Mandatory Training

[nldscout]

I will bet anyone here they will fold on the training issue once they realize how many units they will lose.

 

Our council tried it and would have lost 30% of units due to untrained SM/CM''s

[John-in-KC]

LH,

 

I agree with your last paragraph in toto.

 

John

[Gunny2862]

Ya know, I sometimes wonder about the stridency we put in our posts...

 

I''m trying, but the costs anarchist proposed for training would send me out of a shirt and back into the cheap seats. No matter how well I was treated. Not all of us have excellent jobs, benefits and flush savings account due to being debt free.(Working on getting there, but it''s not my current reality)

 

Although I''d love the alternate reality where I could pay those fees and feel a little sting doing it and feel good about it too. But none of that doesn''t mean that I don''t want to know as much as I can so I can do my best for the Scouts. University of Scouting is the last weekend of this month here, a ten dollar bargain basement price too. And yes, I''m signed up.

[OldGreyEagle]

as a follow-up to those who claim mandatory training would decimate their council. Here is a link to the Council I serve 2006 Annual Report:

 

http://www.minsitrails.com/Documents/BSAAnnualReport.pdf

 

check the comment on page 5 regarding growth

 

Would this happen everywhere? I dont know, but mandatory training and growth can occur

[LongHaul]

OGE,

I like the approach and think in the long run it can work but it''s your Council''s NEXT annual report that will tell the story. According to the info at http://www.minsitrails.com/Documents/Newsletter/Jan2007/final.pdf

the new mandatory requirements didn''t go into effect until 2006. As I read this the weeding out of untrained leaders took place this past January with the 2007 charters. As you are a member of this Council, am I reading this wrong?

LongHaul

[OldGreyEagle]

Look at page 2, where it says:

 

"Since 2004, all Cubmasters, Scoutmasters and Crew Advisors have

been required to complete the basic training for their position

before the council renews their units charter."

 

This is not new to us and we continue to grow (knock on wood)

[FScouter]

Gee, maybe it was those untrained adults failing to deliver the pronise and driving away boys that was keeping a damper on membership growth. You think?

[LongHaul]

OGE,

Sorry I was indeed misreading, actually I got it mixed up with the link I posted which is requireing all leaders to be trained under the new format. Does you Council recognize training taken before 2001 when it computes who has basic training for their position? In my council they decided to only target new leaders. When I took over as SM in 1993 I was considered trained because I had taken Scoutmaster training in 1971!!!

LongHaul

[eagle-pete]

Fscouter

 

I see your point here, and on principle I agree. However, I am on our Scout Committee over training and I can''t bring myself to start a mandatory training policy. Just the thought of it gives me a knot in my stomach.

 

Each and every one of our Scouters, including myself, are volunteers. I can beg, plead, bribe, and can do all but force them to go to trainings. But the bottom line is I walked myself into training without coercion. I voluntarily got out my checkbook and paid for many of the trainings I''ve attended. I have sat in many training classes and chose for myself what, if anything, I would take from those presentations. I applied the principles taught in the units where I''ve served by my own volition and initiative. No one has ever, in all the years I have served as a Volunteer Scouter, forced me to do anything. I feel it is my moral obligation to afford the same choices to those Scouters with whom I serve. I have never served under coercion, why should they have to?

 

Yes, we want the best leaders possible. Yes, we want to deliver the promise. As a Committee Member and a Wood Badge Trained Scouter I have taken upon myself some obligations to that effect. But the reality is I can only make absolutely certain that I am putting forth my best effort. Even Professional Scouters cannot make someone else do a good job.

 

So you tell me... How can you make someone do something they do not want to do? (Will you please open your fist for me?) Even if we mandate training, will that really ensure a quality program? Perhaps (as OGE can, apparently, prove). However, I would submit that if you could take a unit with 100% trained leaders who did so voluntarily, and match that against a unit with 100% trained leaders who did so because they were forced to, you would likely see dramatic differences in morale, dedication, and program quality because people, in general, perform better when they willingly chose to serve.

 

Eagle Pete

[FScouter]

"Each and every one of our Scouters, including myself, are volunteers. I can beg, plead, bribe, and can do all but force them to go to trainings. But the bottom line is I walked myself into training without coercion. "

 

Yes, we should not have to mandate training, and it would be ideal if every volunteer could see the value in finding out how to be successful in the job they volunteered to do. Most adult leader prospects understand a little bit about the job they are being considered for. They expect to they will be required to pay the $10 fee, fill out an application, be subjected to a background check, buy a uniform, buy (and read) the handbook. So why don''t they understand that attending a training course is part of the deal? Probably because they were told about the application, $10 etc., but nothing was said about training, or worse, were told "you don''t have to worry about that".

 

It would really help things if the COR or committee would make it understood that training can do nothing but help the new adult leader, and register the new adult for training at the same time the application is turned in.

 

And if the new adult refuses training, maybe the wrong adult was selected for the job.

[eagle-pete]

Agreed.. They likely were the wrong adult selected at the time, but they could be a reasonably decent Scout Leader...

 

...If only we could just get them to training!

 

Eagle Pete

[eolesen]

If this were policy in either of the districts I''ve been involved with, both of the traditional troops my son has belonged to would have been disbanded. Likewise with a lot of the LDS units in our area -- most wards are lucky to have people to serve in positions for more than a year or two, much less go thru all the "required" training.

 

Personally, it took me almost two years to be able to schedule all of the training required for SM/ASM, and then another two years to find a Woodbadge class that actually fit with my work schedule.

 

There''s a balance to be struck here...

 

If you make the training too easy and accessible, it loses a lot of its value. Having a top-notch class but only being able to staff it twice a year per council means that few will be able to benefit from the experience.

 

 

I can''t help but wondering at what point some of the policies in BSA eventually force the formation of a parallel organization within the US that may be more closely aligned with how Scouting is organized in other countries. BSA seems to be more and more interested in parlour scouting and political correctness.

[Joni4TA]

I actually like the idea. I think, at first, there would be majorly disgruntled folks and we''d lose some units, or units would get combined with others. That''s too bad, but it might be worth it in some respects. In the long run, training would probably end up the rule rather than the exception, and it would become an anchored & common part of the Council activities instead of a lone & disappointing prospect.

 

My dear husband is our District Training Chair. Our District is so large, it encompasses 6 counties, and over 500 square miles. He''s created a training schedule and split each section of the District into 4 zones. Within a 4 month period each zone of the entire District has been visited, and a full training team of 4-6 Volunteers dispatches themselves into each zone, 3 times a year. They train for ALL positions. So in essence, an Adult leader who doesn''t want to or can''t drive to the Council - gets catered to by a volunteer training team an additional 3 times per year.

 

In one case, my husband received confirmation from folks promising to be at the training THE NIGHT PRIOR - and he drove with his team of 5 over 100 miles. Guess what? NONE of those Scouters showed up. Apparently it was too "inconvenient" for them! **eyeroll** It''s for people like this, that I say - go ahead and make training mandatory, and if their units fold - shame on them.

 

If 6 volunteers gave up their entire Saturday, away from their families, to come down to your darn zone, confirming your attendance the night before, make the long trip and you are a no-show? Then you obviously couldn''t care two jumps through a rolling cheerio about Scouting and training, and you shouldn''t be a leader at all, IMHO.

 

If we were sending our Scouts out to go rock climbing and swimming for the weekend with a couple adults who knew very little about Boy Scouts, never had Scoutmaster Fundamentals, Outdoor Skills, youth protection, first aid, or CPR, and didn''t find it important enough to go to Climb On Safely, Safety Afloat and Safe Swim Defense training.... But hey they showed up in a uniform, they said they were the Scoutmaster and Asst. SM - we assume they MUST be trained, right? They obviously know what they''re doing.... they had to have filed a tour permit and all that.... so you think.

 

And something happens to a couple Scouts...... God forbid...

 

Who exactly would be to blame? The BSA? I think not! Especially if they already pulled these idiots off the charter for not bothering to go and get trained!

 

I know, it''s an unlikely scenario, but I can see why "threatening" to pull a charter would be useful if leaders won''t get trained, at least in my District, where even though they get the training brought to their neighborhoods, they still fail to show up.

[Beavah]

Yah, there''s other complications, eh?

 

The more involved the BSA is in unit leader selection/qualification/supervision (including such things as mandatory training requirements), the more liable the BSA is for what happens in the units.

 

They don''t want that. It''s fine to play insurer for da CO''s. It''s different to be the named party in the action. As we''ve seen particularly for molestation cases, the exposure can quickly exceed the BSA''s insurance coverage. Good risk management requires the BSA stay well clear of becoming the "supervisor" of unit leaders.

 

It''s the CO''s game to select, supervise, and set training expectations.

 

Beavah

 

[eagle-pete]

"...and he drove with his team of 5 over 100 miles. Guess what? NONE of those Scouters showed up."

 

I donno, I am just shooting in the dark, but couln''t you simply require a deposit of, say $20, refundable at the end of the training class? Explain that this will cover expenses for the course incase of no-shows. I think they might want to show up to get their $20 back. If not, at least the gas is covered.

 

Just a thought

 

Eagle Pete