It’s SME not SMT (trainer). As long as the person in the role knows how to access the required training to advise an interested party, and is knowledgeable enough to support them along the journey then that’s sufficient.
A good WATTO is going to have a network of in and out-wing contacts of a variety of skillsets to use for training cadets and potentially staff.
FTOs and FCIs have a network they call on when they run exercises and training - and likely know who is best at or most enjoys which aspects. If I want to run a certain type of training, I know who I want on my team if they are available.
WShOs (or whatever they are), Skillies and RCOs are the same - if they need someone with a certain ticket they know where to go.
I know an OC turned WSC, used to direct plenty of FTXs (pre ACFTIs) and had no interest in teaching it. But they knew the regs, best practice, and how to pull together and manage a suitable team and then just maintain oversight (with the awareness of when and how to “step in”).
The top of a particular tree doesn’t need to be able to do it all or be all things to all people, they just need to know the rules and the people. Anything beyond a minimum standard of practical ability(*) is a bonus.
(*so you do really want your WATTO to be able to lead some kind of activity, your WShO a skilly and SA (SR) (07)… etc.
WFTO needs to get FCI(T), but SA (M) 07 isn’t needed and your WShO doesn’t have to be SATT trainer)
This is all fair enough, and of course makes sense… but it sounds as though you have a handle on what the role actually requires.
Frustratingly it seems like our wing enjoy appointing the most inappropriate people to these sorts of posts.
I’m not an AT person, at all - I teach aviation and flying, but obviously my cadets love it and activities need to be run… I have qualified staff on squadron but they Are “casual” staff and so aren’t as interested in learning the blow by blow of what they can do - they just want to get outside. I’m the bogey man telling them what tickets they need to do what they want to do, but…
I’ve had zero support from wing, silence whenever a question has needed answering and at its worst advice which has stopped activities when they could have gone ahead…
With everything else I don’t always have the time to read and digest an entire AP and ACTO’s… it would just be nice to have some uncomplicated, clear guidance from someone with a can do attitude.
Maybe my bitterness towards AT stems from poor local leadership…
Nope I understand. But again thanks for patronising again.
Makes me wonder how we teach lowland leader at all in the Corps… there are those that have the quals to do it.
Or god forbid, doesnt have to be the highest qual trainer you can get. A tutor in the NNAS would also be a good example. Any training qual opens up that wing staff member to a “different thinking” and different mindset that being an SME is NOT just about being a paper pushing badge issuing fool. It also involves generating trained volunteer resource.
Also everything is not AT. In fact for most Sqns AT is very little. So let’s focus on.
First aid. Being a trainer is very simple. Even if just HS instructor. Even AFA instructor is not that hard. We have 5 in our wing alone.
Shooting. SAAI.
FT is a FCI or better still T3 qual.
List goes on.
But you just must remember that the world isnt all AT.
Yes, but your blanket statement was ‘all SMEs should be trainers’. It is this statement which I have issue with, as it suggests you don’t really understand the requirements to make such a statement. My intent is not be be patronising but to challenge your somewhat blunt and broad brush statements with some actual detail and facts.
Yes, there are staff that can deliver Lowland Leader - but there are only between 1 and 3 course directors per region.
I am only referring to AT as it is my specialist area, however I am entirely aware that there are other areas where being a trainer is possible, and I don’t just do AT.
It depends on your definition of ‘trainer’ as well. You state SAAI is a trainer - are you referring to qualifying people to deliver an activity at their unit (i.e. providing entry level qualifications), or simply getting people into doing the activity - because that is a whole different ball game and where SMEs should be.
You have 5 staff in your wing that can train staff to become AFA instructors!!
This does not create a useful member of staff, having been trained by any skilly they can’t deliver any training to cadets at that point.
So what do you want?
Wing/Region SMEs that can train staff so they can deliver to cadets. Or those that can train staff and cadets to the same level?
Pretty sure we don’t want 34 people running LLA courses we don’t have the demand. I know that we run the course in SW region as well as out of the NATACs which seems sufficient to me.
I never said all SMEs must be T3 trainers, but they certainly in my opinion we trainers, able to at least generate qualified staff. Trainers. I.e. people who can train staff in a skill they can deliver to cadets on courses.
If there is a T3 in the wing for an area, surely they should be the SME also though. Although I accept some people dont have any interest in policy making etc.
I don’t think that wing SME’s necessarily have to be trainers but I think they should have access to the trainers (obviously) and in an ideal world, be the highest qualified person in the area.
Won’t work perfectly but I think it’s difficult to justify being the expert if there is a bigger expert within your wing.
Exceptions for real world being that sometimes people don’t want wing roles and don’t want to get involved in policy and paperwork and want to get on with their hobby but I think my point still holds a bit of sense…
Erm… but do do this they need to be ‘train the trainer’ staff don’t they? Which is my whole point.
As @themajor said an SAAI can’t generate another useful member of staff - they just put them on the pathway to maybe getting their MCC or K qual.
A WATTO as an ML can’t generate additional useful staff - but they can generate interest and enthusiasm by taking people out on the hills. When they are a Lowland Leader course director (i.e. a train the trainer) then they can generate qualified staff.
I’m not entirely clear what exactly you are asking all of your SMEs in a Wing to be able to do…
You’ve made the written distinction between “Trainers” and “T3” but you’re still blurring the lines.
A Skill at Arms instructor for example is a trainer in your eyes, but yet the only qualification they can generate in staff is a valid WHT. They cannot qualify staff to be able to go away and deliver SAA to cadets.
You can have a host of Skill at Arms SMEs in a Wing who hold SAAI( C) but there is nothing they can do to make more SAAIs. The same is true for a number of other practical areas.
Is there the will and or resource to furnish training staff within what we have in term of those able to deliver, to avoid staff travelling long distances?
If there was a will within the higher organisation, having those staff who deliver QAIC/JL would have been doing it for staff for years. So the real question has to be, why hasn’t it been happening for years?
I would suggest the reasoning is, it’s quite frankly much easier to sell the idea of doing things to cadets than it is staff. Cadets have that exuberance that any of us with kids will have experienced, the “can I …” for whatever has come up school or clubs, and as parents if you can afford it and fit it in you let them do it. My brother and I would come home and ask if I can do this or that at cadets, which meant as we found out much later Dad would swap shifts, as the,n if parents didn’t take you, it didn’t happen. Staff acting as taxis was a rarity. Also with cadets it can be dressed up as having some potential for their future and give them a “badge”. But what’s the ‘sell’ to staff those delivering and those partaking to make it seem worthwhile, without compulsion, either direct or inferred? This has been the case for many years, as with many staff there isn’t the intrinsic basic interest in the subject areas, even when there is the resource is there. You spend a lot of time trying to convince people they should do these things. Every year our WATTO sends out details of courses and every year the uptake is very, very low. There has been a few staff only days, in recent years but they seem to be ‘preaching to the converted’.
How many for instance would do first aid courses if it wasn’t compulsory, even then how many actually use it and begrudgingly do it all again 3 years later? It would be far better to only have those interested doing it. I helped out at a AFA once and of the 12 I would say 4 had any real interest, five said outright they were there because they’d been told they had to be. I’ve got two staff who eventually went after much nagging.
Making something compulsory outside of the things that in a youth group nowadays are de rigeur, like safeguarding, is always a recipe for complacency, as it is people’s spare time. So in all this talk staff “development” I think it should be down to the individual with no fear or favour or retribution. Although with the promotion matrices potential retribution is already here.
Firstly; I don’t think anybody can reasonably expect to join a youth organisation and not expect to do some level of safe guarding.
I think the quantity of safeguarding is proportionate - a day on AVIP and an annual online course… the content can be argued about, but I don’t think anybody can grumble about this.
Secondly; The first aid requirement for staff the bar is pretty low with heartstart. Achievable in a few hours and all CI Bloggs needs should he wish to attend squadron. AFA for those with an interest or wanting to run activities seems proportionate and reasonable to me.
Otherwise the other annual fire training etc doesn’t take long to complete really.
Finally - In some cases staff training returns something tangible, is. A recognised qualification. And I think that is a good way to motivate staff. If learning to deliver bronze leadership courses gained staff ILM for example - some courses do obviously do this already, but a lot don’t.
Ultimately if you have staff that don’t want to do the extra, nothing will make them do it… if CI Bloggs wants to turn up ever Monday and that’s the extent of their commitment you have to accept that - leaning on them to do more will just result in them leaving.
I suppose that the simple answer there is that staff have all volunteered to be part of the organization. If they don’t want to undertake the training which is required for them to perform the role they volunteered for then they can unvolunteer at any time.
Further, those staff who only want to do the basic required training but none of the additional stuff will only ever find themselves given the most basic of responsibilities on a Sqn. If they’re happy with that then that’s great. But if they want to get involved in further activities then they’re just going to have to undertake the additional training. I think most people would expect that.
Most of the staff I meet either already have areas they are keen to pursue or they’re keen to see what’s available and discover what takes their fancy.
In fairness to Teflon, his post seemed accepting of the safeguarding training.
The point of HeartStart being min FA has been covered, but if you want to teach it you have to do the (a) course (options available) - sounds reasonable.
As for JL staff teaching FA, I don’t know the makeup, but doubt they are all FCI(T) and those who are will likely already be involved in training FCIs closer to home. Staff-only FT “training/experience” events haven’t gone down well in the past from my experience.
Those who don’t know FT but want to assist on events and shadow instructors, basically sitting in on lessons and being taught without directly being taught. They become exposed to far more this way than they would if they sat a weekend purely as a student.
A lot of the FT Training on JL is delivered by a small cadre of the staff. When I was a Section Instructor/Assessor, I didn’t deliver the FT lessons, that was done by the team within the team, that did that. I would sit in on those lessons to ensure that I knew what the standards expected of the cadets were. In addition, some aspects of FT were delivered by serving SIs, as they would keep what we delivered up to date with the regular forces.
My role was then to assess them in the field, assessing their leadership and their presentations etc.
I also had a specific role of delivering classroom navigation training.
So, it’s not as if every member of staff on the course is an FCI(T).
Unfortunately wrt to FA, while the basic to be on parade nights is Hearstart to do anything else it’s AFA or not do anything. Which only results in people doing it under sufferance as people like me, need as wide a staff base able to do things as dictated by HQAC constraints. It’s never a reassuring conversation when the ultimate response is “you have to, because (in our case) HQAC say so”, bearing in mind this is a voluntary. You can chuck in the “if you don’t like it …” tack, but be prepared to be find that running a squadron effectively on your own isn’t easy or fun. Try it as Wing Staff and expect a blunt response.
On the “they joined so they have to” vibe, all well and good if you have the infrastructure and the resource to deliver and then people who want to, do each of these aspects. The ability to deliver gap has to be filled first, and with plenty of opportunities. As as we try and do more technical / specialist things in-house, we are not going to encourage people to do things, as either deliverer or recipient as it’s a case of fitting around other volunteers and their lives.
However is this gap really something for volunteers to resolve? I think it should be the salaried people in the Corps to sort out and come up with a long term sustainable solution, that doesn’t totally rely on volunteers (whose circumstances can change in the blink of an eye) or scant armed forces resources, which with changes to the forces and budgetary constraints are not something to rely on. They should have the time and clout to develop the national and nationwide contacts. The more we run around doing more and more, it removes the responsibility from “HQAC” to do anything, as the ‘view from hill’ is everything is hunky dory.
To be honest, I think we should be grateful that we volunteer for an organisation that not only allows us to qualify on a 16hr first aid course, but that the uniformed Cadre actually get paid to attend.
And that’s without the wider discussion about having more people in our society being first aid trained.