I am aware, but on my unit we don’t recommend boots for greens activities before we recommend shoes for blues
1 Like
Interesting. If a cadet is struggling we always recommend boots first as they can be worn with blues and greens if needs be. As parade shoes can’t exactly be worn in greens.
3 Likes
Makes sense!
Same here!
Not all squadrons are equal.
All squadrons are equal, just that some squadrons are more equal than others.
5 Likes
That’s actually a really useful picture!
2 Likes
I think the phraseology you might be looking for “is some Squadrons are better than others”.
The grounds I make this assertion on is that some have good leadership who will arrange for a varied training and activity program and are willing to think on thier feet when an activity needs to be cancelled or postponed, and there are those who don’t.
3 Likes
Agreed. OCs of failing squadrons need better training and support. If they’re really not up to the job, replace them. A good leader will always have contingency plans, rather than just leaving staff and cadet NCOs to organised some half-arsed* programme on the night or default to drill nights too frequently. I keep lesson plans & materials to hand so that I can easily step in if another member of staff doesn’t show. Think of your younger self in the cadets’ boots, then plan accordingly. That means lots of imaginative, hands-on training. Get the younger cadets involved. Get new staff to shadow you so that they learn to do the same. I believe all CIs should be encouraged to choose a useful subject and take steps to be a squadron SME during their probation period. Perhaps this should be a requirement to pass the 6 month probationary period? It could be something simple, e.g. history of the ATC/RAF.
*That’s how it will come across to cadets.
1 Like
Is OC not fully aware and it’s Trg Off that’s failing? How many staff are actually at this Sqn? Are the others just twiddling their thumbs? Are there time commitment issues feeding into deficiencies and supervision/observations?
This isn’t one single point of failure, despite the fallback of “OC is ultimately responsible”.
There’s undoubtedly problems at this unit - it may not even be incompetence (perhaps the staff are busy updating all of their risk assessments to the new format…). Although if they were that up on their H+S then fainting, especially multiple, would have been a more serious issue for them. Failures right there, but what’s the experience level and is anything being hidden with “everything’s fine boss”?
The support angle would be the way to go, without apportioning blame.
Not that that bothers OP.
1 Like
It’s too easy to judge and blame the bloke or woman at the top, when there are a whole group under them not doing what they should or doing their own thing. Bring this into the CFAV world people get much more judgemental on the word of an individual, because we are all perfect and never let things slip. In this instance we know so little about the sqn as per the potential observations about staff made by @Giminion. Would anyone be able to help, doubt it; would anyone be willing to help, doubt it; as we are all busy and in the last 2 years so much has changed for so many, that they may not be able or willing to do what they were. We’re seeing this locally and it has left gaping wounds in what we were able to do and the people with the quals and experience are, surprising as some may find it, not banging the door in to fill the gaps.
Too many times “we” get lost in this nonsense about what makes a “better” sqn and eulogise about what we perceive it to be, not realising that we are all a gnat’s nadger away from not being our vision of “better”. It only takes one member of staff to leave or something happening and the house of cards tumbles.
3 Likes
Well that’s false.
Or rather, poor implementation. You had 3 boxes - where did they go?
Not sure if you’re making a serious commentary or playing a part though.
looks like an example of “levelling down”
2 Likes
Just an example of what tends to actually happen in real life and why equity is a bad thing.
We should provide equality of opportunity so everyone gets a go vs equity aka equality of outcome which usually ends in someone being denied an opportunity to give to someone else to try and “level things out”.
It’s an interesting concept.
Think of a training environment, you have 100 rounds for shooting practise.
Cadet A and Cadet B get 50 rounds each. Cadet A gets Corps marksman as he hits the bullseye everytime, Cadet B gets nothing as he can’t shoot for toffee.
Equality means that they get the same amount of ammo, but one will progress further.
Equity - Cadet A gets a grouping of 5 so gets given squadron marksman. Cadet B gets 95 rounds as this is what it takes to get them to squadron standard. Everybody walks away the same.
But was that fair? Cadet B gets way, way more shooting, whilst Cadet A is bored and held back from progressing.
The relationship between equality, equity and fairness is complex.
5 Likes
Stretching the application a bit there and there’s undoubtedly a balance. Equity would be making sure they can both get there, or subsidising a poorer cadet to afford the week away.
Equity of opportunity, equality of experience.
Individual skill shouldn’t be a factor in apportioning at that level, because it’s an outcome variable. You wouldn’t then stick them both on the wing shooting team for reasons of either equity or equality, but measure skill.
But this is probably a good enough place to draw a line on the debate in this thread as it’s getting way away from the topic.
1 Like
It is - where can I find it or can I just ‘nick’ it?
I can’t remember where I originally saw it, but to find it I just Google image searched “equality vs equity” I think. Or just copy if from here.
@DontCallMeMaam 's version comes from an American, Conservative site with anti anti-racism and diversity content and connections - note the “CRT” on the shovel.
1 Like