I think that’s a very valid argument to be fair. The only down side is cost, if paying by rank Sgt pay starts at £44k PA, 1 Sgt per Wing is over £1.5million for the corps. However it is what you do with this resource, if that type of budget was given but the salary was £36k, (like an acting rank) freeing up a “RAFAC HQ SGT” based at Cranwell with a salary of £38k or similar. We could have 1 extra full time person per Wing plus, 1 HQ person. The Wing HQ SGT could be co-ordinating as Wing Training programme “officer”, they create the training programme by sector with dry/wet weather programmes which links into events happening on sector and Wing level. They could even take some of the RA’s (would be many duplicates, how many times when doing a set activity we put the same thing in each month!)
Don’t forget someone getting paid £44k costs significantly more than that!
£44k doesn’t sound right. Is that supp. 1 and before the latest 4.5% rise?
I don’t know that the CTT FTRS terms are, but I’d still say that the £1.5m figure suggested above would be quite good value. Albeit I’d align ‘ATC CTTs’ or expanded current CTTs with Regions not Wings.
@steve679 Definitely a lot of good sense in your comments above.
On growth, as I’ve posted before in other threads, we have no link between cadet numbers, income and so our resources. MOD funding is AFAIK largely fixed (if not reducing) so if we have more cadets our budget per cadet falls.
Subs are non public funds so can only make up the shortfall to a very limited extent. We don’t have the incentive of, say, the Scouts whose annual income goes up if they gain members.
On retention absolutely. This is one of my big concerns right now.
We need to rethink our offer so it is attractive for years 10 and up.
That means bringing back the top level courses, more camps, but maybe other changes that support progression and development.
Should we, for example, turn our (S)NCOs into Young Leaders similar to Scouts, so the extra responsibilities are seen as volunteering?
And yes cyber, space etc is all well and good, but it is unfunded. And though we are good at doing more with less, we can’t do something with nothing.
This is very much going against the direction of travel in terms of recent changes to the staff cadet ‘offer’, but 100% yes.
The point further up about building capacity is really valid too.
The other issue with such a relatively low cap for numbers is that when your cadets seem to be constantly dipping out for exams, your ability to attain compelling centre of gravity that makes a place feel like the place to be can really be a struggle.
The staff cadet policy isn’t working from what I see on the ground. Most choose to leave at 18.
I like the Young Leader model as it’s that recognition for doing a bit above and beyond the usual.
Think it’s Sqn dependent - noticed more of cadets wanting to stick around as CFAVs now but then historically as a Sqn we’ve always lost the majority of our cadets when they leave sixth form & it’s rare for a cadet to stay until they are 20.
The biggest driver to leave as a cadet always seemed to be not being treated as an adult by the staff even though they were 18 or 19
I would argue that, prior to the latest changes, an 18-20 y/o CFS/CWO had a significantly better offer of opportunities than a 20-22 y/o CI: and probably more respect.
Is that not just our NCO structure though? I certainly expect my SNCOs to be “young leader” equivalents, if not my JNCOs too.
& I would disagree with that certainly locally over the last 15 years.
An 18-20 y/o FS or CwO in the ATC would have the “play” of being a cadet but not the responsibility.
When I joined the ATC as a 21 CI in 2003 (not being an ATC cadet) I was still afforded more respect & autonomy than the 23year CWO that was had been on Sqn since they were 13z
It comes down to the Sqn culture & how they value CIs.
Agree. If we really want to be Cyber, Comms, STEM then we should be set up for that. iPad for every cadet (maybe increase the joiing fee to pay for it), renewed every 5 years, proper digital access, proper access to STEM activities which are actually meaningful in the real-world and also the ability fly drones as part of the wider offer, ie get permissions in place to use them on ranges for target spotting, fieldcraft for recce patrols and info gathering etc. Properly integrate STEM into the syllabus. I was BUTTs IC a few weeks back and was explaining to cadets in the BUTTs why the CZP at 100m wasn’t in the same place as where the cadets were aiming - proper real-life STEM, not some made up stuff to tick a box.
Indeed. But a quick win is for us to make it easier to identify those soft skills identified above.
To those with no military background (parents, even employers) rank doesn’t mean much. So we need to spell out what we do and why it is valuable.
Given how much we rely on cadet portal and online exams, this really should be something we should be aiming for. I would necessarily go iPad, but something similar is needed for all cadets. Or a certain number per unit or Wing.
Getting some would be good, but there’s no way we’d get one per cadet, or even enough to avoid squadrons having to source their own.
What is this joining fee of which you speak? Do you mean routine ‘subs’?
Some units charge a ‘joining fee’, which is absolutely not a ‘uniform deposit’ (as such things are banned). They might include a sqn tee- or polo shirt, MTP, shoes and/or boots, etc.
Some offer to return the fee if the uniform is all returned (but it is absolutely not a deposit).
Discussed in greater detail here
That’s alright following Special K we don’t treat any of the staff as adults anymore.