The Presenter.

[Eamonn]

Some years back we had a female District Commissioner. While she was was a good District Commissioner, she was an outstanding Leader Trainer.

Her day job was a music teacher in an elementary school and it seemed that she had the knack of bringing the enthusiasm that she used with her classes to the training's.

While her first and true love was Cub Scouting, we both served on the old Boy Scout and Cub Scout Leader Trainer Wood Badge courses.

In many ways she was my mentor. I like to think that I knew more of the hands on stuff, but she was so much better than me at presenting.

In the thread I spun off from, it seems that the idea of changing 50% of the Training Team is being met with approval?

I don't see it.

I think the role of the District and Council Training Chair is to gather a team of the best presenters that are available.

When it comes to BSA training's; be it NLE or Wood Badge the role of the presenter is to present the course material. I really think that people with presentation skills are the best people for the job.

I seen my District Commissioner friend present Venturing Training, when the program was new. She didn't know very much about the program, but she did a wonderful job of presenting the material.

While I'm on this high horse I really think, given the importance we put on training it is time that we (National) made District/ Council Training Team member a position. I didn't need the entire Training Team to attend each and every District Committee meeting, so only the Training Committee wore District Committee patches.

When the Chairperson can put together a real team and work with them on their presentation skills, I think we will see a marked improvement in our training's.

There is of course a danger that if we take this route that Trainers will be like many of our Commissioners, people who have maybe outlived their usefulness at the unit level. I really don't mean to offend any Commissioners who are doing a good job and yes I served as a Commissioner!!

The material in the BSA courses fill the time that is set for that course. There just isn't time to add the extras and I don't think that adding them at that time is the way to go. Isn't that the reason we have R/T meetings?

Eamonn.

[baden]

I think one thing we lost in the transition to 21st Century Wood Badge is the wonderful Trainers that came out of Cub Scout WB. When I was District Training Chair, my best Trainers were grads of this course. My understanding of the Cub WB course was that the emphasis was on training presentation. I took the old TTT (Train the Trainer) and chaired the new TDC (Trainer Developrment Conference) and do not think this is enough to develop really great Trainers. It is a fine intro, but no substitute for standing up and doing it.

 

A good Trainer is a gem and to tell one they have had their turn is a disservice to the program. When you find one, do all in your power to get them in front of New Leaders.

[rfwlcdr]

I guess I'm on both sides of this discussion. Enthusiastic, experienced trainers are indeed worth their weight in gold, but sooner or later, they need to be replaced. I've seen a Cubscout trainer (CS Wood Badge trained) that, in previous years, did a fantastic job of training and motivating generation after generation of Cub Scout leaders. No one else was needed for the job in the district because she could do it all. As time passed, the job evidently became routine and the training became boring, the presentation was a dull monotone, and attendance at training slipped. Roundtable followed closely thereafter and RTC quit in frustration. Then came the search for new personnel to do the training from an ever dwindling group of badly trained leaders. In hindsight, had a new trainer been rotated in [much] earlier, the transition would certainly have gone smoother [there were hard feeling when the change finally came]. Waiting for the almost inevitable burnout that comes to many trainers (and other Scouters) is inviting disaster. Retiring a trainer who is still doing an adequate job for the next generation of trainer can be painful, but just might be better for the program in the long-term.

Just my humble opinion.

[Trevorum]

rfwlcdr, (that's a mouthful - mind if I call you Bob?)

 

Excellent advice for anyone! Go out at the top of your game!

 

[emb021]

Experienced trainers are a must, but how does one get to be an 'experienced trainers' if new people aren't able to get on the training team? then the training team becomes an exclusive clique.

 

Plus, you may be turning away people who are experienced training in other groups/organizations who aren't know by the training clique, I mean team. You could be turning away additional good people by not giving them a chance.

 

 

[Eamonn]

Of course the Training Chair would be developing new team members.

The idea that one person does all the Training is not a good one.

But why have a Cub Scout Trainer, a Boy Scout Trainer, what we need are presenters.

R/T Meetings come under the Commissioner Staff, not the District Training Team.

Hopefully the Commissioner Staff will identify areas that need looked at and this will end up on the R/T Commissioners desk?

Eamonn.

[rfwlcdr]

In this case, the then District Training Chair was the Cub Scout Trainer (and not a bad presenter in her time) who insisted on keeping the job. Roundtable attendance began dropping with the drop in trained leaders caused by a once competent presenter/trainer hanging on too long. Roundtable was mentioned only as a consequence of the training issue.

 

Our District utilizes separate Cub Scout and Boy Scout Trainers simply because we have people with expertise in those programs who are also good presenters (our Council Training Chair has done a great job of re-vitalizing the program). Our Cub Scout Trainer(s) are also somewhat exuberant and manage to put some pizzaz into Cub Scout Leader Specific Training that prospective Cub Scouters need.

 

More succinctly: Yes, good trainers must be good presenters, but without some rotation we run the risk of making training routine (boring?) instead of inspiring new leaders to continue the process to Wood Badge.

[Lisabob]

I agree that great trainers should not be unceremoniously dumped out of the rotation. However, in some places, getting involved with the training team is about as easy as joining an exclusive country club. And that's a problem too.

 

I have been employed as a trainer and evaluator in my professional field, in situations where turnover is mandated (after either 3 or 5 years). What typically happens is that people who are really good stay in their positions for the allotted time, and then they take on a somewhat different role in the organization (but still in the same general area of operation) for a year or two. They certainly don't leave altogether. Thereafter, some choose to return to their original role for another iteration; some continue on in their new positions. The benefits are that we get a steady stream of new people involved at all levels, and that experienced members develop a wider competence and understanding of how and why the organization functions the way it does. For those who return to the original role, they're nearly always even more effective, for having had these additional experiences. And while we have occasionally "mourned" the "loss" of an experienced member who has timed out of their current position, what almost always happens is that a) the new people who come in are terrific too and b) that "lost" person really isn't lost and is usually hanging around in the background if needed.

 

I don't see why training teams couldn't/shouldn't do this too.

 

Lisa'bob

A good old bobwhite too!

[John-in-KC]

I find myself agreeing with LisaBob.

 

Learning to be a GOOD trainer means learning four different skillsets:

 

1) Public speaking

2) "How people learn" (Instructional methods)

3) Subject matter knowledge

4) Audience Knowledge

 

I just suffered through an Assistant Director of Field Service doing "Internet Recharter 101."

 

- Speaking skills: OK.

- Instructional methods: NO-GO. Lecture with powerpoint that was illegible in the last two rows of chairs.

- Subject matter knowledge: NO-GO. READ THE SLIDES. It would have faster for me to take the powerpoint "comic book" home.

- Audience knowledge: NO-GO. Over half of us could have been cleared in ten minutes with the "short version, changes since last time." The rest would be ready for the full package.

 

After YP and Fast Start, people pony up $$$ for training. They give of their time to take training, including transportation time to get to the training site. Trainers owe the trainees a quality product.