# Army Cadet Red Star Program materials - Comments?



## cdn031 (1 Feb 2009)

CIC Officers , CI et al

Here I've been deeply immersed in getting the senior Cadets ready for the NSCE, I just noticed the arrival of a box of materials - the "New" red star program. - Pounds and pounds of it...

I was completely unimpressed by the Green Star materials last year - I find the content to be unengaging for the age group, unteachable in structure and coma inducing at best - but I was willing to forgive a first effort as - well, a first effort. I secretly hoped a set of revisions would magically appear.

On first inspection it appears that "they" have done it to us again. Gosh these are awful materials (in my humble but experienced-in-both-military-and-corporate-training opinion).  The Fieldcraft section alone is a dramatic "dumbing down" of field living. (for a real chuckle, read about the dangers of coyote attack - clearly the author has never even SEEN a coyote...)

So here's the ask - seek out these materials, have a "cover to cover "review and let us see what we think. If it's good, lets call it good, but if its crap lets call it out in a polite but firm way up the chain of command.

I think we can do better...


----------



## rwgill (3 Feb 2009)

Have you sent anything up the chain of command yet if you are that upset? 

My only concern is planning for FTXs.  The field periods must be done in the field.  That's fine.  Where I see a problem is being able to train on a FTX according to levels and not as sections.  I may not have the numbers and instructors to do the training effectively.  I'll wait until Silver Star comes out to see if I will definately encounter problems.

What exactly do you see as dumbing down?

The big bonus this year has been the complimentary periods and flexibility.  To date, we had to cancel training on two nights (elections and snow storm).  I was able to reschedule everything lickity split by removing extra complimentary periods.


----------



## cdn031 (4 Feb 2009)

Edited to correct a really screwed up / partial post - sorry



			
				rwgill said:
			
		

> Have you sent anything up the chain of command yet if you are that upset?


I'm going to but I'm pausing to give it a full read  - I've got an example which I wrote out in full and somehow lost in the posting process (hmmmm) 
I'll re-do


----------



## rwgill (4 Feb 2009)

Huh?


----------



## cdn031 (4 Feb 2009)

rwgill said:
			
		

> What exactly do you see as dumbing down?



The CPU is rich in formating and structure - and poor in actual content. It seems that there has been little effort put into actually securing compelling content from subject matter experts. 

Let me give a specific example - In the Stove / Lantern part of Field craft we now have a whole bunch of pictures of various gear harvested from the Canadian Tire and Mountain Equipment Co-op websites. There is little to no content on operation of these devices or how they are best incorporated into field living.  "This is a Stove", "This is a Lantern" is the content.

Do we really thing that handing the kids a MEC catalog will prepare them to live in the field?  We should do better.


----------



## rwgill (4 Feb 2009)

GridNorth said:
			
		

> Let me give a specific example - In the Stove / Lantern part of Field craft we now have a whole bunch of pictures of various gear harvested from the Canadian Tire and Mountain Equipment Co-op websites. There is little to no content on operation of these devices or how they are best incorporated into field living.  "This is a Stove", "This is a Lantern" is the content.
> 
> Do we really thing that handing the kids a MEC catalog will prepare them to live in the field?  We should do better.



Here's the story.

Cadet Corps across Canada use a variety of equipment when training.  I draw equipment from Connaught.  The stoves are Coleman naptha stoves, naptha lanterns, the tents are MEC, the rucksacs are either 64 or 82 pattern.  Another Cadet Corps may use generic propane stoves, battery lanterns, reccee tents and Canadian Tire type rucksacs.  The Cadet Organization is using a variety of equipment.  The CPU acknoledges that and so accordingly has allowed for flexibility.  It is up to the instructor to determine what is relevant and what is not AND the instructor is responsible to get any additional lesson information.  Don't you remember Must Knows, Should Knows, Could Knows?

What's the use of teaching a cadet how to use a Coleman lantern when there isn't one available to use to teach the lesson and the cadet may never come across one?


----------



## cdn031 (4 Feb 2009)

If you pick up a content rich book, like Jacobson's  excellent "Expedition Canoeing" 
http://www.amazon.ca/Expedition-Canoeing-20th-Anniversary-America/dp/076273809X you don't see Cliff Jacobson simply list out "This is a stove"  he and other good authors may give an example and discuss the basic principles, like pressurized Naphtha stoves. This is helpful because it can be generalized.
The principles of safe fuel based lantern handling can be generalized regardless of make.

We buy standard Coleman Naphtha based stoves and lanterns for the Cadet corps because they are what Cadets are most likely to run into in the field / camp etc. (Plus Naphtha is environmentally superior to batteries or propane tanks, but that's another issue)

I raised this Stove / lantern issue as an example of "dumbing down" the content. Different cadet corps may have access to different gear, but not providing ANY content means that 450 Army Cadet corps  each have to come up with their own content. This is a huge waste.


----------



## sapperboysen (5 Feb 2009)

If the red star program is like the green star program (which I am sure it will be), disappointment will be assured on my part. I found (as an instructor) the green star program update to be long and overly complicated. The fact that it takes up a large D ring binder makes it impractical for instructors to plan lessons with it. Gone are the days where one could turn to the reference book to plan a lesson in a pinch. The logistics of having massive tombs to haul out to do a green, and now soon to be red star lesson, are impractical and lead to literal line ups in our office, wasting prep time. 

Not having an updated green star book to hand to the cadets has, in my opinion, led to reduced learning outcomes. Having that little green book can be a lesson saver for a cadet who needs more time than provided to absorb the information or learns more effectively by reading. That book has also been the best way to convey dress standards other than to print out hand outs, which is a waste of paper every time a cadet gets a new badge. 

It would be my hope that the bugs of the new green star program would be ironed out before any attempt is made at releasing the new red star program. To not do so would be contrary to the goals of the CPU.


----------



## Triscuits (23 Mar 2009)

Personally, i am a cadet and i teach the new red star program at my corps and i don't find it as bad as you mention. it actually makes everyones life easier by having lesson plans almost made saving time for the seniors and officers, and for people who are just thrown into a class last minute it makes it easier on them to prepare and teach because they may not necissarly know anything about what they are teaching. my rsm is sitting here too and she agrees with me. it is different from what we are use to and what we did teach but that is the goal of the new program, they are trying to make things easier, and more involved for the cadets. Being in high school the last thing i want to do after sitting in a class room for hours is sit in another one on my free time and be bored out of my mind and the new program tries to make it so i dont have to die of bordom during another lesson... although the new program is great it does have its flaws, like the lessons we didn't have that i dont think we need, we dont have refrence manuals for cadets, its not on the internet so you have to copy stuff to make a lesson mutual and well the list goes on, but all together i kind of like the new program and you have to give it a chance. its trying to help the cadets learn and fighting with it is just going to make things more complicated for you to teach the cadets...thats all about it....bye


----------



## Burrows (23 Mar 2009)

That would be so much nicer with proper capitals, sentences, removal of the comma splices, and paragraph formatting.

There have always been lesson plans that were ready made.  Back with the old program, they did put out Master Lesson Plans.  Keep in mind that a pre-made plan is exactly that.  You, as an instructor, need to take it and make it your own.  Walk it like you own it.


----------



## rwgill (23 Mar 2009)

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> That would be so much nicer with proper capitals, sentences, removal of the comma splices, and paragraph formatting.


  I am trying to figure out how one can be teaching the Red Star program today, that only begins in Sep 2009. ???


----------



## catalyst (24 Mar 2009)

I have seen some of the CSTC courses and I have to say.........wow. Good stuff.


----------



## Burrows (24 Mar 2009)

rwgill said:
			
		

> I am trying to figure out how one can be teaching the Red Star program today, that only begins in Sep 2009. ???


I'm a bit out of date now, unfortunately.  Perhaps its a pilot though?


----------



## cdn031 (26 Mar 2009)

Catalyst said:
			
		

> I have seen some of the CSTC courses and I have to say.........wow. Good stuff.



Do tell more!  What I have seen is underwhelming - but that is limited to the green and red star. everything else has been hidden away in the basement behind the tiger (grin) - my point being that the process has not been transparent. The Cadet program senior leadership is following the assumption that Subject matter experts are only found/available for contract  in seclusion (at Trenton I believe?) and that there is no value in transparency or comment by smart folks in the system and outside of it. shame.

The source document I would LOVE to see be made available is the study that led to the age segmentation for learning styles etc. (We got the comic book four page laminated version) . Seems the boots on the ground in the system (CIC and CIs in the average cadet corps) are considered too dumb to digest such academic work... (forgive my bitter edge today!)

Add to this that in order for the kids to have anything to refer back to, each corps is going to need to buy a photocopier and start creating their own aide memoires (sp?)

I had high hopes that this would be more that an effort in excellent formatting - that content would be king - but that does not seem to be the priority. 

Now to redeem it all we do have a few brave souls looking at challenging optional training. Lets hope that sees the light of day. Thank heavens for the dedicated local corps staff!

(sorry Kyle my punctuation is in a sad state today! I rather liked your recently published work on the motorcade to St Cats passing thru - nicely done!)


----------



## rwgill (26 Mar 2009)

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> I'm a bit out of date now, unfortunately.  Perhaps its a pilot though?


Somehow, I don't think so, but there isn't really anyway to tell.


----------



## Burrows (27 Mar 2009)

rwgill said:
			
		

> Somehow, I don't think so, but there isn't really anyway to tell.


Either way, MLPs aren't doing anyone any good if they're being used instead of instructors building their own. 

Thanks, GridNorth.  I wondered if anyone from the corps would read it.  It was an amazing sight to see.  I wish I could be there for more - with luck there will be no more to be present for, though.


----------



## catalyst (28 Mar 2009)

GridNorth said:
			
		

> Do tell more!  What I have seen is underwhelming - but that is limited to the green and red star. everything else has been hidden away in the basement behind the tiger (grin) - my point being that the process has not been transparent. The Cadet program senior leadership is following the assumption that Subject matter experts are only found/available for contract  in seclusion (at Trenton I believe?) and that there is no value in transparency or comment by smart folks in the system and outside of it. shame.
> 
> The source document I would LOVE to see be made available is the study that led to the age segmentation for learning styles etc. (We got the comic book four page laminated version) . Seems the boots on the ground in the system (CIC and CIs in the average cadet corps) are considered too dumb to digest such academic work... (forgive my bitter edge today!)
> 
> ...



Keep in mind this is coming from a jr officer who taught on the army side .......

I like hte instructors guides, more detailed than the old CL one
More streamlined with training
More age-appropriate material (i'm pretty sure I saw the document but cna't remember where)
More leadership thats not so much of a repeat in the basic leadership course
No longer a "filler course" (CL)
The courses do a better job of building a foundation for future CSTC courses

There are a lot of "local officers" on CPU writing boards. Unfortunatley there are only so many spaces.


----------



## Triscuits (1 Apr 2009)

sorry about the punctuation and spelling but w/e im like 16 and english isn't my best subject...but anyway to the question why my corps is starting the red star program already is because our trg o thought it would be best...i dunno but im not going to argue because it seems to be working, everyone is involved and it doesn't seem to be boring my cadets to death and that's all that matters right? oh and the fact that they are actually learning easier because of the more hands on approach and with that learning and remembering the curriculum better.


----------



## Burrows (1 Apr 2009)

wo_42 said:
			
		

> sorry about the punctuation and spelling but w/e im like 16 and english isn't my best subject...but anyway to the question why my corps is starting the red star program already is because our trg o thought it would be best...i dunno but im not going to argue because it seems to be working, everyone is involved and it doesn't seem to be boring my cadets to death and that's all that matters right? oh and the fact that they are actually learning easier because of the more hands on approach and with that learning and remembering the curriculum better.



Incompetence is not an excuse. As a Warrant Officer, I hope this isn't an example you're setting for your Jr. NCO's.

If you've managed to scrape by high school English, you should be able to at least use capitals and punctuation correctly.  Start doing so now.  Web speak and lack of determination to at the very least try is not respected, nor will it be tolerated here.

Army.ca Staff


----------

