Questions for Scout Leader Trainers.

[Twocubdad 665]

It's probably unfair to debate training issues using the worst course in the BSA arsenal -- Youth Protection -- as an example. In the case of YP training I don't see a huge loss if a Scouter is given the YP tape and told to report back when they've viewed it. I assume that whether or not they actually watch the tape isn't an issue, a Scout being trustworthy and all. Frankly, Steeleman, I'll probably shoot myself well before watching Cordelia et. al. 50 times. But in the 6-8 times I have seen it, I have yet to see a meaningful discussion take place in the three minutes allotted in the video. While I recognize that an uncontrolled, open-ended discussion can turn an 80-minute session into a two-and-a-half hour slugfest, the "good" discussion sessions I've seen all took place with the VCR off and answered questions not covered or left unclear by the video. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them.

 

But as I said, YP, as currently presented, is probably a poor example. That topic does lend itself to self-study as evidenced by the online version, which I think is vastly superior to the video.

 

Generally, though, I'm not suggesting that all training become self-study -- just the opposite. My questions to Bob were largely rhetorical. I think live trainers (not just presenters) are very important to the overall training experience. (And with the exception of New Leaders' Essentials, I disagree that the courses are now primarily video and PowerPoint presentations.) But Bob, you said it best when you wrote that "a live presenter can be more responsive to the needs of the trainees." I simply think that responsiveness should be one of the more important attributes of a good trainer.

 

I believe this whole argument has become one of semantics; that is, what does it mean to "stick to the syllabus?" I think a good trainer should be able to adapt the course to his audience and still stick to the syllabus. It is not a black and white issue. The syllabus is, after all, an outline, not a script. Adapting doesn't mean arbitrarily adding or deleting material. It doesn't mean inserting your personal opinion. (And there is a difference between personal opinion and personal experience or observation. "Monthly themes in 'Program Helps' are stupid and we never use them" is personal opinion. "Although some Packs don't use the monthly themes, there is still a lot of good resource info in 'Program Helps,'" is an accurate, valid observation.)

 

Look at it this way: a typical course syllabus contains maybe 10 subject headings. As written, they all carry equal weight. Obviously, common sense and experience tells me that some things like YP and health and safety should always be emphasized. But what's wrong with a trainer placing more or less emphasis on a given subject, depending on the needs of the class?

 

Say you're teaching Cubmaster position specific. Your class consists of five impeccably uniformed Scouters. Through the short introductions and the number of training knots visible to you, you realize that any one of these folks are just as qualified to teach the class as you are. Do you still spend 10 minutes playing the uniform game? Or do you ask a few quick questions about uniforming and move on. Perhaps you move up a level take that time and talk about conducting a pack uniform inspection. Or setting up a uniform closet for the pack. Or maybe you just move on and use that time for a topic of more interest to the class. And, no, I don't use the time to carp about how cheap the pants are. (And because I'm sure you will point this out, Bob, if someone in the course is a complete rookie, I would stick to the original outline covering the basics, even if the others in the class know the material.)

 

Have I followed the absolute letter of the syllabus? No. Did I add things not in the book? Yes. Did my student benefit from it? I sure think so.

 

[dsteele 20]

I could be shot for heresy, but that's never stopped me before. It's also why segments of my family were asked to leave the Emerald Isle . . .

 

I agree that training has the flexibility, in the hands of capable trainers, to be adapted to the audience. I've done it myself.

 

To expound on the above example, we once had a group of about 6 very experiennced Scouters who wanted to take Commissioner Basic, but were either unable or unwilling to give up an entire Saturday. The staff and I discussed it and we condensed the syllabus to a little over 3 hours. We didn't leave anything out, but with 6 knowledgeable Scouters it's difficult or impracticle to do the breakout sessions and some of the 30-45 minute sessions were able to cover the material in 10-15 minutes. Is that strictly following the syllabus? No. But I signed their trained cards with a clear conscience. I signed them because we had given those scouters the necessary tools to do the job. That was our intent as trainers.

 

What I don't agree with are 4 hour syllabi that are covered in a 6 hour period. I remember when Cub Leader Basic was shortened from 8 hours to 4 hours. It amazed me that there were still several 8 hour courses -- using the new syllabus. Okay, sometimes there are questions that might extend the time a topic takes. But what did they teach in the other 3.5 hours? I don't know.

[Bob White 20]

I guess I would have to ask why such seasoned capable scouters were taking a basic level course. A)They have never been trained , so although they may be experienced, perhaps they realized it was the wrong experience. B) They are well trained but have not been through training recently and want to brush up on the current program. C) They are taking the course to see how to instruct it as trainers.

 

In every case they came needing to see the full course, an edited version would not fulfill there needs regardless of why they are attending. Basic training is not the place to teach advanced program information. That's why the training is a continuum. As they progress through various levels they learn specific levels of information.

 

It is important that leaders participating in training, especially at the basic level, are presented with the same information regardless of who the trainer is and where the training is taken. For a being a national program it is amazing how little continuity exists among similarly trained leaders. Just look at the wide variety of methods expressed on this board from similarly trained leaders all using the same book. The reason I believe is that too many trainers each alter the course "just a little" then the person who is trained alters it a little more, and so on down the line until what happens at the unit level resembles scouting in uniform only.

 

As far as Youth Protection the reason that the discussion can never be done in three minutes is that it's not a discussion. The syllabus instructs the presenter to ask specific question and listen for specific responses. It's a spot check, a test to see if the learners are learning. This is not the time to field questions from the audience. That can take place after the program. This is the same reason why you cannot take the tape home for self study. You have to make sure the learner has learned before you authorize the training record. In addition there is localized information that the learner needs that is not in the tape. That's why now that the course is on line you must use your own council's link to take the course. It allows the local council to input local information, score the test results to insure learning took place and to record the training locally.

 

My 2 cents,

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Overtrained 10]

BW,

 

My council training committee is working on their "vision" (Wood Badge term). In the brainstorming, many things came up, but one thought intriqued me and I thought this was the most appropriate place to bring it up.

 

"Our job is to train leaders, not run training" This is out of our training guide. We've discussed training in terms of courses here, but how do we reach that untrained leader who can't or doesn't attend training courses?

 

Bob

[FScouter 24]

Some people seek out training and ask for it. Others will come to your course if you publicize it with a flashy printed flyer, especially if you offer refreshments. Others are willing, but sit back until someone invites them. Still others require that you make a sales pitch and sell them on the benefits. You say some leaders cant come to a training course? Maybe its more difficult for some than for others. So you make an appointment with them and go to their house and present the training on a personal level. Then there is the self-study method whereby you let the leader read and study the training materials on his own time and at his own convenience.

 

Like it says at the bottom of every page of the Leadership Training Guide, Your job is training leaders not running training courses. The manner in which the training is delivered is not what is important. It is the learning that takes place that is what really counts.

 

[dsteele 20]

Fscouter--

 

Daggone it! You are hearby sentenced to come to my council and assume the (volunteer of course) duties of whatever you want to do!

 

I'm trying to say that I like your answers. Especially the implication that if people won't come to the trainers, the trainers need to go to them. I've advocated that position for years and have done it myself, but it seems like a lot of people are unwilling to do so as trainers.

 

Your post, to me at least, does not imply that the training should be watered down or have parts eliminated from the syllabus. Nor does it advocate sticking to the syllabus above all else. Nor does it advocate adding stuff the participants don't need or aren't looking for. Correct me if I'm wrong . . . but I think we're on the same page.

 

I think we need to be "customer aware" when delivering training. To say, if I don't have 16 participants, we're not going to hold the training, may address budgetary and logicistical issues, and are not illegitmate, but that doesn't mean we can't find another way, even if it's inconvenient for us as trainers, to do what's important in getting the leaders who work with Scouting youth the necessary training to do their jobs.

 

Way to go and good job.

 

DS

[Twocubdad 665]

Ditto to what DS, FScouter. Well said.

 

Bob, I apologize for not responding to your questions. I'm not sure how the thread dropped, because I do enjoy our jousts. But before I respond, let me begin by noting that, once again, in 95% of the cases, I agree with you completely. Most classes are going to be diverse groups of people with varying experience levels. In that event, a trainer needs to stick closely to the syllabus and make sure the basics are covered -- "Leave No Scouter Behind" to mangle the current edu-babble catch phrase.

 

But in very narrow instances -- my scenario or FScouter's example of holding a session for an individual -- there is nothing wrong with adapting the order, emphasis or length of the training. Note I didn't say content. We should stick to BSA program and policy -- I'm only talking about varying the method.

 

Just to follow through, I'd suggest the D) answer to your question: these five highly capable guys are taking a basic Scouting course because they are changing positions and it's required of them. Maybe they've been in Cub Scouting 4-5 years as a den leader and are moving up to Cubmaster or assistant. Logically you would expect most people taking the Cubmaster course are exprienced Scouters. I know some folks are rank newbies jumping into a Cubmaster role (such as with a newly formed pack), but at minimum I think it reasonable to expect a higher experience level in a Cubmaster course than, say, Tiger Den Leader.

 

It is noteworthy that you refer to the Cubmaster position specific course as a "basic" course. That's unfortunately true. All the Cub Scout leader courses are basic, in my opinion. When Cub Scout Basic Leader Training was dropped in favor of New Leader Essentials and the position-specific courses, much of the basic material from the joint session of CSBLT was pushed into the position specific classes. That makes sense if you assume everyone is taking their first class. But by the time you move through the ranks from Tiger to Den Leader to Webelos Leader to Cubmaster or pack committee, the pin-the-badge-on-the-Cub-Scout game sure gets old. I hope this is something national takes a look the next time they tweak the Cub Scout courses.

[Bob White 20]

I never said or suggested not to meet the needs of the participants or answer any questions that arise. Only that each training module has a specific purpose for existing and a specific content that must be shared each time it is presented.

 

My experience training Cub leaders in multiple councils does not jive with your assumption that most Cubmasters come from experienced den leaders. Although some do, my experience is the vast majority do not. Den leaders are nearly always a parent of a scout in that den and they tend to stay with the same den through Webelos, and then leave pack scouting when their son does.

 

The majority of Cubmasters that I have known, worked with, and trained were either new to scouting, came up from the committee, or served previously as assistant cubmasters.

 

There is nothing wrong with the Cubmaster training being a basic one. Everyone has to start somewhere no matter what their role, and the responsibilities, goals, and resources for being the CM are vastly different from those of a den leader. Being a Den Leader no more prepares you to be a Cubmaster than being an Eagle Scout prepares you for being a Scoutmaster.

 

Imagine if every little league coach taught the basics of baseball differently. If each team had a different idea of the rules, the scoring, the positions etc. How could two teams ever have a game together that made sense? How could a player go from one team to another without having to learn the game all over again? What if each player on the same team had a different understanding of how the game was played?

 

The coach has ample opportunities to instill his/her own methods in how he or she teaches and motivates. They can even customize plays that stay within the boundaries set by the league. But they have a resposibility to the players and to the league to teach the same fundementals to everyone so that everybody understands the same game.

 

A Scouting trainer is no different.

 

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[dsteele 20]

Bob:

 

I concurr. Good answer.

 

Although I do have to admit I don't know a darn thing about coaching baseball.

 

I'm not against the game, I just struggle to understand why, if the goal is to get back to where you started, you bother to run in a circle to get to where you were in the first place.

 

besides, I'd rather watch a string burning contest on television than a baseball game any day. The baseball game is, to me, as exciting as watching the grass grow. String burning involves fire. Hee-hee-hee.

 

DS

[Bob White 20]

Thanks DS I was startin' to think you didn't like me.

 

BW(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Twocubdad 665]

Bob writes, "The coach has ample opportunities to instill his/her own methods in how he or she teaches and motivates. They can even customize plays that stay within the boundaries set by the league. But they have a resposibility to the players and to the league to teach the same fundementals to everyone so that everybody understands the same game."

 

EXACTLY!

 

Not only is a good coach going to customize his teaching methods to suit his players, but will also adapt his practice sessions to work on he parts of the game where the team is lacking. If you have a team full of sluggers who can't catch a ball in a bushel basket, do you still spend half your practice time on batting? That doesn't mean you ignore batting, but you certainly change the basic practice schedule to emphasize fielding.

 

I'm not suggesting trainers should have license to teach their own version of the program. A Scout trainer telling his class that Scout pants are an optional part of the uniform because he doesn't like them is no different that a baseball coach telling his to skip first and second base and just run to third. There is a big difference between teaching wrong information or skipping important elements of a course versus simply adapting your presentation to the knowledge and experience of your audience.

 

What's worse, someone who just "wings it" or someone who reads every word of the outline, regardless of the needs and questions of the class. Either way, not much learning is taking place. As the Man of Steele said, "training has the flexibility, in the hands of capable trainers, to be adapted to the audience."

 

 

[dsteele 20]

Bob:

 

I hope you were kidding about me not liking you. Of course I like ya, dude! I'm just not about to call you honey! Anytime you want to come to a council I serve, or need me to serve a council where you are, just let me know. If I can do it, I'll be there. Mrs. Steele says anywhere in the Midwest is fine. Northeast Region would take some convincing, but it's doable. Western Region (as long as it's not California) I could possibly persuade . . . Southern Region (first of all, they wouldn't let me in, but that's a different story) is not on the map of places for us to go . . .

 

Back to the topic --

 

Is it just me, or do Scouting topics -- either online or in actual meetings -- seem to take longer when we're all doing what I call "vehemently agreeing?"

 

Not that I'm trying to end this topic, I'm not. I think it's a good one.

 

It's just an observation.

 

DS

[Twocubdad 665]

Hmmmm, I don't know about that. The gay threads tend to argue against that, but I understand your point.

 

In 98% of situations, the "book" answer is the correct one. But I think those last couple of percentage points call for more flexibility and adaptability. Because we are talking about the last few percentiles, by definition we are splitting hairs leading to some fairly arcane -- and verbose -- threads.

[Eagledad 2779]

>>Just look at the wide variety of methods expressed on this board from similarly trained leaders all using the same book. The reason I believe is that too many trainers each alter the course "just a little" then the person who is trained alters it a little more, and so on down the line until what happens at the unit level resembles scouting in uniform only.

[Bob White 20]

Barry writes"Assume one trainer comes from an adult driven Eagle Mill troop, another comes from a boy led Troop. One comes from an age based patrol troop, the other comes from a aged mixed patrol method troop. The training material is so basic that training between the two shouldn't change much. The questions that come up during the training will pull the differences."

 

This is where the quality of the trainer plays a big role. A good trainer teaches the BSA program not the program they lead as a leader.I would hope that a leder who did not follow the program would not be selected for the training team, or if they did get chosen, the topics they presented were controlled by the training coordinator.

 

Another point Barry offered was "And I know National understands this because they give so much discussion time."

 

Actually they don't give a lot of discussion time in the current training modules. Though there is some, it is a controlled conversation directed to a specifc conclusion in nearly every case.

 

"My fear is not that trainers don't teach identically, but that they don't understand what they are teaching."

 

I share that fear.

 

As far as the roadmap to better training, it is in the hands of responsible volunteers.

>The District Chair must select a district training coordinator that understands the training programs and how to use them.

>The Council Training Chair needs to have regular meeting where the training coordinators receive ongoing training.

>Trainers need to let go of personal preferences and teach "the program".

>Training teams need to be responsive to both the needs of the volunteers who seek training and the needs of the BSA to deliver the full course of information and not a watered down version.

>Unit volunteers need to open the leaders Handbooks and the boy's Handbooks and really read them. Then they need to follow the program to the best of their abilities.

 

"I've come to believe it is unrealistic for two teachers to teach identically. So maybe the question is what level of difference in units is tolerable for a quality program?"

 

I don't think you need to teach identically to be able to teach the identical information. A good trainer can adjust the deliver of the information to suit a particular audience without altering the information itself.

 

Trainers need to teach the entire content of the syllabus in a way to insure the highest possible retention rate by controling the pace, environment, comfort, and presentation techniques. But stick to the current program and the BSA course syllabus.

 

Bob White