February 22, 2020, 12:24:03 pm

Professional Development Changing Again

Started by culpeper, January 31, 2020, 02:53:40 pm

NovemberWhiskey and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

culpeper

Got word via Wing that PD standards are changing this mid year.  Looks like SLS, CLC, and NSC will be gone.  Legacy level completion will expire early 2021.

Personally, I hope it is a compromise between the previous and current requirements.  I appear to be the only working Senior in my squadron  that is actually going through the motions.  18 months in CAP and only need a couple of conferences to complete Level III.  All my peers have completed nothing towards Level II.  Is there something wrong with the current PD structure that scares new members.  I've been told people have a tendency to fear taking a test but almost every test I have taken, no matter what it applies to, has been open book. 

kcebnaes

Honestly, from what I've heard, we're in for something MUCH better, and much more accessible to members who can't spend a week in a different city or state for courses like Region Staff College or National Staff College. It looks like everything will be offered online now (from Levels 1-5.) Also, it's going modular now, meaning that each level is going to have top complete a series of classes now, instead of one massive one. Looking through the material, it's really well balanced.
Sean Beck, Maj, CAP
Ohio Wing, Group 6 Commander
Various Other Things™

dwb

The Leadership Development Working Group (LDWG) has been churning for a while now on a re-imagined PD program. Frankly we're overdue for such an overhaul. I don't know exactly what the new product will look like, but I would be cautiously optimistic rather than worried. And I am normally a worrier.

Maj Gen Smith has talked at length about how he views leadership in the Civil Air Patrol, and if the new PD program is being developed under his tutelage, I think we have reason to be excited for the results.

Майор Хаткевич

RSC and NSC as non-residence will mean people like me could actually get Lvl4-5 done.

kcebnaes

Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on January 31, 2020, 04:28:03 pmRSC and NSC as non-residence will mean people like me could actually get Lvl4-5 done.

Yep! My thoughts too!
Sean Beck, Maj, CAP
Ohio Wing, Group 6 Commander
Various Other Things™

Larry Mangum

January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 pm #5 Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 04:43:18 pm by Larry Mangum
Online training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.  Why, because you don't get to network with your peers from other unit's, both at the local level but also at the regional and national level. An that is an important aspect of the courses that is often overlooked.

Think about it, you got o an SLS or CLC and you find out that your unit is not the only experiencing a problem either implementing the newest changes to the cadet program for example, This starts a discussion on the issue and you hear other members explain how they tackled the issue and the trials and pitfalls they have run into. Then you go back to your unit, and using what you learned from the discussion resolve the issue.

Can you use a chat session to do the same thing. Yes and No, as we need to remember that something like 85% of all communication is non-verbal. Can you do it at Wing Conference break-out session? Maybe, but you re going to get t mot if you are lucky a two hour window to discuss an issue, rather a weekend over dinner and lunch along with classroom time.

Certainly, the material can be improved upon, heck when can material not be improved upon. I joined CAP in January of 1996, and PD material no longer resembles  what it did back then. In many was it has been improved and in other ways, I think it has regressed. My point here is that change is constant, but we still need that interaction, that allows us to build relationships and networks of people we can reach out to for ideas and help.

Just my two-cents.
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
SWR-SWR-001

THRAWN

Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 pmOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable. 

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016

PHall

Yeah, the Guard and the Reserves have been using Distance Learning for a number of years now with pretty good success.

NEBoom

Quote from: THRAWN on January 31, 2020, 05:12:52 pm
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 pmOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...

Larry,
I had thought the same thing, but then I took a degree program from a local University all on-line (which even included group projects).  I didn't know what to expect from it, but while the interaction with my peers was very different from a face-to-face class, it was still effective.

If it is set up so that you take the classes as a cohort with other on-line students, it will work out fine.  If it's strictly self-study format though, then you would be correct that you would lose that interaction.

I for one am looking forward to this.  NSC has been out of reach so this should open a door for me to finally complete L V!
Lt Col Dan Kirwan, CAP
Nebraska Wing

arajca

I wonder if those of us who completed SLS, CLC, etc back the overhead projector days will be able to take these new versions...

Eclipse

Quote from: arajca on January 31, 2020, 09:48:58 pmI wonder if those of us who completed SLS, CLC, etc back the overhead projector days will be able to take these new versions...

It appears the answer is "no".

I did RSC in 2009, which apparently was GLR-RSC of the "old" curriculum, and it still involved
an overhead (somewhat inexplicably as they had PC projectors), and that was over ten years ago.

The "new" version of SLS/CLC is something like 13 years old.  If you haven't gotten your
PD done in that time, you probably don't care.



Capt_Redfox30

Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2020, 10:00:46 pm
Quote from: arajca on January 31, 2020, 09:48:58 pmI wonder if those of us who completed SLS, CLC, etc back the overhead projector days will be able to take these new versions...

It appears the answer is "no".

I did RSC in 2009, which apparently was GLR-RSC of the "old" curriculum, and it still involved
an overhead (somewhat inexplicably as they had PC projectors), and that was over ten years ago.

The "new" version of SLS/CLC is something like 13 years old.  If you haven't gotten your
PD done in that time, you probably don't care.
Yes that was the most disorganized course I have ever been a part of, glad it was just a week!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Kirk Thirtyacre, Lt Col, CAP
(Acting) Group Commander
Group 3 HQ

Eclipse

Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on January 31, 2020, 10:07:05 pmYes that was the most disorganized course I have ever been a part of, glad it was just a week!

Agreed, but you have to admit, that was "$1.00's worth of strange"!



NIN

Not only will the training change, but once you reach level 2 there will be different training tracks and qualifications based on certain experience.

CAP only: you go this way and jump through these flaming hoops with some potential equivalencies due to civilian experience.
Former Military: this is your track, with these flaming hoops, and these equivalencies based on your AFSC/MOS/rate.
Certain professions: here are your equivalencies based on degrees or certifications, and another set of flaming hoops to leap through.
Former cadet: here is what you get credit for, the hoops you get to avoid, and the ones you still have to jump through

I'm not explaining that 100% correctly, but there is basically a lot more weight being put on the experience you bring to the table by the time you get to level two.

If you were a logistics NCO in the military and you are going to do logistics in CAP you get some logical equivalencies to completion of the training levels in the specialty tracks, for example.

it's going to take into account a lot more of the practical realities surrounding our membership and the things they already know when they join us as a senior.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
Wing Dude
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2020 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Capt_Redfox30

Very true.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Kirk Thirtyacre, Lt Col, CAP
(Acting) Group Commander
Group 3 HQ

Eclipse

It will be "interesting" to see how objective qualifying will be done
for members who have real-world industry experience but didn't choose to
blow 100K on a piece of paper.



Spam

Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2020, 11:40:28 pmIt will be "interesting" to see how objective qualifying will be done
for members who have real-world industry experience but didn't choose to
blow 100K on a piece of paper.

You, ah, could have phrased that a little more politely.... "members who have real world industry experience but were unable to afford a college degree". Or similar.

I hear what you're saying but really, there's no need to attack college education and achievement, as an item, here (even when it bears little relevance to suitability for service in many CAP roles).

Since the thrust of your comment was regarding the objectivity of those who would review future equivalency claims, well, it sounds like maybe you should mod that post to include a "/SARC", if you meant it that way.
 

R/s
Spam

etodd

Will the new online courses be "open book" like the FEMA courses?  You have your choice with those, of really studying and learning the material, over days or weeks, and then taking the tests. Or, just opening two windows on your screen, materials in one and test on the other, using search, and knocking out each test in under two hours, and retaining none of it.
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO - ESO

sUAS MP - sUAS Instructor - sUAS Check Pilot

Eclipse

February 01, 2020, 01:22:14 am #18 Last Edit: February 01, 2020, 01:31:13 am by Eclipse
Quote from: Spam on February 01, 2020, 12:10:31 am
Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2020, 11:40:28 pmIt will be "interesting" to see how objective qualifying will be done
for members who have real-world industry experience but didn't choose to
blow 100K on a piece of paper.

You, ah, could have phrased that a little more politely.... "members who have real world industry experience but were unable to afford a college degree". Or similar.

I hear what you're saying but really, there's no need to attack college education and achievement, as an item, here (even when it bears little relevance to suitability for service in many CAP roles).

Since the thrust of your comment was regarding the objectivity of those who would review future equivalency claims, well, it sounds like maybe you should mod that post to include a "/SARC", if you meant it that way.

Except I didn't mean it sarcastically.  For the vast majority of people, college is a spectacular waste of time and money which haunts them with debt during their best earning years.

AWC, SOS and ACSC,  have nothing to do with CAP anyway, so whatever, but increasingly CAP benefits and alternatives need big asterisks,
when what NHQ should have been doing was to provide relevent alternatives to in-residence PD.  One could conjecture that's the intent now,
after a decade or so of lost members and initiative.  I personally know several active and effective members who lost steam because between
their professional lives and their significant, multi-week commitments to actual CAP activities, in-residence stuff was a non-starter, and they
had been counting on the LDI stuff, then the rug was pulled and NHQ followed up with raising the bar, resulting in people parked at Capt or Maj
for what they perceived as permanently.

They saw their much less active peers, with either degrees in basket weaving or plenty of free time (because they don't do much of anything)
passing them up and said "ok, I'm out".



etodd

What "job" could I do in CAP as a Lt. Col. that I cannot do as a 1st Lt.?  I'm doing quite a bit, as you can see in my Sig.

Required for those who want to be a Wing Commander maybe? IDK
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO - ESO

sUAS MP - sUAS Instructor - sUAS Check Pilot

PHall

Quote from: etodd on February 01, 2020, 01:47:30 amWhat "job" could I do in CAP as a Lt. Col. that I cannot do as a 1st Lt.?  I'm doing quite a bit, as you can see in my Sig.

Required for those who want to be a Wing Commander maybe? IDK

Nothing says that you need to advance beyond Senior Member if you don't want to.
Unless you want to be a Commander of some sort. It's your call.

jjmalott

The new PD, in the end, plans on having both online and onsite.


Jeff Malott, Lt Col, CAP
National eLearning Coordinator

culpeper

In the real world 16 years of education with papers was a minimum requirement for my career entry level.  I don't expect CAP to promote me based on that but I do credit it for actually being able to study CAP material and pass the tests, which are incredibly simple and yet people have difficulty opening a book but have no problem climbing into a plane and be nothing more than a weight and balance problem for somebody else to solve. I blame that partly on lack of related education, which CAP provides in-house and yet people ignore.  So, it is on them and us.

Then there are those with no military experience and it shows because they have no desire for that large part of CAP.  That is what PD is for, so take it, you're paying for it. 

These are the people that show up once in a while, act motivated and then proceed to do nothing.  Seriously, the only good they are doing is paying dues and get added to total membership stats.  Not that there is anything wrong with that? 

But back to the degree thing.  It is still an entry level education to an actual field grade position in the military and if you get passed over for promotion enough you're out.  There is a reason for that and the least a CAP member can do is exhibit a little progress once in a while to show a little respect.  You might learn something.

Larry Mangum

Quote from: NEBoom on January 31, 2020, 06:18:50 pm
Quote from: THRAWN on January 31, 2020, 05:12:52 pm
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 pmOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...

Larry,
I had thought the same thing, but then I took a degree program from a local University all on-line (which even included group projects).  I didn't know what to expect from it, but while the interaction with my peers was very different from a face-to-face class, it was still effective.

If it is set up so that you take the classes as a cohort with other on-line students, it will work out fine.  If it's strictly self-study format though, then you would be correct that you would lose that interaction.

I for one am looking forward to this.  NSC has been out of reach so this should open a door for me to finally complete L V!

Dan, I also have an on-line degree, through WGU, and while it was a good program, it did not truly provide for the interaction between student's you get in-person. Does it have a place, absolutely, which is why I finished my degree on-line, I just did not have the time to do program, while working full time, and all the other activities, that your normal married adult has.  But if I have the time, I still think any opportunity in which you can train interact face to face with fellow students, beat purely on-line training hands down, at least in most cases.
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
SWR-SWR-001

catrulz

Different people, absorb academic material in various media.  Some people learn better hands on, some people learn better visually, some learn better verbally.  Most people learn best with a combinations of delivery methods. Some people need the classroom peer and instructor feedback, while some find it distracting.

One of the weaknesses of the old system, and possibly the new: they both assume everyone learns in the same way. On the NCO thread next door, there were people that said "I work full time (don't we all, unless your retired), I can't do a full weekend resident class."  I'm going on 32 years with the same tech company, still a few out from retirement, I went to SLS, CLC, TLC, TTT, RSC, NSC, multiple encampments, multiple NCSAs.  I am not saying the complaint about weekends is not valid, but personally, I'm glad I went to the resident courses

One of the issues with RSC and NSC although they were both excellent courses, is the cost to attend.  Training needs to have value, but also needs to be realistic in expectation to attend.  I know a Major in MOWG that just can't afford to attend these courses.  NSC was really expensive, IMHO opinion worth it, but still, training needs to be affordable to the membership.

THRAWN

Quote from: culpeper on February 01, 2020, 03:23:02 pmThere is a reason for that and the least a CAP member can do is exhibit a little progress once in a while to show a little respect. 

No. There is no requirement for it. One of the very best ICs I ever worked with, and this is inside CAP and in the real world of EM since 1994, never "promoted" beyond SM. Respect? He did his job better than anybody. That means a lot more than a bottlecap that means next to nothing.
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016

THRAWN

Quote from: Larry Mangum on February 03, 2020, 01:49:53 pm
Quote from: NEBoom on January 31, 2020, 06:18:50 pm
Quote from: THRAWN on January 31, 2020, 05:12:52 pm
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 pmOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...

Larry,
I had thought the same thing, but then I took a degree program from a local University all on-line (which even included group projects).  I didn't know what to expect from it, but while the interaction with my peers was very different from a face-to-face class, it was still effective.

If it is set up so that you take the classes as a cohort with other on-line students, it will work out fine.  If it's strictly self-study format though, then you would be correct that you would lose that interaction.

I for one am looking forward to this.  NSC has been out of reach so this should open a door for me to finally complete L V!

Dan, I also have an on-line degree, through WGU, and while it was a good program, it did not truly provide for the interaction between student's you get in-person. Does it have a place, absolutely, which is why I finished my degree on-line, I just did not have the time to do program, while working full time, and all the other activities, that your normal married adult has.  But if I have the time, I still think any opportunity in which you can train interact face to face with fellow students, beat purely on-line training hands down, at least in most cases.

When did you do the program? When I did SOS it was alone. ACSC had some interaction. NWC had weekly Skype meetings and in addition, a few of use had a study group a couple times per week. There's a lot of technology out there to make use of. In my day job, my unit is made up of people over 5 times zones. We have a lot of interaction....
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: catrulz on February 03, 2020, 02:57:02 pmOn the NCO thread next door, there were people that said "I work full time (don't we all, unless your retired), I can't do a full weekend resident class."  I'm going on 32 years with the same tech company, still a few out from retirement, I went to SLS, CLC, TLC, TTT, RSC, NSC, multiple encampments, multiple NCSAs.  I am not saying the complaint about weekends is not valid, but personally, I'm glad I went to the resident courses

One of the issues with RSC and NSC although they were both excellent courses, is the cost to attend.  Training needs to have value, but also needs to be realistic in expectation to attend.  I know a Major in MOWG that just can't afford to attend these courses.  NSC was really expensive, IMHO opinion worth it, but still, training needs to be affordable to the membership.


Actually, for a lot of active members, the issue becomes "do I take my week of vacation for Encampment or this RSC course". Most folks don't have much past 2 weeks of PTO in this country, giving up a week for an encampment leaves them 1 week for any family events/illnesses.

Larry Mangum

Quote from: THRAWN on February 03, 2020, 04:05:38 pm
Quote from: Larry Mangum on February 03, 2020, 01:49:53 pm
Quote from: NEBoom on January 31, 2020, 06:18:50 pm
Quote from: THRAWN on January 31, 2020, 05:12:52 pm
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 pmOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.

Funny how the DoD and most colleges seem to find a way to cope...

Larry,
I had thought the same thing, but then I took a degree program from a local University all on-line (which even included group projects).  I didn't know what to expect from it, but while the interaction with my peers was very different from a face-to-face class, it was still effective.

If it is set up so that you take the classes as a cohort with other on-line students, it will work out fine.  If it's strictly self-study format though, then you would be correct that you would lose that interaction.

I for one am looking forward to this.  NSC has been out of reach so this should open a door for me to finally complete L V!

Dan, I also have an on-line degree, through WGU, and while it was a good program, it did not truly provide for the interaction between student's you get in-person. Does it have a place, absolutely, which is why I finished my degree on-line, I just did not have the time to do program, while working full time, and all the other activities, that your normal married adult has.  But if I have the time, I still think any opportunity in which you can train interact face to face with fellow students, beat purely on-line training hands down, at least in most cases.

When did you do the program? When I did SOS it was alone. ACSC had some interaction. NWC had weekly Skype meetings and in addition, a few of use had a study group a couple times per week. There's a lot of technology out there to make use of. In my day job, my unit is made up of people over 5 times zones. We have a lot of interaction....

I finished a BS in Software Development late last year. I really did not need the degree, but wanted it. I also manage a team of six developer, spread across three locations, that is developing and maintaining Kubernetes in AWS. So I do multiple conference call, both with video and without on a daily basis. But I still spend at a minimum one week a month, traveling between Massachusetts and Alabama, to be in front of the team, and to meet with my counterparts and business owners. Why, because relationships and connections are important, and easier to build in person, then purely on-line. Could I probably do so, sure, but I am not sure, I would be as effective as I am, if I did not make the in-person connections.
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
SWR-SWR-001

culpeper

Yeah, that's the ticket remain a SM in an ICC forever... 

THRAWN

Quote from: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 07:48:50 pmYeah, that's the ticket remain a SM in an ICC forever... 

What's the incentive to "promote"? You can do all the PD you want. You can be a well recognized IC. You can be a well known SME and leader. None of that requires promotions.
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016

culpeper

What sort of impression does a person like this give a cadet?  That the cadets really don't have to work the program.  And since when do we need a personal incentive to provide an image of leadership without even getting to the part of exhibiting leadership. We can't ask our young leaders to follow the values when selfish is more important than selfless within the ranks of adult members.   

baronet68

Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on February 03, 2020, 04:40:15 pmActually, for a lot of active members, the issue becomes "do I take my week of vacation for Encampment or this RSC course". Most folks don't have much past 2 weeks of PTO in this country, giving up a week for an encampment leaves them 1 week for any family events/illnesses.

This was my problem.  It took about 12 years to complete Level IV because timing, location, and cost of the nearest RSC made it unworkable for me.  Luckily I was finally able to attend RSC this past year when it was (literally) hosted down the street from my house... but it was a couple months too late for the grandfathered promotion to Lt Col.  Hopefully the new Level V requirements won't require another decade for me to complete.
Michael Moore, Maj, CAP
Secret Wing Staff Dude, WAWG

THRAWN

Quote from: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 08:39:21 pmWhat sort of impression does a person like this give a cadet?  That the cadets really don't have to work the program.  And since when do we need a personal incentive to provide an image of leadership without even getting to the part of exhibiting leadership. We can't ask our young leaders to follow the values when selfish is more important than selfless within the ranks of adult members.   

Did you miss this part? "One of the very best ICs I ever worked with, and this is inside CAP and in the real world of EM since 1994, never "promoted" beyond SM. Respect? He did his job better than anybody." Service before self. There is no requirement or incentive other than personal desire to complete or even participate in the SMTP. Leaders are more than what they wear on their collars.
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016

culpeper

February 03, 2020, 09:46:23 pm #34 Last Edit: February 03, 2020, 10:02:05 pm by culpeper
I hear you, Thrawn.  And you haven't convinced me that this guy is any more important than the local beach bum people admire for a while  and then grow up and move on.  Seriously, he has completed level 1 whether he cares to admit it or not.  Personally, if I told him he was getting butter bars and he told me, no, I wouldn't renew his membership.  I don't care how good he is at one thing and that alone.  What your Wing has is somebody that thinks he is a Nomad but doesn't actually go anywhere and people like you admire that.  This isn't the Bandidos MC.

THRAWN

Quote from: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 09:46:23 pmI hear you, Thrawn.  And you haven't convinced me that this guy is any more important than the local beach bum people admire for a while  and then grow up and move on.  Seriously, he has completed level 1 whether he cares to admit it or not.  Personally, if I told him he was getting butter balls and he told me, no, I wouldn't renew his membership.  I don't care how good he is at one thing and that alone.  What your Wing has is somebody that thinks he is a Nomad but doesn't actually go anywhere and people like you admire that.  This isn't the Bandito MC.

Since your new, I'll educate you on a couple of things:

1. Rank in CAP means nothing. The guy I'm talking about finished his Wilson a decade before I joined. Just because he didn't promote, and didn't have to, doesn't mean that he wasn't active in the program.

2. CAP has 3 missions. The SMTP isn't one of them. Don't want to take the classes? You don't have to. Don't want to advance in "rank"? You don't have to. Still want to put in 60+ hours per week on top of your job supporting the program and being an incident commander, or like etodd spend piles of time and treasure flying
Cadets? Welcome aboard...

3. Burning through the program like you're making the Kessel Run doesn't equal leadership. Mentoring, coaching, getting to know your cadets is much more effective than getting your L3 in 18 months or wondering what you're going to pin to your uni. Take some time and learn the program. Service before self. That includes serving the organization before you start whipping through the Levels with nothing to back it up. Cadets do not care about the SMTP. They care that there is someone there dedicated to and focused on the success of the Cadet Program. That's the mission. Learn the program, learn the missions.

Good luck. 
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016

culpeper

Now, you sound like your pulling rank and with that a big, Yes, sir.

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: culpeper on February 03, 2020, 09:46:23 pmPersonally, if I told him he was getting butter bars and he told me, no, I wouldn't renew his membership. 

<<SNIP>>

 This isn't the Bandidos MC.


I'll betcha a buck you would NOT do that, fail to let him renew. Because, as you pointed out, this isn't the Bandidos MC.

You don't have ultimate membership power over members based on your personal standards. We have personnel regulations, membership committees and higher levels of command specifically so that individuals don't just "wing it."

Your unilateral decision to not renew a productive member has no basis in regulations. You might want to reconsider your personnel practices, and soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

culpeper

February 04, 2020, 02:10:20 pm #38 Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 02:36:41 pm by culpeper
Major, you know people are rarely expelled for the most obvious reason.  And all those internal controls are there for exactly that.  And I'm not referring to a productive member. 

catrulz

The part of PDTP that really needs updating is the specialty track portion.

abdsp51

Quote from: culpeper on February 04, 2020, 02:10:20 pmMajor, you know people are rarely expelled for the most obvious reason.  And all those internal controls are there for exactly that.  And I'm not referring to a productive member. 

You need to throttle back some Francis.  Your post said nothing about a productive member in any aspect.  You need to listen and observe more and then speak. 

Phil Hirons, Jr.


MSG Mac

When can we realistically expect the new 50-17 to hit the street?
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

kcebnaes

Quote from: MSG Mac on February 04, 2020, 09:10:25 pmWhen can we realistically expect the new 50-17 to hit the street?
I don't know about the reg itself, but 4 August 2020 is when the whole new program is supposed to drop. I'd guess that it all ties together though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sean Beck, Maj, CAP
Ohio Wing, Group 6 Commander
Various Other Things™

jjmalott

We're running our last online SLS/CLC in April, and UCC in May.  All to be completed by 1 June


Jeff Malott, Lt Col, CAP
National eLearning Coordinator

KASSRCrashResearch

Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 pmOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.  Why, because you don't get to network with your peers from other unit's, both at the local level but also at the regional and national level. An that is an important aspect of the courses that is often overlooked.

Bingo. 

I have complete faith in the continued absurdity of what ever is going on.

Fester

Quote from: KASSRCrashResearch on February 10, 2020, 12:19:43 am
Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 31, 2020, 04:31:19 pmOnline training is great for those who cannot travel, but not attending courses in-person, takes away a lot of what made those classes valuable.  Why, because you don't get to network with your peers from other unit's, both at the local level but also at the regional and national level. An that is an important aspect of the courses that is often overlooked.

Bingo. 



My work schedule prevents pretty much ANY weekend activity.  Because of this, I've now taken SLS, CLC and am now taking UCC online.  I have met plenty of peers through these online courses.  From all over the country.
1stLt, CAP
Squadron CC
Group CPO
Eaker - 1996

culpeper

I'm discovering that PD is important to prevent mediocrity being thrust upon us at the risk of partly quoting Joseph Heller slightly out-of-context.

  Professional Development is obviously not for everyone.  But I hope the upcoming changes will make it more available to those that have been wanting it but couldn't due to time constraints. 





Spam

If we were paraphrasing Heller here, it should be more like:

Some members are born to do PD (where the goal is often the box checking itself), some members achieve PD (as a means to an end), and some members have PD thrust upon them.


Professional development is no panacea for mediocrity; it is entirely possible to end up with a well educated, credentialed idiot who, having gained the complacency of advanced training, has grown a correspondingly large blind spot as to the diverse needs of the volunteer team.

Ideally, we would structure a PD revamp upon a goals based, top down training focused critical task analysis (CTA) resulting in KSAs for R20-1 position descriptions. Then a secondary set of short studies to map out delivery methodologies, skills decay and recurrency training requirements, et al. There's an ample body of guidance to help structure a Training Needs Analysis, and there are probably a couple of dozen professionals in our membership who do training program development every day for pay, but likely CAP won't do that and won't ask for experienced volunteers. I've almost never seen CAP have any kind of deliberative study to come up with a plan before pushing someone's pet project idea.

V/r
Spam

KASSRCrashResearch

Quote from: Spam on February 11, 2020, 02:11:09 amSome members are born to do PD (where the goal is often the box checking itself), some members achieve PD (as a means to an end), and some members have PD thrust upon them

There it is ladies and gentlemen, the reality of CAP summed up in one snarky sentence.

*slow clap*



I have complete faith in the continued absurdity of what ever is going on.

catrulz

February 11, 2020, 01:06:01 pm #50 Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 01:32:07 pm by catrulz
Quote from: Spam on February 11, 2020, 02:11:09 amIf we were paraphrasing Heller here, it should be more like:

Some members are born to do PD (where the goal is often the box checking itself), some members achieve PD (as a means to an end), and some members have PD thrust upon them.


Professional development is no panacea for mediocrity; it is entirely possible to end up with a well educated, credentialed idiot who, having gained the complacency of advanced training, has grown a correspondingly large blind spot as to the diverse needs of the volunteer team.

Ideally, we would structure a PD revamp upon a goals based, top down training focused critical task analysis (CTA) resulting in KSAs for R20-1 position descriptions. Then a secondary set of short studies to map out delivery methodologies, skills decay and recurrency training requirements, et al. There's an ample body of guidance to help structure a Training Needs Analysis, and there are probably a couple of dozen professionals in our membership who do training program development every day for pay, but likely CAP won't do that and won't ask for experienced volunteers. I've almost never seen CAP have any kind of deliberative study to come up with a plan before pushing someone's pet project idea.

V/r
Spam

I have directed many SLS and CLC (and taught in many more).  The box checker instructors compound the experience of the box checker students.  Meanwhile, those that are really excited about the information, are hurt by both non-box checker and box checker seminar instructors who don't bother to prepare for their seminar.  I said years ago, they should remove instructor requirements from advancement criteria.  It hurts the membership.

And perhaps that will be a positive of distance learning.  It doesn't make sense to overhaul the PD requirements without simultaneously overhauling the Promotion Reg. 35-5 & 50-17 should almost always have concurrent changes.

This is not going to stop box checking.  But it would prevent box checkers from hurting the development of those that are interested and want to learn. 

Edited: Spelling

Spam

Catrulz,


In general, I fully agree with your suggestion to remove the "must instruct" elements of the program. While doubtless initiated to help grow the business, so to speak, with respect to a pool of instructors, it seems to have had a very negative impact in some areas due to the resulting lack of quality control in PD instruction.

In specific, I would want to keep a "must instruct" course of progressive understudy trainer/mentoring/primary trainer flow as part of a new "PD Train the Trainer" course.  I'd rather see a professional PD track instructor, who is jazzed about training and is a specialist with some hands on mentoring, giving the same course material time after time, with an understudy or two, than to see a continuous flow of clock-watching, chart-flipping guys who just need to get Level III finished. Being a bit limited by the availability of that small PD trainer community would be an acceptable trade off, I feel.

However, even the best motivated presenter/facilitator (of either a resident or distributed/online method of delivery) still is hindered when the training material is the result of a spasm, rather than actual deliberative instructional system design.  That, really, is the revamp that I'm (probably in vain) hoping for this year.


Going all online either as a panacea for poor instructorship, or doing so without a training needs analysis, is a mistake.


PS
I also would be remiss if I didn't mention the need to integrate CP PD training (the TLCs) into the system. I've had literally dozens of students complaining over the past five years about lack of TLC credit because we still rely on manual credit entry at NHQ (only). Slow, inaccurate, and lost .PDF Form 11s. No online F11 option exists there, which is sadly easy to fix.


R/s
Spam

catrulz

Spam,

I had a concept that SLS should be changed to SSS (Squadron Staff School).  SSS would be 4 hours CAP programs and background, and then every student would do a 12 hour directed look at their Tech Specialty.  This would be an in depth dive into the S-Track Guide (Pamphlet), and an look at the regulations for that rating. Throw in some best practices and Wing Supplements, and perhaps area M&Ps.

Instructors, would be primarily mentors for this part of the class.  But have a workbook that must be approved at the end of the class.  And have some exercises in the workbooks to ensure immersion.  There will still be pencil whipping and box checking, not sure of any system that will totally eliminate this.

Keep CLC, and make it completely CAP focused.  But focus Level II completely on attaining a Tech rating.  And even if the individual shows up for the course with their tech rating complete, going back through the steps (re-immersion) might help make for training oversights at the unit level.

KASSRCrashResearch

Quote from: catrulz on February 11, 2020, 01:06:01 pmI said years ago, they should remove instructor requirements from advancement criteria.  It hurts the membership.

Once more, for the people in the back of NHQ.

Either you want to be an instructor or you don't.  Forcing people to teach who do not want to or who lack either the pedagogical skills or a firm grasp on the topic to teach no only waste time it drives people away. 

I remember when I first joined and they assigned me a former mission pilot (a guy in his late 70s) to "teach me" how to read a VFR chart. Even after pointing out that I have about 800-900 hours of flight time (mostly in ultralights but also tons of dual), he spent three HOURS going over it.  Actually, he spent about 30 minutes going over it.  He kept either zoning out or falling asleep.  It became readily apparent why he was no longer a pilot (obviously medically unfit) but the squadron still kept him on the books out of courtesy because he had been with them so long. Super nice guy....just not doing great medically (I seem to recall that he passed away a year or so later).

I can only imagine the sort of impression that would have left with someone who wasn't aware of why this guy was still part of CAP. 
I have complete faith in the continued absurdity of what ever is going on.

Eclipse

February 12, 2020, 08:05:18 pm #54 Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 09:00:05 pm by Eclipse
No one is "forced to teach" - further if the various directors allow poor instructors
to waste members' time, that is a failure of local leadership and the director, not NHQ per se.
For the last 8+ years, the progression requirement has been "Serve as director or staff member of a CAP
course or educational activity or national, region, or wing conference..."

When I have a say in activities and PD, I only choose instructors who are knowledgeable on
the topic they are assigned, and filter those who are either wives tale factories, or slide readers
to non-instructor roles, or simply disinvite them. The person taking roll and going for the pizzas is
just as much a "staff member" as the instructors, and when you actually read Att 3, the list of activities that
qualify insures is pretty much everything a member would ever do, with the majority literally being unrelated to PD.

Further to this from the member side, while we all have to occasionally endure an unforeseen
waste-of-time briefing, no one is nailing shoes to the floor.  In the example cited about chart reading,
why would an adult endure a 3-hour root canal about something they already know, and presumably could demonstrate?

Just leave.  It's really simple, and feels pretty good when you do it.

CAP is no different then any other situation an adult finds themselves in, if you let people
waste your time, that's on you, not them, and frankly nothing will change until someone says "enough".

So much of CAP would be fixed overnight it, instead of trying to change the regulations, people just actually read them.



Spam

Quote from: catrulz on February 12, 2020, 01:03:26 pmSpam,

I had a concept that SLS should be changed to SSS (Squadron Staff School).  SSS would be 4 hours CAP programs and background, and then every student would do a 12 hour directed look at their Tech Specialty.  This would be an in depth dive into the S-Track Guide (Pamphlet), and an look at the regulations for that rating. Throw in some best practices and Wing Supplements, and perhaps area M&Ps.

With respect Catrulz, your proposal seems logical in general terms but is an example of what I'm trying to point out; we need NHQ people to follow good Instructional Systems Design (ISD) principles and not just do off the cuff course design.

First, (and I agree with you on the need to redesign SLS and like your objectives), your first proposal already segments off hours (4, 12, etc.) as if the hours are the first order of business. The right way to do ISD isn't to set off saying "we need a 4 hour block here" or "we need 3 online courses there". Could be 2... might be 16... depends depends.

What I'm pointing out is that using a correct top down approach, we would start with defining the strategic PD framework (what KSAs are required at various volunteer career points, for approximately how many students to meet notional Wing needs). Then make some realistic assumptions about the methods of delivery needed (in resident RSCs, etc. vs. local in person vs. online cooperative vs. self study online, etc.). Then, in context, we get to the PD segment which would focus on what is currently addressed by SLS.

For SLS (or your SSS), we could start by documenting learning objectives to meet a desired outcome (for students including A - N specialties with a minimum ___ proficiency, by the end of the course of training they will have mastered the following material:  <list, perhaps broken down by specialty track>). Based on those objectives, we could do a quick records based analysis of the potential specialty track members in each Wing who'd be potential SME instructor pool members (it makes no sense to select in-person led local training if half our Wings have no Masters levels in one track or another). From that, it may become apparent that we need a combo of delivery methods (e.g. online cooperative mentored/led with chat rooms with Masters level people from other Wings, for example) plus an in-residence element. The current IG specialty track schools would be a good model (my mentor for online IG school was from Montana or somewhere and he was sharp)! Lastly, THEN we talk about size and duration... not first! Let's not get blocked into thinking that all training has to be in two, four, and eight hour blocks!  Training should be to the skill levels and KSAs desired, NOT merely to fill up a two day weekend!

In principle I like your approach to focus on A school, Squadron focused tech level training at what is now SLS. Notionally following up with a B school, Group and Senior rating focus school and a C level Masters school would be an interesting approach (I know I'm extrapolating a bit from what you've suggested here). I would suppose that we'd probably end up with a mix of training delivery methods, as I've mentioned. Also, I'd strongly recommend thinking carefully about linking/de linking schools from promotion requirements. Also, I'd strongly recommend against a blanket approach to class admission prerequisites based on college degrees, as opposed to meeting CAP specialty track KSAs/experience/ratings. These are all training and PD strategic goal issues that I'd hope (but don't expect) to be looked at now, as part of a systematic review for the nascent regulation now in formation.

Am I making any sense, I hope? I am not an ISD professional, but I've worked with them in producing training packages for aerospace and defense engineering, and I know we have them in CAP (under used and un consulted of course much like many of our organic professionals).

But, I am less than sanguine regarding the potential that we'll get the approach right, based on past results and the "not invented here" trend at NHQ.  Sigh... with all the pros out there to help on a process action team, NHQ continues to waste our talent pool. They put ads out for volunteer staffers to do stuff and in some cases never even send a follow up email... so we'll get what we get and continue to look amateurish as we make the best of what we've pasted together amateurishly. I expect that much like our AD big brothers we'll hack it, and continue to be-yeatch continually, here.

#decadesofCAPfatalism
#lackofprocessadherence
#stillnouniformmanual
... grin.

V/r
Spam

catrulz

Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2020, 08:05:18 pmNo one is "forced to teach" - further if the various directors allow poor instructors
to waste members' time, that is a failure of local leadership and the director, not NHQ per se.
For the last 8+ years, the progression requirement has been "Serve as director or staff member of a CAP
course or educational activity or national, region, or wing conference..."

Well maybe, I attempt to offer opportunity to new and established members.  I generally only have a single staff person to do all the admin work.  This is usually filled bu someone who refuses to instruct.  One has to wonder, if the idea behind the Level III requirements, was possibly for mid level members to show new members that they know what they are doing?  Maybe not!  Myself, not being as omnipresent as one that can hide celestial bodies, don't have knowledge of all applicants.  By the way I taught at Scott and they didn't know my knowledge level.

One of the 13 principles of leadership:  Be technically and tactically proficient.

I think technical proficiency is more important in CAP.  Tactical if your a ground team member (tactical proficiency speaks to physical fitness the ability to perform your mission without being a hinderance to the team).

Not sure why I always take the bait, and just don't let it go!

Spam:

I agree with you completely.  My time example was pulled from my third point of contact.  My overall point being, SLS should concentrate primarily on making knowledgeable technicians.  I think we're on the same page.

Spam

I agree, Cat! Its worth the time to game this out well before dropping the new regs and classes as we will be living with this until approx AD2035.

Vday hugs and love to all y'all.
Spam

culpeper

Day 1 Block 1 required prerequisite reading for UCC states that I'm wrong.  Not that there is anything wrong with that in itself.  I was going to get myself killed in the process or die trying.