If we really want to properly develop over 18s and new staff in general, go back to the old style Staff P2 with the book ACP42 and associated question book. I learned more about the Corps in the 6 months up to the assessment and I didn’t really need much more as I changed roles in the Corps. OK we had proper books to read and flick through (it would be a nightmare trying to use SHAREPOINT), but it gave me a thorough grounding in the Corps. The assessment which was a 5 minute assessed lesson (it wasn’t a formal thing like they seem to make the MOI) and interview with questions based on the book of questions and some general stuff, was really good.
What we moved to is not fit for purpose. What we had worked and had done IMO opinion since the invention of the Satff Cadet as part of the Morris Report, but we ditched it as some brainless plank had to bring in something new to prove their job was worthy of being called a job.
I don’t think we should impose ‘management positions’ on people unless we deem them as being capable, ready and more so interested enough to take it on.
I’d make a hybrid then: Leave MOI as it is, pitched at 16 year olds who have achieved Master (though I’d be happy to reduce that to Senior to be honest) but adapt teh remainder of the old Staff Pt 2 process to incorporate BASIC and become the new transition to Instructor Cadet.
I actually happen to agree with Teflon. I learned a lot through doing staff pt 2 which was useful in assisting the squadron, and it formed a useful transition to staff.
I’m actually in favour of ending cadet service at 18, with a transition period of 2 years open to former cadets and members of the public where they are under training. At 20 they can apply for CI, SNCO or officer. During this time they are allowed to run activities with supervision from other staff, unless they hold an NGB qual in which case we defer to that.
They would be responsible in exactly the same way they are now, but the difference would be they are unequivocally adults and treated as such. They would, for all intents and purposes, be CIs for staying in the mess etc, and wouldn’t be able to claim pay.
They would have the same access to courses that all staff have, but also the same access that 18+ cadets have now. Still a halfway house, but much clearer that they are “probationary staff” and not cadets.
WRT the MOI, I was chatting to a teacher sometime ago (who was an old style Staff Cadet) who is staff and they said the MOI is a nonsense as it is. They’d been asked to train the cadets coming up to doing it and never used it. They said it’s far too involved and misses the point about informing people, which is what they consider teaching to be.
As part of their job, they do teacher observations, NQT training and feedback and reckon the MOI is too much for us as we don’t have the resources and extra training to cover it. As information it’s too confusing, they said they’ve never used an ice breaker in a class (only on training days) and at school they have suggested and provided resources (from exam bodies and the SEN team) for those with LD, LSAs to support the those with LD and extension for the brighter kids. We have nothing. In their view as long as someone can make a decent fist of getting the information across that’s all that’s needed, after all our exam process is hardly the most exacting.
When we have political pressure to give young people more and more responsibility (ie 16 year olds voting) is there still a rational reason for keeping them in the ATC as effectively children over 18? Looking back on my time I have questioned the notion of being 21 year old cadet (doing all the things a 21 year old does outside) but still officially effectively treated as a child. But not by anyone that mattered.
Whatever you may think of the MOI course we do need something that is better than throwing somebody in front of a class and them then getting people to read from the book in turns. It is better than what we had before from ATF which is essentially a briefing method and not any form of teaching.
MOI at least expects people to plan the lesson properly. As an organisation we fail them (I refer here to all instructors) by not providing suitable training materials and other resourced that they can use during this planning and in subsequent delivery
I have to disagree, the staff P2 became a learn by repetition just to pass the interview and candidates could never flesh out any of the particulars. Back when I did it, it was still changing so often.
I would do away with yellow lanyard completely as I don’t think tat MOI should be part of the syllabus.
I would move MOI into the JNCO course as in my opinion that’s where it belongs, it can then then be revised during the SNCO course with a stand alone course for cadets who somehow manage to get through the whole syllabus to Master Cadet without getting promoted. The Stand alone course can also be used for all staff coming into the organisation from outside.
Most Squadrons use Cadet NCO’s to deliver training so lets make MOI part of their development.
Learning by repetition is tried and trusted. We do it all the time.
The fact that things were changing is a problem with the organisation not the learning or methodology. If they don’t communicate the changes that’s not your fault.
The old (pre-MOI) system required planning and prep. In terms of resources I know why don’t we use text books, I know they’re a bit old hat in the thrusting world of electronic everything, but they work. You don’t need electricity or computer or phone or tablet or internet connection to use them, just hands and eyes. Imagine that going to a parade night and finding the internet was down or your lovingly created PPT had corrupted, no problem get a book out and just do it. So what if people read from the books or get someone to read from books, for some it will the best way to learn. I’m pretty sure they still use textbooks in schools.
Tried, trusted and dull. I am really not interested in whether someone can remember enough stuff to pass an exam as much as I am engaging them and developing a deeper understanding of the subject and a desire to learn more.
Planning and prep is key to engaging the audience. We should still have detailed text books but those are needed by the instructors to inform them and help them develop their lessons: the lesson plan is a subset of that scope of knowledge.
We have gladly ditched the material as it doesn’t fit within our NCO courses for either time or relevance. We are developing leadership skills, not teaching skills. While there may be a crossover, they are not as closely intertwined as you may suggest.
[quote=“incubus, post:69, topic:1027, full:true”][quote=“Teflon, post:68, topic:1027”]
Learning by repetition is tried and trusted.[/quote]Tried, trusted and dull. [/quote]
So how did you learn to drive? How did you learn anything at school? How have you learned things in your working life?
Learning can’t always be fun, interesting, engaging or whatever, and whatever you may find to be that way, will be dull, uninteresting and even confusing to others. Personally when I do training at work I want the information and lunch etc included in the deal, I don’t want team exercises, break off groups and similar rubbish. I see break off groups and team thinking (as it was called on one course) as a chance to go to the toilet, get a brew, have a nap. In order to gain an understanding you have to be able to do it competently and have a thorough knowledge and you only achieve that by repetition. Cadets couldn’t, by and large, give a monkey’s about the subject we are teaching them.
I learned mechanical skills like driving by direct practice but also by developing an understanding for the operation and feel of the vehicle. I do not change gear at a set RPM but understand the relationship between requirement and function.
I learned German in part by memorising prepositions, but I got a good result by having a good teacher who engaged me and let me experiment with the language, coming up with “innovative” phrases
I learned physics by having a deep love for the subject and a desire to understand the natural world and how it functions.
I failed chemistry A-level by being handed a book and being ignored by the teachers.
[quote=“incubus, post:69, topic:1027, full:true”][quote=“daws1159, post:67, topic:1027”]
I would move MOI into the JNCO course as in my opinion that’s where it belongs,
[/quote]
We have gladly ditched the material as it doesn’t fit within our NCO courses for either time or relevance. We are developing leadership skills, not teaching skills. While there may be a crossover, they are not as closely intertwined as you may suggest.[/quote]
The irony is that we expect JNCOs to teach / instruct (yes the books says they shouldn’t but the book is so much toilet paper) cadets in various aspects of cadet life and yet they aren’t allowed to be privy to the Corps wonderful thoughts on how to instruct and yet they get it done, which questions the value of the MOI.
Most of them have been getting the message across for some time before being allowed to do the MOI.
Exactly thins, lets train our NCO’s to do the job they are actually doing. How often will they actually use a SMEAC briefing? How often will they teach a lesson on the ATC?
Here’s a thought - have both MOI and the old staff P2-style subject.
Pass one as a prerequisite to being sergeant, pass the other as a prerequsite to being flight sergeant. The cadet can then pick their strongest one to do first (and so pick the route of being an ‘instruction’ NCO or an ‘admin’ NCO) and then do the other one to round themselves out and show that they’re suitable for further promotion.
For me personally IOT and OSC was something I had to do. I learned nothing from IOT other than opening doors for officers and as for OSC a few days pay was nice. I imagine those coming straight in get something from it.
In my experience at work and in the ATC you learn most as you go along what is called “on the job training”. Need to do something and people show you, make a mistake and people tell you and should advise you so as not to repeat it.
In my time as a cadet there weren’t cadet NCO courses and we didn’t do too bad. I think now there is too much made of so called training courses which are more info overload than anything else and people come back thinking they know everything.
Indeed - my favourite example of that is in weapons training. If you teach a cadet how to do do a drill, and that only, then they’ll do it fine until they forget something or make a mistake. Once that happens, they’re completely thrown and will get stuck and probably make a much larger mistake.
If you teach them first why to do do the drill and what the drill is supposed to achieve, then the how slots easily into place and they’ll understand what to do - even if things don’t go perfectly.