I think this is the Blue/Bronze/Silver/Gold that coming in alongside classification, so that there is progression in all areas.
Will the cadets get a little badge with a blue/bronze/silver/gold arrow? lol
The CO has spoken about and weāve been given info on the 3 badge approach to things and rationale it shows progress and it loses me. It seems to be a like using an Elastoplast on a major trauma. Anything denoting progress has got to mean there is plenty of opportunity in the local area to access courses or sqn staff are able to do it without needing more training etc etc and it doesnāt need more than a few quid for equipment, unless it is all supplied by HQAC. Otherwise the chance to progress is extremely limited and to all intents a pointless system.
These changes need to be approached with caution and not seen by anyone as a golden bullet to sort out the ills affecting the AYC. More badges will mean more expense and unless there is an unfettered supply cadets may pass a level but unable to get a badge. which defeats the purpose, if the cadets actually care. How will progression be related to classifications in terms of progression through a classification? Will it be subject by subject? If not, then the badges we already have are more than adequate.
Iāve experienced changes throughout my working life, but when you see it in the ATC it seems to be ill considered, very bitty in terms of how it will work and or delivered, resources (if required) scant and altogether done in a devil may care way driven by people who wonāt be involved in and or affected by its execution. All they do is come up with a policy and leave it at that.
I get a sense that people around and in charge of the ATC are looking for solutions to problems that donāt exist, rather than devoting all their time and effort to finding solutions to problems that do exist. They do this because the former are easy wins for performance management and a good way to justify their jobs, whereas the latter things are difficult and spending months on doing something and no result isnāt good for PM.
I remember at my last couple of COs meetings, a number of us expressed a need for caution wrt ultilearn replacing the exam system, but we were laughed at for not embracing new technology. When it was introduced it didnāt work, cadets couldnāt take exams, the things on it are third rate and itās become a dumping ground. It still doesnāt work properly and is a pain in the ar$e to use, but at least the TO we had at the time got their wish of not needing to mark exam papers. So all is good. But as we said at the time they donāt have to use it.
Seems like the exact opposite to me.
IMO the current classification system isnāt at all fit for purpose. The exam system is a joke and the range of subjects (especially above leading) is far too limited. Essentially, you canāt progress unless you are interested and able at some distinctly technical subjects.
The levels system will give us not only a coherent badging policy across subjects and activities, but also allow cadets to show progression in things other than academic training.
TBH if I was to make the decision, Iād make the aviation studies a three-badge (leading-bronze, senior-silver, master-gold) system and have the actual classifications above first class awarded by acheiving several badges (maybe three) - at a given level.
So to get leading cadet, do academic bronze, comms bronze and shooting bronze. Or maybe shooting bronze, first aid bronze and DofE bronze.
1 Like
Why do we need a different ācoherentā badging policy across all subjects? We already have a coherent policy.
As it is cadets can get marksman badges, different first aid badges (age based), sports blues, comms badges, DofE, different swimming levels. music badges and they can do paddlesports to different levels. But their level of progression should only be to the level they want or are deemed good enough for. You would need to increase sqn staffing almost exponentially to accommodate lots of different activities or an expectation that cadets do more things away from their sqns, where the qualified staff and kit are.
Where would the funding for this come from? Gliding??
What we have currently gives a standard across the Corps, you see a classification badge and know what youāre getting, a vague system around lots of different bits and it becomes mess and people in different places or with different ideas about what is important would value them differently. The other bits depend on the cadets and the interest of the staff at each sqn. IMO having an academic system with other things gives us more credibility, we donāt need more badges (not unless we are going down the Scouts route) that mean nothing (with the exception of DofE) to anyone outside the Corps.
Funding for what? Youāve lost me there.
Youāre not getting āmore badgesā just a wider variety commensurate with their academic level of knowledge. They will still only wear one of them.
The ACF have done this for years.
1 Like
Shooting - different badges for different wpns & different classificationsā¦??
There will be brassards on both arms soon. We will be getting like the Scouts (for badges at least)ā¦
What would really help at this point as the cat has been released to a seemingly privileged few, to tell everyone what the proposed options are. This will serve everyone better than a few comments from the few on a forum without clear documentation explaining all.
I agree. Sadly I donāt have anything on the badges. Thereās a few things on SharePoint Iāve noticed this afternoon if you hunt around the regional levels under training.
For years we have been told that money is short in the Corps, so if a new badging scheme was introduced there would be a cost involved and that would the money would need to found from somewhere. If the old badges were all scrapped in favour of the new ones, that would be a waste of money.
The radio badges is probably based on the fact that not every cadet will do it, if every cadet did it, I bet theyād struggle to supply badges.
What the suggestion was is that every cadet would have a plethora of badges, so you would need to have a stock of badges for every cadet available, stock costs money as does storage, be that a cupboard or warehouse. Also potentially as suggested another brassard.
As I said we have a progressive badging scheme in the Corps, so why invent another one? If Iām honest Iād sooner scrap every badge with the exception of identifiers and rank slides.
I have uploaded a poster with all of the new (proposed?) badges on ACC Drive. Itās called the Progressive Training Syllabus. Donāt know if this is the finished article yet, but it looks pretty close!
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4I1-xiGpRv7WjFXWnBVeFBLTkE
I have also included pictures of the badge so you can use them electronically when they are finally released.
Some of those, the pre-award DofE badge and the shooting badges with a star on in particular, are completely awful.
I think that they all look pretty good (especially the first aid badges), although the radio comms and cyber badges are a bit confusing. Why not R for radio and C for cyber?
What in gods name is Pre DofE?
Pre DofE if rumour is to be believed will be IET from First Class.
Can I ask your source @tkg I know the new Shooting Syllabus is awaiting images of the new badges prior to release.
@themajor, The poster is from a colleague who attended ATF in the summer. Whether itās the final version or not I do not know iām afraid!
1 Like
At least HQAC will be putting something out to at least help the staff understand.
Well that makes no sense.
Quite apart from the fact that IET would be 1/4 of āpre-DofEā, they get a badge for that anyway - itās called the first class badge!
1 Like
For the love of all thatās Holy who came up with this? It looks child-like. Are they still employed or on the books? I donāt know about awful PeP I would be a little stronger, the word crap (comes to mind) with waste of time and money for good measure.
At what point was anyone in the wider Corps consulted?
I wonder when weāll get a woggle?
We do seem to have people with much too much time on their hands and coming up with ideas to justify pay packets / expenses. I wonder how much we could save if they got rid of these people. It looks for all the world like a scribbled training day brainstorming session that will sadly no doubt become policy.