where we focus our training efforts

[Lisabob]

Thinking about my training experiences, both with cubs and now with the troop, here's my observation. I'm curious to know whether others have had the same kind of experience?

 

Basic Leader Training is the session the most folks attend. It is also the most poorly run. Wrong information, poor planning, poor delivery, failure to stick to the course syllabus, etc..

 

The next level of training is better. I've done BALOO and OLS. They were decent, informative, well planned and delivered, clearly and immediately relevant, and even fun. There's a whole lot of planning and work that goes into putting on these courses and it shows because they're worth while at the end of the day. Not as many people will take these courses than the Basic Training though.

 

Woodbadge was absolutely worth while, no doubts about it. I can't say enough good things about it. The preparation and work that goes into putting a WB course together is enormous and the staff is extremely dedicated and knowledgeable. Relatively few people will experience WB though.

 

Problem is, we put the most time and effort into running excellent upper-level training courses, but the majority of leaders who have a lousy experience with basic leader training are never going to walk through that door again (at least, not willingingly). They're lost to us after their first and only training experience. We have got to focus, therefore, on providing basic level courses that are every bit as excellent and timely as the upper level courses. I'm at a loss as to why we don't seem to be doing that???

 

In my professional life I teach undergraduate college students. Some of my classes are introductory level sections, often with 100 or more students. Others are small upper-level seminars. I love my job and all my classes but I'll be honest, I put the most effort into keeping my freshman-level intro classes, which I teach every single semester, fun, engaging, and relevant. If we fail to excite students there, we won't have enough upper division students to justify teaching those upper-level seminars and then I might be out of a job to boot. Seems like the same logic should be applied to BSA training.

 

I'd like to think this is just a weird element of my own council but I rather doubt it. Tell me, does the above description fit your experiences? (I hope not...) And how do I get the "veteran" folks who run our training and aren't open to new ideas, new people, or feedback, to see the light?

 

Lisa'bob

[evmori]

In my district, BLT is a great course! It covers a ton of stuff very well! Scoutmaster Fundamentals is also great! These are the two best courses my district does! The others are well done but I feel there are many that could be combined. Put TCC & COR training together! Put BALOO & OWL together! With all the separate training courses taking up som much time it's no wonder we have problems getting people to attend them! They just don't have the time!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[tcherven]

I do have to say I agree with you as well. However, in my district (North Star District, NorthernStar Council previously Indianhead Council), the trainers for my Basic Leader Training were really good. They made the course a lot of fun and did a good job instructing. Of course, they were a husband/wife team with 2 sons in Boy Scouts.

 

Ive also attended two University of Scouting sessions as well. In my mind, it was quite worthwhile. I didnt attend the last two because I had other meetings I needed to attend the last time was the precourse meeting for my upcoming Woodbadge course (C-44-06). And even though I heard it once, Back to Gilwell has been running through my head.