I feel that’s almost the point, though.
The idea that Blue must be deliverable within a squadron perimeter doesn’t really hold, because you’ve got to “deploy” to achieve your aims.
If we remove that restriction from Blue, we can then look at restructuring Blue/Bronze to reduce the gap.
I’m assuming that the lessons in the Army Cadet manual is numbered in the sequence they teach. Why don’t we teach in the same order, finding a suitable break between?
I’ve only run two Sqns but I had room at both for Blue Fieldcraft, and I haven’t heard of a great deal of resistance within LaSER from Sqns saying this is a problem. Where it is a problem, it’s up to the Wings and Regions to support. The syllabus is as deliverable at Sqn level as possible. Of course it’s not possible to cater for every Sqn. What would the syllabus be that is entirely deliverable in a classroom? How different is this to Blue in other subjects?
The ACF doing it one way does not make it the only, the right or the best way; we too have experience and we have our reasons for the structure we have, which we have always been open about. Moreover, how we train as an organisation, not just with fieldcraft, including matters of infrastructure, leadership, objectives and logistics, differs greatly to the ACF and their model can’t directly translate to ours.
We only teach a portion of what they teach anyway, most of what we do is their 1* syllabus and in to their 2*. They’re a lot better setup for delivery of this with it being a bigger part of their overall syllabus including how they train their staff to deliver it.
Thank you for the thorough response!
Personally, I think the syllabus doesn’t match up with what squadrons want to run so there might be a lack of motivation for people to get qualified. A course that teaches enough for a squadron to be able to run some basic deployed exercises (without weapons) would be good. And maybe make the FTI(R) qualification encompass everything you need for that.
We have introduced some nonsensical splits in our syllabus - for example, ‘why things are seen’ is blue and ‘camouflage and concealment’ is bronze, which means the former would have to be re-taught on bronze.
Why does ‘why things are seen’ need to be re-taught on Bronze?
Does Blue not achieve this?
By the time they get to bronze they would have forgotten it and it’s fundamental to understanding camouflage and concealment.
Sorry, that was poorly worded. What I meant is they won’t have been taught the things they need to take part in an exercise. A simple example, patrol to location, do a reccy, patrol back to camp.
Unless the policy allows FTI(R) to teach elements outside of blue but cadets not be eligible for the bronze qualification. But that’s not how I understood the policy.
Dont reteach, revise.
Is it not part of the prelims of teaching Cam and Concealment?
Indeed.
There is scope in the lesson plan for revision. Sure, don’t reteach the whole lesson but if cadets need a bit more than just a check by questions then build that in.
In this specific example it’s also a good opportunity to use demo troops.
Yep, good opportunity for demo troops, and plenty of scope for practical revision as opposed to a mere check of understanding.