I get the principle behind it but for the PTS element it doesn’t allow flexibility of individual circumstances. Whether that’s disabilities, young carers, people who work, poverty -all of which can impact the ability to get away and do those courses.
Interesting on the time front one - as we all do at the moment is set our own requirements on Sqns. Ours is the must be a minimum of 12 months in the rank below. So 3 months in previous rank on average is only 48 hours on parades nights to have got your feet under the table and settle into the rank before potentially applying for the next rank.
I be asking the sector commander and OCW to come and demote my cadets, money on they wouldnt. Then id show the parents HQAC policy and call out the differences then point them towards OCW
What needs to happen is a policy is agreed and then Bader/Units/SMS/whatever its called is configured to not able promotions from a record perspective untill all the boxes are ticked
the biggest issue i have with this requirement, and indeed any such matrix, is the opportunities to tick these boxes need to be made readily available.
the promotions we consider at any one time will likely consider 2-3 Cadets moving to Cpl, and 1-2 Cpls to Sgt, and Sgt to FS. this can happen once or twice a year as the numbers fluctuate and dynamic changes.
we would be looking for 2 if not 3 JNCO places minimum, likely 5-6 places on a Bronze Leadership course.
and that quantity of allocation simply isn’t happening now - by applying this requirement will see the other ~25 Squadrons all vying for the same limited places, increasing competition for a place and further reducing the opportunity.
it doesn’t matter if it is CFAV or Cadet requirements, for promotion or something else - those setting these “rules” need to understand that we are all volunteers and doing this in our spare time - and so are those who are making the opportunities available to us.
unlike the RAF which has a schedule set for courses which run throughout the year, and are attended by the candidates during their work time, the same approach cannot be applied to the volunteer environment of the RAFAC.
Courses are run as an when CFAV course leaders have the availability, and on a frequency they have a willingness and interest to provide given it is their spare time (weekends) that is required.
it also requires the Cadets to be available in their spare time also - school work, paid employment. family commitments or other hobbies all pulling at their limited time requiring the course availability to all line up with the Cadet’s availability also - not impossible, plenty of courses take place each month across the Corps - but be it leadership, first aid, radio/cyber, shooting or whatever there are rarely the number of courses which met the demand within the Wing, or held at a frequency which suggests the next course is only a month or two away.
as such I have no clue what value “3 months in rank” offers as a requirement, as the other elements could take 6 months to line up on their own - but would happily shake the hand of any cadet who managed to complete 3x courses in three months for Sgt and two silver PTS opportunities (and pass) for FS
It’s effectively a pyramid numbers game, but without the number of cses / support staff / type of events to allow the stated parameters to be achieved fairly across the board.
I hope they get called out on this micro-management.
Absolutely not. That is overreach and completely disempowering to people making decisions. There are loads of reasons why these criteria come around every so often and get knocked back, and they almost always are because of poorly thought out control issues i.e. someone higher up thinking they have to exert control over every little detail of life. It’s sad really.
A better idea would be to improve training for staff, give them support for suggested guidelines they can tailor to their own environment and then improve standards by osmosis. You won’t improve standards by just making it hard on SMS, people will just promote them anyway and not do it on SMS.
This policy from GMW is attempting to override that. It’s local policy, going against national policy. If OC Wings are allowed to override ACP 20, can they ignore other stuff too? At what rank/role are you allowed to start taking HQ policy and ignoring it?
I think the promotion criteria/process needs to have built in flexibility (as the Corps policy does). Different squadrons have different needs and so do different cadets.
If this restrictive set of criteria are enforced, I can see squadrons just being without NCOs for a significant period if they’re smaller units or if they lose a cohort.
Absolutely. A recommendation from a WHQ on promotion criteria is entirely acceptable. However restricting promotion to a defnite criteria which goes against ACP20 is not acceptable.
Also as an SME I am not comfortable about tying promotions in to the PTS. It risks candidates attending because they ‘need’ the course for promotion. And it squeezes out those who have a genuine interest in the subject.
We already see this with staff: get a Qual, complete the Matrix, never seen again.
I would favour a proper promotion course but ideally one that a Squadron or a handful of Squadrons could deliver from a centralised course folder. Not another elite course with two or three places per wing.
I think what Alex is suggesting is that if any pre-requisites are to exist within HQ policy (not made up Wing stuff), this should be enforced through a technical solution, otherwise why have a policy at all!
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.
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
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.
