Questions for Scout Leader Trainers.

[Eagledad]

>>A good trainer teaches the BSA program not the program they lead as a leader.>or if they did get chosen, the topics they presented were controlled by the training coordinator.

[Bob White]

Troops are lead by youth, Scouting programs are managed by adult leaders.

 

I have never seen an eagle factory that was lead by youth. Eagle factories are the by-product of adult egotism.

 

You cannot have the majority of your scouts working on the same merit badges at the same time, and running merit badge classes during troop meetings while making any claim to being a functioning scouting program. A fact taught in Scoutmaster training as well as Troop committee training, and Junior Leader Training.

 

No, I do not expect every troop to look the same. I expect, and I think the BSA expects, that the same methods will be used, the same rules followed, the same aims targeted, and the same mission focused on, from troop to troop.

 

After all it is a "national" program. We have a responsibility to provide program consistency.

 

Every Scout reads the same handbook and sees the same promises of adventure, advancement, and opportunities. As adult volunteers we have an obligation to deliver the promise found in the handbook.

 

The training coordinator is not the common demoninator here. The training syllabus is. Evey trainer has the exact same course materials, syllabus, videos, PowerPoint, handouts, course instructions. Each Scoutmaster Leader Specific Training course in the country should have the identical content. As should all the others respectively.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Eagledad]

>>I have never seen an eagle factory that was lead by youth. Eagle factories are the by-product of adult egotism.

 

You cannot have the majority of your scouts working on the same merit badges at the same time, and running merit badge classes during troop meetings while making any claim to being a functioning scouting program.

[Bob White]

"How can the BSA promising that the SM will personally get the first year scouts to first class in one year not be a by-product of adult self-desire? It use to be performance was driven by the scout. Now it's what?"

 

Barry, but nowhere is that said in any training or resource of the scouting program.

 

"Let's take the Youth Protection question last week and assume that each person that participated is a Training coordinator. Whats next?

 

I don't understand your question. Please restate it and I will try to answer it.

 

"Once a unit is off and running, how do we measure the performance of their training? Who reports to who about the Eagle Mill?"

 

I don't know that we expect anyone to "report" an Eagle Factory. The national training goal is 100% of the adult volunteers basic trained in the first 90 days. With that many trained leaders within a unit the key volunteers should be capable of policing themselves. Certainly though a working commissioner corps would help. But as you have already noticed there are big problems nationwide in unit commissioning. Roundtable and other supplemental training opportunities will also help to maintain quality scouting.

 

Everything really hinges on two elements. Sound consistent basic training and unit leaders committed to following the real program.

 

 

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Eagledad]

Hi Bob

 

Good discussion.

 

On the First year scouts to first class, you push pretty hard for the SM to control this part of the Scouts experience. But I think this is off topic and we can continue it under a different subject.

 

On the Youth Protection, there we several different responses to the one question. Most gave the same text reference to their own answer, but no one seem to have THE answer and it was left to how each individual interpret the text and their training. I think this is the best you can expect nationally and I think that is expected by National as well. So if we vary in our interpretation of the training material, then how does one go from Council to Council and maintain quality. I think it has to come from other sources in the District all working together.

 

You gave a few "Good" reasons for starting this post, but after working at the unit, district and council level positions, I'm not sure you can get much better results than you already have unless you make every course an online course where the human element falls out. Even then interpretation becomes personal.

 

So what is plan B to your plan A for improving training. My suggestion is pushing National to look at Commissioners. That is not and easy solution to me, but I have gone through many exercises looking to improve certain aspects of membership, training and even better information to units. While I use to have very little respect for commissioners, I've learned it was the quality of our local program I disrespected, not the designed position itself. I keep finding myself adding new positions to fix problems like the BSA added the unit trainer. Then I wonder, why not try to use what we have?

 

My plan B is get the commissioners back to work. National is changing cub and troop program, so change the commissioner program to work better.

 

I like the motivation of your post because to some degree I have already been there. But I've tried much of what you propose and I believe we are close to humanly possible to getting as good as it gets with training, on a Council or larger size scale. So I'm just suggesting other options along with your options.

 

Sorry for the long way around, sometimes I tend to paint the picture before I present it with a frame so that folks can see my motivations.

 

If you could add a plan B to your Plan A for these problems, what would it be?

 

Scouting Cheers

 

Barry

 

[Bob White]

Barry,

Not meaning to split hairs but i think this is an important point. I have never pushed hard for Scoutmasters to do the First Class emphasis program that has been part of Boy Scout advancement for nearly 15 years. The BSA pushes hard for it and has for over a decadde. I push hard for Scoutmasters to manage the BSA's program correctly.

 

First Class emphasis is tied to the New Scout Patrol and the Patrol Method. It calls for an Assistant Scoutmaster and a Troop Guide to develop a program through which new scouts, by their active participation, will naturally complete the requirements needed to achieve First Class within 12 to 14 months of joining the troop.

 

The SM responsibility is to make sure the ASM and Troop Guide are getting the job done.

 

Unit commissioning is another story. It's Broken. It has been Broken for for over 20 years. It is the redheaded stepschild of the national office. No one has stepped up to fix it. Unit Commissioning needs a paradigm shift, a new way of thinking and approaching unit support services. The current model which is based on the family physician making house calls has one big problem. Physicians don't make house calls and haven't in over 20years. Why? Because the medical industry realized the inefficiency of such an approach.

 

It will take years I believe to overhaul unit commissioning. In the mean time the more focus on getting more people trained the better. We are better off with a lot of trained leaders who misunderstand a few things than a lot of untrained leaders who don't know much of anything.

 

Bob White

[Eamonn]

1/ Each and everyone of the Training Staff in our council are aware that they are to stick to the syllabus.

2/ Adult Leader Training is the responsibilty of the council. Not the District.

We are a small council,and do encourage everyone to go where the training is, even if it is not in there own district. We have four districts,each one offers New Leader Essentials, 3 times a year (One each month) Each District offers the Cub Scout Leader Specific twice a year. And Baloo and Weblos Outdoor once a year.

Boy Scout Training is offered in the spring and the fall. This is coordinated by the Council Boy Scout Training Chairman, he also takes care of JLTC. If there is a need we do offer extra trainings for those who are unable to make the dates.

Troop Committee Training is down to the District Training Chair.

3/ All new Trainers are to meet with the person in charge of that Training, as a rule normally the District Training Team. To go over the syllabus and plan the event.

All Trainers are requested to attend the Trainer Development Conference, which is offered once a year.

4/ At this time we have yet to start using Pack and Troop Trainers.

5/ I have to admit to not liking the idea of presenting the wrong information, for fear that someone will wake up and only get that part.

Some of the problems that I run into :

A/ There are a full set of codes that identify what training a person has taken. - It would be really nice if these were shown on the charter.

B/ Youth Protection Training somehow became part of the Round Table. This is not what a r/t is for, and not the right staff.

C/ As Training is up to the Council and the hardware is now a lot more expensive, we need to see it on the Council budget.

D/ We offer the Scoutmaster and Assistant Scoutmaster Specific Training in two formats. The whole day or over 3 nights. The 3 nights are just a bit too long, in order to start at a time when people can get there and get home at a respectable hour. - Four nights would be better, but it won't work.

E/ Commissioner Training for some reason does not come under "Training" ??

There are some Scoutmasters in the Council who don't understand why they have never been asked to be on the Training Staff - The reason is that I have no idea what program they are running, - But is sure as heck is not one that I want passed on to our new leaders.

This really is a case of "Walk the Walk."

Talking is not good enough!

[Eagledad]

Hi Bob, Thanks for the reply.

 

>>I have never pushed hard for Scoutmasters to do the First Class emphasis program..... The BSA pushes hard for it..... I push hard for Scoutmasters to manage the BSA's program correctly.

[Twocubdad]

Not to hijack this thread in yet another direction, but I like your thinking regarding commissioners. I've felt for a long time that there needs to be a better mechanism for helping struggling units. I know commissioiners are trained to maintain some distance from their units and are damned if they get involved and damned if they don't. But it seems to me that we need to do more to keep weak units from folding.

 

To meet quality district, 2% unit growth should mean only one or two new units for us each year. But we annually turn over 8-12 units. The units which drop always seems to be the same marginal units, those which are only a few years old that never rose above a handful of Scouts and a couple adults. Once those original leaders age out or burn out, the unit folds.

 

I would like to see the commissioner corps empowered to take a more active role with units like this, beyond the usual "I'm here to help if you need me" stance. These "Mentoring Commissioners" (hopefully someone can come up with a better title) could attend Pack leader meetings and help the new and struggling leaders plan pack activitiea and programs. In rare circumstances, they could step in and take an active leadership positions for short periods of time. Their focus should be recruiting leaders and Scouts and helping the unit get to critical mass. Commissioners for such units should only be assigned to that one unit, not the usual three or four, due to the additional time required. They should also make a two- or three-year commitment to working with the unit. Much of the training for these commissioners should be geared toward getting the unit to stand on their own feet, without relying on the commissioner. After a year or two, units should either stand on their own or fold. There is somewhat of a precidence for such an arrangement in the paraprofessionals who work with special service units.

 

I know the standard commissioner response is "but it's not our unit." I understand that, but the point here is to think outside the box and develop new ideas for stabilizing troubled units and for making the commissioner corps more effective. This may not be the right answer, or even a good answer, but just an idea.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Eamonn]

It seems to me that we are not remembering the District Training Team.

Unit Commissioner visits unit. Sees that there is a need for some sort of training.

Reports to the ADC, or to the Commissioner Meeting.

District Commissioner, brings the matter to the attention of the District Committee, who send in the Training Team.

Unit Commissioner, has done a worth while job.

Training is offered.

Needless to say there are some units / members who have their way of offering what they think is the program and unless we tell them to take a hike, they will continue to do so.

We of course can't tell them to take a hike, as they were not selected by us. (Us being, the District/Council)

When it comes to problems with "Eagle Mills" and the like, it is not the new leaders that are the problem.

It is the leader who in his or her heart really does know better.

Heck, I have one Troop in my district that has on the back of their troop hat "Where Eagles Fly"

Last year Westmoreland Fayette Council, had the highest percentage of Trained Leaders in the nation. Every Boy Deserves A Trained Leader, has real meaning. But still as I see what is going on in the units, I have to wonder what game are these guys playing?

Still it is a great Program, and we will keep on keeping on

Eamonn

 

[Bob White]

"they could step in and take an active leadership positions for short periods of time."

That will never be supported. Charter Organizations are specifically responsible for selection and approval of all volunteer leaders in their units. For a commissioner to step in would violate our Congressional Charter.

 

It just ain't gonna happen.

 

Bob White

 

Bob White

[Twocubdad]

And therein lies part of the problem. If it violates the rules of the bureauracy, the heck with whether or not the idea has merit.

 

There are 12 ways to solve that problem, if one wanted to. Mentoring Commissioners could be dual registered from the start, they could temporarily register with the unit if and when the need arises, they could be approved by the COR when assigned to the unit..... pick one.

 

Once again, Bob, we're arguing over the 99th percentile. Hopefully, the need for a commissioner to take an leadership position would be a rare occurance. But the current commissioner philosophy of being a detached observer isn't working. In my little part of the world, all we seem to get from the commissioners about a unit is "they're fine, they're fine, they're fine, oops -- they're not rechartering." Then we just shake our collective heads and try to find another unit to make quality district goals.

 

Look at this as a First Year/First Class situation. Until the unit leadership gets their feet under them, the commissioner -- like a troop guide -- is very involved and spends much time mentoring and teaching. Gradually, as the unit and leaders gain momentum, the commissioner/guide (hey, maybe there's a better name) backs off. Only in certain circumstances would the commissioner take a leadership role jus as the ASM only steps in in certain situations.

[Bob White]

"if one wanted to. Mentoring Commissioners could be dual registered from the start"

 

Sorry twocub the membership rules for Unit Commissioners say they must not be registered as unit leaders unless they were a committee member prior to the time they became commissioners. In which case they may remain a committee member. However that is the only option.

 

A good commissioner knows better thn to exert any actual control within a unit. their job is to direct volunteers to the appropriate resource to learn the answers.

 

"Give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach him to fish you feed him for a life time."

 

We can recommend which gear to use, suggest an effective bait, and point him to where we know the fish to be. We are not there to fish for them, or even fish with them. You can't even use my boat, but I will gladly help you learn to build your own.

 

Quite honestly if a unit had 100% trained adults, We already have some that are. A unit would not need a Unit Commissioner. All to often units in good shape don't need a commissioner and units in trouble refuse to let one in the door.

 

More often than not Commissioners are brought in to referee between adults who never learned how to play nice together. Do that a few times and you will understand why so few volunteers become a commissioner or stay one for very long.

 

Bob white

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Twocubdad]

Bob, you've mentioned several times over the past months that the commissioner service has been broken for 20 years, but no one is willing to do anything about it. Any time a thread cranks up about what can be done to fix it, you cite to us the rules -- all dead-on accurate, I have no doubt -- under which the commissioners currently work. I'd suggest to you that if we are looking for solutions for fixing the service, we should instead look at what the rules ought to be.

 

Your fishing analogy is absolutely on point. My only comment is that what you describe sounds like a pretty lousy fishing teacher.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Bob White]

Twocub,

You cannot throw out our agreement with congress on how the scouting program will operate just to solve one problem.

 

The problem in commissioning is one of methodology and philosophy. There is no need to alter rules and policy to fix it. It is also not gomin to be solved on a local level until National makes a determination on what the plan will be. Someone at national needs to gather a volunteer task force to look at where commissioning fits today, and how to make it work. The national needs to develop the support resources to implement the changes nationwide. At the time of my last conversation with some national officers last summer this had not yet taken place. Commissioning has always been a branch of the relationships division, that division went through a drastic downsizing. Because of that reoganization there was little to nothing being done with the commissioning problem.

 

Altering the basic tenets of the program is not the solution.

 

A strong unit trainer program will greatly reduce the need for a unit commissioner in most units. Having a higher percentage of trained leaders will do even more good. I would agree that the greatest need and benefit of Commissioners is in the area of New Unit Organization and Unit Lifesaving. But we must be careful how that is done. The Boy Scouts has a unique structure where the units are owned by the Chartered Organization and we must continue to respect and abide that format.

 

A question Twocubdad. If you could state the mission of commissioning in one sentence, what would it be?

 

Bob White

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)