Ahh got confused!
Isnāt there an expectation that you need a minimum of a training/teaching qual I.e. level 3 in training and education. Certainly since getting mine Iāve been given the nod to assess.
And yes Iām being to lazy to go check myself
Nope.
And the ACTO allows cadets to teach/assess too; iām biased but probably a step in the right direction provided itās controlled.
Are you getting PS and MOI mixed up there?
Yep. Thatās the awful thing Iāve been beratingā¦
No, the only things mentioned are:
1 Like
Yup, fair point - it doesnāt specify either way. It does however state later on that the observation is by Wing Staff, so a little unclear.
Indeed, but that refers to the 3 year development.
The authority to deliver is a load of nonsense. I heard two teachers with several years under their belt in secondary schools were not considered competent to deliver and authorise, one of them apparently does lesson observations and subsequent critique of other teachers. Not sure if the fact they were CIs was anything to do it, but I know the people deemed competent and in the main people like me and many others in the ATC who have only ever done things in the ATC, although we run training / information days at work. Iād sooner see teachers deliver and assess as they would have a better idea than jobbing amateurs.
Having looked at the two, the presentation one seems more than adequate without the other one for what we need in the ATC and why you need so many assessments it makes you wonder quite what they are looking for and expecting. Iāve watched the staff on the sqn who have had to do it and I canāt see the join between them and myself who has only ever done Staff P2 and an AWO course.
I always thought the MOI was and still is OTT and as dreary as a wet bank holiday weekend. Obviously an line of thought bound to be out of kilter with many here.
Yes, fortunately very few people either on ACC or in the wider organisation share your obsessive and utterly baffling pursuit of mediocrity in all things.
Itās not nonsense at all. Someone reasonably wise at Wing level should be looking at who is suitable to assess (such as teachers who do it anyway) and authorise those, in order to maintain a standard. That two people apparently more than qualified to do it were turned down is inexplicable, although this is presumably the same wing which for some truly bewildering reason seems to think that youāre fit to command a squadron, so I can only assume someone has their brain in backwards.
Given that weāre the Air Training Corps, being as good as possible at delivering training should be a pretty much unarguable aim. The MOI should really be the minimum that anyone is aiming for, yet in order to be flexible very few things actually mandate it anyway just to ensure parity with the real world. There are courses above MOI - such as the L3 course that @AlexCorbin mentioned, that some of us are actually undertaking; some of us with the humility to accept that weāre not already perfect and have much to learn from others.
5 Likes
I believe there is also a cadet on your current course so avaliable to them!
Indeed there is.
Sod Graphic Artists,
Am I the only one who is concerned by the fact that whoever drew this doesnāt know what a Hexagon is?
7 Likes
I think thatās kind of the pointā¦ 
Eh?
Characters.
Itās intentionally satirical. A mickey-take of all that sort of yuppie, corporate nonsense we all hate.
1 Like
I mean, it does have āprecisionā right at the topā¦
What does the presentation have to be on?
Anything you like. I try to encourage non cadet stuff just to learn something new about the cadet
1 Like