many "lost" cadets, including a number of otherwise incentived females, who fit into this category.
Logged


Jester
Seasoned Member

Posts: 361

« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2018, 03:19:49 PM »

We're drifting, but it's CAPTalk: 
I like the idea of Phase I being the Learning Phase in all ways, including PT.  However, if I could make a change, it would require a fresh "attempt" (with that term defined adequately) for Achievements 1, 2, and 3 unless HFZ was attained (which, as noted, is a churched-up alternative phrase for "pass").

So if you hit the mark on your CPFT for the Curry, your six-month credential is good.  If you swung and missed, you can promote, but you need to swing again for Arnold, again for Feik, and must pass for Wright Brothers.  If you miss the first test and hit on any of the subsequent ones, then your six-month HFZ cred is good.  Then at least you have some data to analyze in the event they haven't gotten it together by WBA time. 

The CPFT events, scoring, etc are pretty much dictated by the PYFP, but how we integrate it into the CP (promotions, etc) is not.  This is an ICL at minimum, slight revision to 60-1 at most.  Therefore, expect it to stay the same; but the field need unequivocal interpretation of the intent and letter of the reg to avoid situations like OP and others mentioned in this thread.

Back to OP:
Without knowing the whole story, this thing seems ill-advised at best.  I'm curious to know how it pans out.

Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,337

« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2018, 03:41:52 PM »

^ This sounds reasonable, and raises the questions as to why it's not done that way now.

As a CC who did PT every month and just tested everyone as a matter of course, it never really occurred to
me that it wasn't actually required.  We were always tracking everybody to see where they needed help.

From that perspective I can agree there's an issue of initiative here, and I still say, good or otherwise, the
end result of this will be a lot of Feik cadets who quit after their first year, instead of slick sleeves.

I'm sure when NHQ publishes their annual report regarding retention rates, churn, active vs. inactive members,
the numbers will be clear.


Logged


TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,570

« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2018, 03:55:46 PM »

Good intentions aside, that's not what the program says, nor can a CC even insinuate that is what it means.

Hence the point that it's a preference, and the fact that the regulations still need adhered to.

So if you hit the mark on your CPFT for the Curry, your six-month credential is good.  If you swung and missed, you can promote, but you need to swing again for Arnold, again for Feik, and must pass for Wright Brothers.  If you miss the first test and hit on any of the subsequent ones, then your six-month HFZ cred is good.  Then at least you have some data to analyze in the event they haven't gotten it together by WBA time. 

There's a balance to be had on this.

Do you conduct the CPFT once every month, which burns an hour of a 2-3 hour meeting, or do spread it out once every two months or once per quarter (which is the minimum at which it has to be conducted)?

Pro:
- Maximizing opportunities to advance for cadets that struggle in both performance and attendance
- Instilling the concept that the CPFT is a part of cadet life
- Training to the standard on a regular basis

Con:
- Reducing contact time for other subject areas
- Reducing other fitness activity opportunities that may have a greater retention/morale method
- Making an activity redundant for someone who has already met the standard for advancement

I think some of the challenges seen throughout CAP are that some units don't know what to do, so they aim for minimum contact time and they do it the same way month to month to month and don't change up their programs. So it becomes boring and not challenging for cadets, thus reducing morale. You also have units out there that try to ram cadets through promotions who don't participate enough and don't demonstrate the traits of a cadet of that particular grade. The 180-day break between conducting CPFTs can cause cadets to become stagnant if alternative activities are not offered.

By developing various fitness games/challenges, and other training activities that are physically active and not locked into the classroom, you keep cadets interested as well as advancing their general knowledge of CAP subject matter rather than aiming for testing scores for promotions. The quality of cadet life is better, as is the quality of cadet performance.

The standard sets the criteria for promotion. But that doesn't mean you can't go beyond that in the activity scheduling, and you're encouraged to in virtually every aspect of training for Cadet Programs officers. You just need to exercise a caution that you are evaluating cadets on participation effort and leadership performance, and not to "testing" that doesn't exist outside of 60-1.

I've visited units where they conducted the CPFT to their own rules and not to the standard. That's a wrongful action to take as it denies someone a promotion because they meet someone else's standards, not CAP. I've also seen units that spend 45 minutes every meeting playing ultimate frisbee, which becomes a severe waste of time for cadets who could be otherwise learning a subject, and has no bearing in training them to pass the CPFT when it comes around. I'd call that an "excessive use of game day."

Units operate differently, and what works for one unit doesn't always work for another. But the goals should be common: promotion of health, advancement of leadership. Nobody should operate or structure their unit in a way that is used to deviate from the standard or punish their cadets.

Per the OP: If the squadron has an issue with cadets coming to PT, they may need to consider who they're recruiting, under what pretenses these cadets are being recruited under, and type of activities has the unit scheduled, and what type of leadership is overseeing those activities. There's obviously a problem if cadets are not showing up, and passing the CPFT, and conducting fitness exercises converse to the CPFT because they "haven't earned it."

As a CC who did PT every month and just tested everyone as a matter of course, it never really occurred to
me that it wasn't actually required.  We were always tracking everybody to see where they needed help.

I try and save the individual assistance for the review board discussion, or have our cadet NCOs take charge on trying to work with their junior cadets in their deficient areas. But I'm an advocate of trending PT performance and working with my staff to come up with activities that benefit trending difficulties.

If endurance is the challenge, let's build an activity timeline that works the cadets up to being to operate longer durations. If muscular fitness is the challenge, let's build an activity timeline that gets them to work the upper body strength so they're able to pass those push-ups.

Keep in mind that the "old CPFT" needed to be done once a month because it was a requirement to test for promotion at a 2-month pace. Now that it's gone down to once per quarter, you have a lot more flexibility to add in some additional activities that can be substituted for when the CPFT would normally have been conducted. Again, it's an exercise of caution because you could end up denying an opportunity for advancement if you're spreading the CPFT too far apart.

Quote
From that perspective I can agree there's an issue of initiative here, and I still say, good or otherwise, the
end result of this will be a lot of Feik cadets who quit after their first year, instead of slick sleeves.

This, absolutely.

Initiative and innovation are lacking areas in Cadet Programs. I'm blessed with having some athletic coaches on my team who can help coordinate activities that are safe and athletically effective for the age group. I've also got some military contacts who can help come up with some military-esque activities that can be combined with the fitness activity, redesigned for the age group; so now we have fun, healthy, and educational all in one hour-long event.

Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,337

« Reply #32 on: July 05, 2018, 04:20:33 PM »

No disagreement with any of the above, but I always hear a lot of "making a plan" for a cadet
who is struggling, and frankly I don't think that "plan" should be during unit meetings, which
are already stressed for contact time.

Sicne CAP isn't a 24x7x365 service, it has little control over personal time, and a cadet who can't make the
mile, pacer, or whatever, isn't going to make it ever if the only time they move is during a CAP meeting,
regardless of how effective the "plan" is.

Perhaps it's a symptom of larger units, but on a given meeting night (about 2.5 hours), I've never seen any issue
with running the whole unit throughout a mile run, CPFT, a team sport of some kind, with still some time to sit around.
Logged


TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,570

« Reply #33 on: July 05, 2018, 04:49:36 PM »

No disagreement with any of the above, but I always hear a lot of "making a plan" for a cadet
who is struggling, and frankly I don't think that "plan" should be during unit meetings, which
are already stressed for contact time.

Traditionally, I would try to have that discussion with that cadet either after the meeting or in some individual consultation/counseling, not during the meeting or in a group.

If there's enough cadets who struggle, even if it's across all of the PT areas (not just a single event), then we can take time during our cadet staff meeting to talk about ways to make a training plan that benefits everyone. That's also a good training opportunity for the staff to step up and mentor some individuals, or to take the initiative to adapt to their subordinates' needs as a collective.

Quote
Sicne CAP isn't a 24x7x365 service, it has little control over personal time, and a cadet who can't make the
mile, pacer, or whatever, isn't going to make it ever if the only time they move is during a CAP meeting,
regardless of how effective the "plan" is.

Cadets who do not struggle with PT might be able to pass, and even surpass, the standards for promotion/HFZ with a once-a-month CPFT and nothing more.

Cadets who struggle with PT will not have a good chance of passing if they do the CPFT once a month and nothing else. More than likely, even if the CPFT was once per week, that cadet only doing PT that one time per week is going to continue to struggle. Improvements generally require more active involvement. I often like to inquire those cadets and see how sore they were the day after the meeting. If they are fairly sore, there's a chance that they aren't doing PT on their own in between (even if not formal PT but outdoor activity).

So that's an emphasis item during recruiting. If the cadet comes in a little flabby and struggles to pass a run, then you can absolutely expect them to stay that way until they make some personal attempts at their betterment.
[/quote]
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Weekly PT
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.243 seconds with 25 queries.
click here to email me