GBA+ training

[Eye In The Sky]

it was designed with females in mind and its feminist focuses and blah blah blah. This is not what GBA+ is all about, at all.

You'd never know that, looking at the discriminatory remarks Remius made in this thread!  rly:






;D

 

[Jarnhamar]

t confirmed a few common sense policies but also pointed me to other issues I would never have thought of.

Could you elaborate?

 

[Gunner98]

For context we should look at the history of GBA since it dates back 20+ years and is not something 'new'.  It has been 7+ years since the Privy Council added the + that includes: the consideration of other identity factors such as age, education, language, geography, culture and income.  So it was about Women but now it is not only about Women.
Source: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/history-histoire-en.html

Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1981.CEDAW requires state parties to take measures to eliminate discrimination in political, economic and social life.

In 1995, Canada adopted the UN Beijing Platform for Action which requires all member states to "seek to ensure that before policy decisions are taken, an analysis of their impact on women and men, respectively, is carried out."

Also in 1995, in accordance with these international obligations, the Government of Canada committed to conducting Gender-based Analysis (now called Gender-based Analysis Plus) on all future legislation, policies and programs.

This commitment led to the implementation of Gender-based Analysis (GBA) in several departments, though different areas of government proceeded at different rates with differing results.

In 2009, the Auditor General of Canada conducted an audit of GBA in nine departments. The audit found uneven implementation of GBA and little evidence of its influence on decision-making.

As a result of the audit, Status of Women Canada along with the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat were required to table the Departmental Action Plan on GBA to Parliament. This plan increases the federal government's accountability for GBA.

Since then, Status of Women Canada has launched the modernization of GBA to GBA+. This updated approach emphasizes the consideration of other identity factors such as age, education, language, geography, culture and income.

Analysis that incorporates gender and these other diverse, intersecting factors is called GBA+.

GBA+ is used by the Government of Canada, but it is used by many other governments, organizations and companies also.

 

[Loachman]

Perhaps a more inclusive name for the programme is in order, that better describes it while not annoying many people, such as "Human Factors Analysis".

 

[Jarnhamar]

Perhaps a more inclusive name for the programme is in order, that better describes it while not annoying many people, such as "Human Factors Analysis".

I was going to say the same thing.

 

[Flavus101]

Perhaps a more inclusive name for the programme is in order, that better describes it while not annoying many people, such as "Human Factors Analysis".

But then the optics would be all off for those that "matter"....

 

[Strike]

But then the optics would be all off for those that "matter"....

Dude, seriously?  With that comment right there we can all tell that you have yet to take the training.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

IMHO what a joke this GBA+ training is, I just hit do the test and got 90%...

 

[Happy Guy]

Perhaps a more inclusive name for the programme is in order, that better describes it while not annoying many people, such as "Human Factors Analysis".

GBA and HFA are two different things.

Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=human+factors+analysis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=04TaWKnwON-AkgWVk7TgDw
The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) identifies the human causes of an accident and provides a tool to assist in the investigation process and target training and prevention efforts.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm not 100% sold on GBA+ training being pushed down to the private corporal level (or even a bit higher) but I'd suggest taking a 'Bystander training' approach might be a hell of a lot more effective than forcing members to do an online quiz.  One where they can either share answer via cheat sheet or challenge the test.

 

[Loachman]

GBA and HFA are two different things.

Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=human+factors+analysis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=04TaWKnwON-AkgWVk7TgDw
The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) identifies the human causes of an accident and provides a tool to assist in the investigation process and target training and prevention efforts.

Yes, and I know - we do the same thing in Flight Safety as well.

I didn't have any interest in putting a lot of thought to a new name, but don't think that the current one is brilliant so just threw that out.

 

[Flavus101]

Dude, seriously?  With that comment right there we can all tell that you have yet to take the training.

Apologies, my post wasn't clear.

When I stated those that matter I meant all the government folks who use the naming and framing of programs to gain political points.

I have taken the "training", I personally think it is a poor excuse for the word training, like jarnhamar I felt the Bystander method of training was much more effective. I've completed it twice actually as the first time I did it was simply to help explain to a few PLQ candidates why it was relevant to their course and then I had to complete it again a couple months later so that I could print off proof of completion (being silly and not doing that the first time).

 

[Strike]

Apologies, my post wasn't clear.

When I stated those that matter I meant all the government folks who use the naming and framing of programs to gain political points.

I have taken the "training", I personally think it is a poor excuse for the word training, like jarnhamar I felt the Bystander method of training was much more effective. I've completed it twice actually as the first time I did it was simply to help explain to a few PLQ candidates why it was relevant to their course and then I had to complete it again a couple months later so that I could print off proof of completion (being silly and not doing that the first time).

Coolio.  ;D

 

[McG]

Perhaps a more inclusive name for the programme is in order, that better describes it while not annoying many people, such as "Human Factors Analysis".

I proposed "Diversity Based Analysis" because I noticed that is what the course claimed it was about.  I noticed a lot of people go into the course with opinions formed and minds closed because of the "G".  The course also contributed unnecessary pages to explaining that it was about more than "G" and that it was not an employment equity course.  When the name of your programme closes minds and causes confusion as to aims, then it may be time to come up with a new name.

IMHO what a joke this GBA+ training is, I just hit do the test and got 90%...

I also noticed that most people seem to be taking this route of skipping the training and passing the test.  If you actually take the training, there is an interesting teaching point that states organizations should create their own tailored training as opposed to relying on generic packages.  ... good thing we are using the generic government of Canada package and not something CAF or L1 specific.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I proposed "Diversity Based Analysis" because I noticed that is what the course claimed it was about.  I noticed a lot of people go into the course with opinions formed and minds closed because of the "G".  The course also contributed unnecessary pages to explaining that it was about more than "G" and that it was not an employment equity course.  When the name of your programme closes minds and causes confusion as to aims, then it may be time to come up with a new name.
I also noticed that most people seem to be taking this route of skipping the training and passing the test.  If you actually take the training, there is an interesting teaching point that states organizations should create their own tailored training as opposed to relying on generic packages.  ... good thing we are using the generic government of Canada package and not something CAF or L1 specific.

Well I did skim over the material....

 

[Loachman]

I proposed "Diversity Based Analysis" because I noticed that is what the course claimed it was about.  I noticed a lot of people go into the course with opinions formed and minds closed because of the "G".  The course also contributed unnecessary pages to explaining that it was about more than "G" and that it was not an employment equity course.  When the name of your programme closes minds and causes confusion as to aims, then it may be time to come up with a new name.

A perfect match to my opinion.

 

[dapaterson]

... good thing we are using the generic government of Canada package and not something CAF or L1 specific.

The challenge: How long would it / will it take the CAF to develop its own material?  Would it be better to wait for something better, or to cross the start line with a 65% solution while working on our own?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The challenge: How long would it / will it take the CAF to develop its own material?  Would it be better to wait for something better, or to cross the start line with a 65% solution while working on our own?

I would say *wait*.  A 65% solution isn't a solution IMO. 

 

[McG]

It is a little of column A and a little of column B.  WO and offr should be able to take the generic course and apply it.  As a prerequisite to PLQ, it is not helping.  But, as noted in the CANFORGEN, this training has been made a prerequisite for NCO leadership courses but it is integrated into officer leadership courses.  I assume the generic Government of Canada package is not what is being taught in either Army or Joint staff colleges.  Have we really not had time to make our own training package yet?

 

[dapaterson]

It is a little of column A and a little of column B.  WO and offr should be able to take the generic course and apply it.  As a prerequisite to PLQ, it is not helping.  But, as noted in the CANFORGEN, this training has been made a prerequisite for NCO leadership courses but it is integrated into officer leadership courses.  I assume the generic Government of Canada package is not what is being taught in either Army or Joint staff colleges.  Have we really not had time to make our own training package yet?

Well, it's seven years since DND bought the old Nortel buildings, and the first folks are just getting settled in.  If it takes that long to move across town...