Well I stand by my previous opinion that - a few details aside - the concept is a good one and the badges mostly look OK (and much better than the multi-coloured mess that we have at the moment).
I like the concept. Change can be good and itās usually the low educated who canāt see past the fence line.
Iām not sure about all of what is in the poster from tkg; this is the point where I really do want/need more information to be able to make a properly informed decision about these proposed changes. Did I miss it within the thread; is there a timeline for all of this?
Itās possible of course that HQAC are actually releasing the concept well in advance, so that we at the coalface can familiarise ourselves with it well in time for its introduction.
Iāll put you in touch with some of the low educated teachers who ācanāt see beyond the fence lineā wrt changes that constantly happen in education.
Just because people donāt fall over themselves and lie prostrate waiting for the āchange bulldozerā to run them over, doesnāt mean they arenāt educated, maybe the people who greedily just lap at the milk bowl of change regardless of its freshness, rather than give a sniff and reject it, are the poorly educated as they canāt see very far or they are the sycophants hoping their blind obedience/acceptance is rewarded by their masters.
Having had a further look, I donāt like the shooting badges at all.
Surely the blue-gold system is meant to indicate progression through successive levels of acheivement - not through weapons categories. The logical sequence is blue=sqn marksman, bronze=wing, etc.
If we must have different badges for different weapon types, then we can just have a depiction of the actual weapon (ie an L98 for full-bore, an L81 for target rifle, etc). But I really canāt see that there is a need for it anyway. The tests should be equally hard whatever the rifle (which could mean some levels wouldnāt be available on some rifles).
I said, āusuallyā and you bit far too hard. Besides teachers are elevated to a paragon of untouchableness (not a real word). Any job which has two months off during the best weather and finishes at 4pm/no weekends isnāt really a job. Itās a hobby.
Thatāll endear you to the teaching profession - & the number of CFAVs who are teachers or assistants, etc. Good people skillsā¦
Back to the topic - in any organisation with a drawn-out history, change is inevitable, BUT it has to be appropriate, planned thoroughly, all constraints considered, communicated effectively & introduced carefully. Ultilearn fails in many respect & even cadets considering it as ādumbing downā the subject material. As for teaching about aircraft that were out of service in the RAF before the new syllabus was introduced, well, that is stupid, & a huge hit to credibility.
Shooting badges - I donāt see the need to change a tried & tested system. The standards are set sensibly, are progressive & seem to have the appropriate ācomparabilityā across all wpn systems.
Flying classification badges - sorry, this is treating the symptom, not the cause. Would the ACO have moved to this sorry state of āScoutā system if there had been no interruption to gliding? I doubt it very much. Tail wagging the dog,
1 Like
Having had a glimpse of the new syllabus it merges the existing marksman shoots with the provisional Multi Positional shoots, giving us an actually syllabus of shooting across all weapons systems with set progression onto advanced shoots at further ranges.
As a cadet I did get bored of always doing the Wing/Region shoot on a short Range having already achieved a Region Marksman it was just brass conversion.
However, that is probably only feasible for a lucky few, based on range accessibility, staff qualifications, etc.
Sorry for being a dullardā¦ but just trying to catch up & understandā¦ So First Class training through to Master is being replaced with the Blue to Gold systemā¦? I see Gliding, Flying, Radio, Leadership etc on the Progressive Training poster linked aboveā¦ But where will such things like the RAF, ATC, Drill, Navigation, Principles of flight, Rocketry etc all fit in? Anyone know about that? Like many others I am in the process of re-writing the training programme for first class and above, a huge amount of work and I just want to work out if Iām wasting my time!!
Found this on another thread (One talking about Change in VRT - someone had linked a Wing Briefing Document that had the following in it:
PROGRESSIVE TRAINING SYLLABUS
January 2017 will see the introduction of the progressive training syllabus which will see most of the activities we undertake divided into 4 distinct levels using the blue, bronze, silver and gold system. All the badges will be changed to reflect these colours. Most of the badges will simply replace existing badges but some will be new. Those areas involved will be music, shooting, first aid, leadership, flying and D of E.
Full details will be issued in the next few months and the badges will be issued in the new year. The supply chain will probably mean not all cadets will be able convert to the new badges immediately.
The classification badges will remain the same at present. New rules will be issued showing the positions of the badges on the brassard. All badges will now be on the brassard.
Even DofE and flying?
All points that the ATC has failed on quite superbly over the years.
Adult SNCO structure considered as being long needed by many and when it came in it was a mess and there still isnāt a WO course which was included in the original plan
SMS - did we need it not really and it was pushed as a way for us to save time but just makes staff admin monkeys and when it was introduced it was down and stlll is down to sqns to make it work in IT terms and internet at not inconsiderable costs to sqns
Ultilearn - I still think why, it has made an exam system that was quite strong to one that is completely in the blindfolded monkey hitting a keyboard territory. Whoever thought that getting one question right per LO and then only redo the bits you got wrong is an idiot of massive proportions and we wonāt go near the supposed learning material. The cadets have passwords and not one of them look at other than at the sqn. Itās inappropriateness, poor quality and lack of need is not surprising when you consider the person who thought it was great and the way forward.
Dropping of the cadet upper age as a knee jerk and bolt on to the adult SNCO. I went to briefings on this and everyone came away thinking why. We still have the nonsense that cadets have to show some worth to the Corps or else they arenāt considered any good as staff. The irony is we have 2 COs who were dumped as cadets under this ruling, but came back as staff and are bloody good. Whereas there are more who were raved about, direct commissions from cadets and left after their first term.
I was looking at a GCSE IT book and saw something called System Life Cycle and wondered if any of the IT gurus at HQAC had ever seen it, because given the mess that has been IT systems in the ATC I doubt it very much.
I concur. We have people working in the ATC who have no idea about the sharp end of the ATC, looking for solutions to problems that donāt exist to make their jobs look worthy of the salary and itās the cadets that suffer. Something that having worked in schools for a little while seems to be rife, with govt depts constantly tinkering with things they know the sq rt of FA about, just to ensure they donāt look like candidates for redundancy.
Flying badges are staying on the left shoulder. The new DofE badges will be smaller and are going on the brassard, similar to the ACF style.
MB
The new progressive system seems to do fairly well on those pointsā¦
OK, iāll bite.
Is it appropriate? Define appropriate (for Scouts or Girl Guides, maybe). What consultation?
Who planned it, on what basis & what inputs?
What constraints were considered? What evaluation was done (& what were the TORs?)?
What communication? Zero so far as far as Iām concerned.
Careful introduction - no.
Iāve no idea where this whole scouts/girl-guides thing is coming from. Theyāre not adding any new badges, theyāre just getting rid of the gaudy, multi-coloured mess of designs that we used to have. In addition, trying to make a common set of progression levels will make things easier to understand to relative lay-people. Iām really not sure what bit of that people are finding issues with.
Who planned it? HQAC, as far as I know
Constraints? Not sure.
Communication? I donāt know where the idea that there is zero communication is coming from. Iāve heard of this from some time ago, and clearly there is information out there (itās linked to above) - and itās not due to come in until next year! HQAC have had form in the past for just releasing things straight āin to the wildā and expecting us to just get on with it - this is a refreshing change.
Consultation - all the wing training officers and OC wings.
Planned by various region training officers and ideas reviewed and looked st by the above. Idea came from the CADETs themselves.
Constraints - cost. Implementing. Narrow mindedness.
Comms - been hearing about this for months now in an informal capacity. Itās not live yet so Iām not expecting anything official yet. Neither should you.
Now grow up and wait your turn like the rest of us.
2 Likes
I can state categorically that not all Wing Training Officers were consulted.