You are both right in as much as they won’t take any notice or take it into consideration.
However with the potential of some negative publicity, especially if you bring a high profile politician into the fray, they will retreat PDQ. They won’t want anyone sniffing around who might start to prod their bubble, in case it bursts.
The problem we have today is that with kids under extreme pressure from negative influences, regardless of the socio economic circumstances, the cost of operating a youth organisation has to be a positive regardless.
One of the squadron’s I was on, a young lad’s parents got divorced and it was messy. The financial support he had (quite considerable) vanished almost overnight. But he kept on at the ATC and when he left his mum came in and thanked the CO for making allowances and so on, as being in the ATC gave him something to keep his life ‘normal’ during what were difficult times. I’ve seen and heard of numerous instances like this, which make however much it costs to keep squadrons open worth every single penny. But never reached the lofty heights of Wing, Region or Corps.
No idea what Stoke Newington’s HQ is like, but given it’s in London, you can bet your house on the fact someone looked at and thought, sell it off for development and make a chunk of money on the quick, however the loss of the squadron would have, even it was small, a negative impact locally.
The majority of the posts on here are overwhelmingly negative which I don’t think is wholly fair.
Ultimately whether the ACO is fit for purpose or not hinges on whether or not we are able to provide useful training and experiences to young people from all backgrounds not how the organisation is managed and staffed in the upper echelons.
I can only speak from personal experience and others’ experiences in different parts of the country may be fundamentally different.
From my point of view the volunteers on the ground are still doing exceptional work supporting the young people mad enough to sign up.
Whilst the decline in practical flying opportunities is regrettable that isn’t, and never has been, all the RAFAC is about. We continue to deliver valuable training in life skills like leadership and first aid and foster the qualities of citizenship and integrity so important in the modern world.
If you’d like practical examples I’ve been fortunate enough to be involved with my Wing’s DoE team over the last few months, in which time over 60 cadets have completed Bronze DoE expeditions. That is a memory those cadets are going to have forever and which may spark a lifelong passion for the outdoors in some of them.
I have seen hundreds of cadets go from shy timid kids to confident and competent young people. Regardless of mismanagement and missed opportunities surely that proves that what the organisation can still do what it’s supposed to do?
I suppose the real question is what is “The Organisation” is it the structure that we work within or is it the volunteers who make it happen day to day. If it’s the volunteers then it’s fit for purpose if a bit thin on the ground. If it’s the structure then almost all of the good work that is done is done despite the organisation not because of it.
I’ve held back on here for a while… but i can do so no more. The definition of “fit for purpose” is quite personal; we need to know what our metrics for measuring are.
A few months back i described how I’d measure success at a Sqn level; and I’d suggest we need a similar approach to defining our success as an organisation.
Amazingly, for an organisation of our size and nature, not even HQAC have worked this out! In 2012 understanding this very thing was a sensible recommendation of DYER - yet has, like so many other things, been pushed aside!! A high level meeting earlier this year brought this to the fore - but i fear itll be overtaken again in favour of the Strategic Footprint Reduction exercise - when this should really be at the heart of that very exercise itself.
We can -only since the advent of SMS - monitor and measure volumes of activity. We can assess “busy-ness” - and some would believe that to be enough. We have, however, no comparible data to measure against! Just a year on year accumulation of ever more ludicrous paperwork and tickboxes despite an administration burden reduction team!!
Through Ultilearn we can measure progress against BTECS. Through some convoluted measurement of badge orders we can measure blue PTS performance.
But we miss so much more in terms of soft outcomes. We miss the quality of the experience. We miss the “feel” infavour of number crunching and thinking we understand whats going on.
Recent academic studies have attempted to address this. The social mobility study went someway to demonstrate the benefits of the RAFAC and broader cadet forces. But it didn’t address national disparity of the cadet experience. We know cadets and sqns in Wales have far less access to opportunity - specifically flying and gliding- than they do elsewhere. We also know there are pockets of excellence in some areas and activities that are missed elsewhere.
I fear that unless we start acknowledging and addressing these issues with a Wg, Rg and Corps strategy, then we will not be truely fit for purpose. To quote so many government faults of late, a cadets experience is a postcode lottery. Your experience can’t be measured by anything more than where you live and how much money/time/effort/energy you - and that sqn staff - are prepared to put in.
An element of this is, sadly, reliant on social mobility itself. Affluent areas appear to offer far more than their poorer neighbours. They seem to do more. Even prestigious Corps camps - JLs and QAIC - whilst hugely valuable, are awash with those that can afford it. I fear that few attendees will be on any local authorities Free School Meal 6 list.
Taking a simple look at our Corps aims - as many have done above - as a measure of “fit for purposeness” shows we aren’t meeting them. And with so little action or traction in addressing these - or ignorance towards the fact there is even a problem with some elements - i don’t think we could say we are. Which is sad - as we do have pockets of excellence where - at sqn levels - all aims are being met. This stems from a groundswell of local support, from volunteers on the frontline who’ve maintained RISE and has the cadet at the heart of all that they do. It happens inspite of mismanagement and ineptitude and bureaucracy from every level above them. And it happens where socio economic factors permit it to do so. But these sqns are limited in their number.
“Flying” trumped every single activity. The biggest problem was you would plan say AT/DofE months in advance and then a few weeks before a “flying” detail would come up and throw things up in the air.
It’s not so much mismanagement as the disconnect because the people running the organisation at the top have absolutely no idea of what the ordinary worker has to do. A business that has a senior management group that has no shop floor experience, will be out of business PDQ.
In the RAFAC how many of the ACMB have done the groundwork? None and therein for my money lies the problem. The unfortunate thing is this disconnect exists at Wing level, as WIng Staff soon forget where they came from and many don’t have to arrange things and fanny around with pointless minutae. If it wasn’t for us monkeys being creative in how we deal with things the ACO would have vanished in the last 7/8 years. Imagine no selfies for the delusional SM junkies.
As for the positives don’t think we lose sight of these, as we see them all the time, in spite of HQACs best efforts. HQAC seem to think that the “big money” events are what the organisation is about, but it isn’t. It’s the parade night stuff we do week in week out, that brings the positives, making the small changes that lead to large cumulative effects we see and get told about.
Think about it analogously in terms of a course with a test / exam. You might never sit a test or exam, but the things you learn and do on the course are with you for a lifetime. I can only remember one question from all the exams I did, but the stuff I leaned over 13 years of formal education and other courses since are lodged is still in there and leaks out occasionally for quizzes and crosswords. So the parade nights are the lessons, that even if you never do anything else the bits you learn are with you. Not suggesting that cadets shouldn’t do other things BUT the positives on their lives will be with them, if they don’t. It doesn’t make for an interesting time if they don’t, but that’s their choice.
Our success has always been at an esoteric, personal level to cadets and staff alike and it should always remain that way, as soon as you try and quantify it, you lose something. Of course these are things you cannot measure and no use to the bean counters. I probably got more out of the Corps in developing personally than any of the activities, which were nice to do, but intrinsically meaningless.
Put in a box and stuck in a corner of the loft, The problem for HQAC with DYER was (IIRC) it’s favouring of a senior joint cadet forces HQ, which wouldn’t suit our lot as they’d have too much to lose at a personal level. A joint HQ would allow for more joined up activities which could only benefit the youngsters across the board.
I 100% agree. The purpleisation of the CF was, for those in senior positions, a threat to livelihood. For the volunteers, a potentially good method of addressing a range of issues. Sadly, volunteers weren’t listened too; again.
As well as the uniform side of things, this has very much been the case for those supporting squadrons within the amusingly named ‘Civilian Pillar’. I can’t find anyone who defends the notion that the progressive org-anagram demonstrating the pillars of RAFAC actually represent reality. Others have criticised and defended the increase of ex-personnel occupying civilian positions in the said Civilian Pillar, but whatever side you may fall on, the resulting tendency is for disconnect.
As Teflon writes, no business could operate for long in such conditions and I would be very worried were I senior in the organisation and reading this forum. Not least because leaving aside detail, the overriding message is that RAFAC works at squadron level because of the willing volunteers there who find ways and means. The comments intended to be positive in this thread all relate to activities that could very well be provided in any activity-focused youth organisation.
It seems evident that the ability for civilian feedback up the Civilian Pillar is dwindling and probably extinct. It may never have been perfect but there is a real danger in any situation when those running things start believing their own BS and that I think has has always been a vulnerability in cadet-based operations. A wise leader will work hard to avoid it, rather than encourage it as military servitude does not naturally foster self-questioning and upward challenge. Certainly my experience of CAC is one of hollow yet impressive spin over substance and you can only go on like that for so long before the wheels fall off!
There is a perception that being linked to a school may have certain benefits over being in the wider community. Certainly a captive audience. But there is one senior rank who claims success at reviving a struggling school based unit only to be parachuted to rescue another, and the school unit closing soon after. Whether there is a link, and part of some cunning plan, anybody’s guess.
Things are not that rosy on the CCF side. I have occasional contact with a former CCF commander at a prominent public school and he resigned over issues he had had with HQAC, or whoever within the hierarchy.
So it seems the ACO does not discriminate unfairly .
You only have a captive audience in a boarding school and it may work in a grammar school to some extent, as the parents will be up themselves.
In a state school getting kids to stay after school would be interesting, as when our kids were at school the after school clubs were largely those, where the parents used them as a baby sitting service, until they could get home from work. At most after school clubs were for an hour, would teachers be prepared to do a club, when they have more important things to do.
I would say only that many, given the hype of a few years ago. We had the ‘local’ CEP champion come to annual conferences a couple of times, which seemed pointless. Stood in front of 20 odd sqn cdrs and others trying to tell us this was the future, when we all know our areas and how successful things are likely to be. We asked why the DfE money couldn’t be directed to squadrons and not wasted on a short-sighted political project.
I know of one that opened reasonably local to us a couple of years ago , Army, that is now struggling as the staff who were up for it, have like teachers do, including the head in one of them, has moved on or retired. But it seems they are tied to the 5 years and none of the teachers want to do it.
Ironically the local ATC squadron and ACF units have cadets at the school.
I know of one Wing Commander whose day job is working for RFCA promoting CEP, conflict of interest. Also, what happens to the Squadrons etc, when or if the funding stream is terminated by a government at the end of the five years or the school decide not to continue in CEP?