This piqued my curiosity so I went to have a look at the response.
And the complete apathy and instant dismissal the suggestion got reminded me why I deleted the channel in the first place. Far too many HQ people are completely detached and have no idea what sqn personnel need and want.
Going back a few years, I started looking into the paid Youth Work sector, somewhat enthused by experience.
The chances of starting without a qualification were very slim, on a not survivable salary for an established worker even with the minimum levels of qual, without means to adequately re-enter education.
It felt strange that a youth organisation didn’t offer/push anything sector-relevant.
Do you mean a qualification such as this?
I don’t know why we don’t consider offering this (or including it as part of PU training)
Edit to add: just looked at the VoP post & it’s this SCC course is what started the debate! 
Do not give up hope!
So it could likewise be tailored to us, or a less specific but relevant course.
I’d imagine the bulk of the actual content in terms of topics and theory is in fact standard, but themes, scenarios, and application have been tailored.
I’ve had a brief chat with somebody who’s done this course. They did it within 6 months of signing up as an SCC instructor. They were an ex-cadet, joined the RN, served for 9 years, then left to pursue a different career path. They thought they knew a lot before because they’d been a cadet - but this course gave them the underpinning knowledge of WHY the cadets worked for them, and how to maximise the impacts of cadets in the lives of the young people in touches.
They confirmed that @Giminion description is spot on. The course content is very easily tweakable to reflect ANY youth group. It was also done in collaboration with the NYA (which might be why we don’t follow it!!).
But going back to the Statement in VoV, why does the training have to be nationally accredited??? It’s not like our mandatory training is.
I certainly think there is scope for this sort of training within RAFAC - and without CVQO being lumped into the mix because it absolutely DOES NOT have to be accreditted (nice if it was - but that often limits the scope of the award, and increases the costs - which then get passed on via CVQO to the CFAV).
Reflecting on my experiences over the last 20+ years, absolutely NONE of the training I have done through RAFAC has actually been about working with young people. How do we understanding things from their perspective. No understanding of how they function; no child psychology. No understanding their perceptions of the modern world. How to energise a group. No guidance on how to coproduce and active and engaging training program. No doing “with not too”. And very limited training around SEN and behaviour management (limited to one x one-way webinar and “here read this ACP” or the new specific support guidance on Sharepoint).
All the stuff I’ve done has come through work or personal learning - because that stuff motivates me. Others have been and gone - and some would really have benefited from that stuff - but don’t have the same learning style as me - they thrive of courses and being taught, rather than having the hunger for self directed learning or learning for the sake of learning.
I just flicked back to the staff training and induction process - just for an insight - and it was very telling. In the current induction process for new staff we’ve got the following as AVIP topics…
With mandatory training cycles around the following…
The ONLY task within the AVIP booklet AND the mandatory training which has any form of cadet engagement is Section 3: Meet the cadets (which then goes on to say “explain various cadet roles, a quick overview of classification and introduction to PTS” (so nothing about actually meeting the cadets at all!!!).
Comparing that to the massive volume of tasks talking about RAF Stations you may never visit, listing locations of VGSs which may be entirely irrelevant if you live too far away, completing HS&EO Form 18, who the Wing Chaplaim and Regional Commandant is…
There’s NOTHING which can help a new starter work with teenagers. There’s some very big assumptions being made within the training system that our noobie member of staff knows and understands young people. The checks and balances about this are a DBS and a Wg Staff interview to see if they get heebie-jeebies about a candidate. No observations of them around young people, no senior cadet on the boarding panel to see if they get heebie-jeebies (and they will have very different feedback from Wg Staff!!) and then complete your probationary X months (without any training on how to engage and interact with young people).
Whilst other elements of RAFAC are evolving (RAF Aspire for example), I think our recruitment and induction processes are very out of step with other youth organisations. I also think our on going staff development processes are very far behind the curve too - which, perhaps, is why we also have retention issues further down the line.
Maybe it’s time for an evolution/revolution.
If I could like this post 10 times I would. Really well said.
This is the best post that I have ever read on ACC.
Please also share it up the CoC and, more importantly, to senior volunteers and any volunteers on here with influence at HQAC. Teaching staff how to work with cadets would be hugely helpful and will evolve over time. Personally I’d find this really useful, despite being a CFAV for ‘cough’ many years…
Yep, well said. I actually tried to secure a role doing initial/ongoing staff training in my Wing, as it related strongly to my day job. They weren’t really interested, preferring to let the existing mishmash of ad-hoc training proceed with little guidance (mostly fell on the local OC to handle everything). Maybe a proper directive from the top to sort this out properly and make sure SMEs get heard would improve things.
Hear chuffing hear.
I’d agree that this post genuinely needs passing up the chain through formal channels. If you’re worried about anonymity I’m sure one of the officially “out” members would be happy to do so.
I think I’ve always known this in my heart but to see it put down so clearly is actually quite shocking. We’re charged with helping to shape young men and women but get no formal training on dealing with children/teenagers and the specific needs they have. Fortunately I’ve recieved some of this by being invited to inset days at the school I volunteer at for CCF but it really should be part of our induction. Pretty much anything could be binned from OIC to make space for this.
For 15 quid though…
Not to distract from the remainder of your incredibly strong and well constructed argument, proper investment in staff training could come with suitably negotiated/subsidised nominal costs that many would be happy to carry.
We want leaders, but charge people for it. We want educators, but charge people for it. Not inconsequential amounts.
We need first aiders (by law/best practice), so provide a free course with options for nominal fee upgrades.
The organisation needs to recognise that it does NEED these other things and should more adequately invest in these areas.
We should value specific leadership skills such as volunteer management, yet there’s nothing.
We absolutely need people trained to work with young people, yet we are…
So we have an organisation that constantly restricts a delivery team with finite available time that it hasn’t properly trained leaving predominantly enthusiastic and (mostly) skillful amateurs who sometimes get it wrong so it therefore doesn’t trust them which causes increased restrictions further imposing time constraints…
Tbf though, it doesn’t even trust volunteers in areas that it does offer training in or are governed by NGBs.
It’s an absolutely nuts situation of our (leadership’s) own making.
…
“Oh but what if they leave”
Most businesses learned a long time ago that the (correctly focused and targeted) time and financial investment you make into staff is ultimately worth it in productivity, quality, retention, and attractiveness to potential hires - even if you lose a few along the way.
While we’re left with a training (and procedural) ethos of “you must know (do) this or you’re unsafe” instead of “we’re going to teach you this to help you be effective”.
Exactly what I was trying to think of!
For some additional balance, there are often comments around how disinterested people are in courses and training and it’s true that we wouldn’t catch many of the older or longer-serving CFAV, but we absolutely should be providing for and pushing younger members towards these kinds of things and anyone else that’s picked up is a bonus. Shape the organisation of the future in a way that you can’t right now - investment in progress, not change. Newer/younger members with less experience, longer ahead of them, and not having had the life and energy sucked out are more likely amenable to training.
Certain roles should be contingent on completing volunteer management (at least within a certain time if not already held, but available in advance), etc - much like certain roles already need relevant SME training and experience.
I agree. The training should be available to all, but only mandatory to new starters or when taking on specified new roles.
I’ll try to post some more considered thoughts after work, but an excellent post that hits many nails head on…
Wonderful thread full of genuinely progressive and productive ideas. It therefore follows that none of you will reach senior leadership level (unless you’ve already snuck in)
Oh I abandoned all hope of that at least a decade ago
