Maybe, but I still don’t see that imposing those requirements are necessary or a good way to improve things. I’d also like us to get our current digital platforms working and functional before adding in yet another thing for them to try and make, but that’s a side issue.
3 Likes
i have even seen on the “notes” of a CFAV bidding to an event which was oversubscribed with staff “bidding for a place to tick the box on my promotion matrix”
full credit for being open and honest, but at the same time, “steals” a place from someone with genuine interest
Unfortunately, this is exactly what the matrix drives people to do.
1 Like
I sort of agree with what some are saying.
I’ve published some internal criteria (essential vs desirable) because I kept getting asked and needed to be able to provide something consistent (and relevant).
The essential is basically to highlight a few things that I absolutely will not promote people without (for cdt cpl it’s good and consistent standards across the board and leading cadet, which we easily get them to in two years if they turn up). Desirable is some sort of off sqn experience, but only because it helps round them out a bit.
Cdt sgt is some sort of instructor cadet qual, drill instructor qual etc because I literally want them to start passing on knowledge and helping run the place beyond taking the register, and a sgt should be capable of teaching the first class cadet syllabus and basic drill.
I’ve not gone further than that because it doesn’t yet feel necessary.
We probably need a broader discussion about what we actually want from and expect of our cadets at different ranks, rather than focussing on how many badges they’ve got, especially now that a CWO could promote at 17 and stay there for just under 3 years…
Because ultimately, an element of standardisation is important so that it’s fairer and everyone is prepared for what may be expected of them on a camp etc. wouldn’t be right for one unit to let anyone have it and another expect the moon on a stick for cdt cpl.
Badges for badges’ sake doesn’t feel like the best way to do that though.
Sadly badges for badges sake is the way which we are being driven to go from all levels above Sqns.
Genuine convo with an OC
“Your cadet was deferred on Course X” (I won’t disclose why here but it was not a reason that was in any way subjective)
“No need to worry we’ve given them the badge anyway”
As there is no control over who awards PTS badges on SMS (and I do understand the need for admin flexibility) I could see that happening more and more.
That is awful. But I would hope that’s a very small minority of people so we shouldn’t “punish” everyone just because of a few bad apples.
Additionally, for any courses that involve an assessment, the assessment forms are supposed to be uploaded as evidence and attached to the qualification. Admittedly, that only works if people actually check and enforce it.
To be fair they didn’t say they were giving the qual, just the badge
That makes even less sense 
As a SI many years ago I supported a camp where the team I gave the drill trophy to would not win the overall camp competition, so “everyone would win something”.
Sometimes people do weird stuff that they think will help the cadets. They don’t mean ill, they just can’t see how “not winning” is a really valuable life experience everyone should receive early, and preferably every now and then.
1 Like
This is why I put together the Knowledge Skills and Behaviour conpetacies which cadets can regularly self-evaluate how they are doing at achieving, and focuses on the “soft skills” rather than badge x and y.
4 Likes
One other thing to add, which I don’t think is mentioned in the document, to gain FS you MUST have an interview at Wing much like CWO. Absurd!
I don’t think it’ll matter, based on the other criteria they won’t get that far
1 Like
What’s more absurd is that having met the grade for CWO if you want to become a Sgt there’s another interview!
2 Likes
Yeah this is BS
I tend to agree, though I suppose there is a subtlety that one is a cadet role and the other is a CFAV role.
Though on the other hand, I’d say the defining difference for a CWO should be that you’d trust them as a CFAV, or at least acknowledge their suitability for development in that vein.
If our top rank doesn’t theoretically churn out a suitable CFAV, we may have dropped the ball.
And 17 is now possible for all, but It’s not a target — the same standards should exist.
1 Like
There are some key differences though, especially now that they might not be a staff cadet at the time. For example, they’re not going to get asked the same types of safeguarding questions that a prospective CFAV would.
I’d argue they should.
If the senior cadet doesn’t have a firm grasp on safeguarding I’d say that’s an issue.
2 Likes
I’m not saying they shouldn’t get safeguarding questions, but that the questions will be different. If they’re under 18 their responsibilities are different.
Oh I see what you’re saying.
I suppose that’s why we have an 18+ package mostly geared towards that.