How would you do it?

[evmori]

Maybe the fault of all this falls on the CO. They are the ones who should be selecting the leaders for the unit they charter. When I signed on as a Cubmaster, I was recruited by the CC from the Pack, not the CO. Same thing happened when I moved on to Boy Scouts. And I would bet this happens more than some want to admit. So maybe, instead of blaming the unit leaders on running such a poor program, we should be directing our anger toward the CO's!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[dScouter15]

Bob -

 

I don't really understand what, exactly, you want to know, or why you want to know it, but I'll contribute my theory anyway -

 

You just can't do it. You can't coordinate the training of over 60,000 volunteers of various ages, skill levels, ability, reasons for being involved in scouting, access to technology, access to facilities, family situations, other commitments, learning disabilities, egos, interest, etc - so that each one of the 60,000 people receives the same information, presented correctly, in such a way that they can internalize and remember it. Even if you could do that, you still can't force them to actually use the training to do Scouting correctly.

 

What we can do, is DO OUR BEST. At the council level, training committees can be formed consisting of Scouters experienced with the program. This group will have to be diverse - there will be a need for people with a good handle on technology, people skilled at teaching (not just using flip charts and powerpoint, but actual teaching), people who have a strong knowledge of BSA policy and the training material, and people who are good at relating to unit-level Scouters. And, the chair of this committee will need to oversee its operation in such a way that all training is conducted consistent with the standards set by National.

 

Once this committee is going, develop training courses in response to the needs of the volunteers in your council. Consider delivering training over the Internet, distributing materials on CD/DVD, printed material, district level training, unit level training, one-on-one training - whatever works. Make the training practical, available and inexpensive. Delegate some training responsibility down to the unit level. I feel that with a model like this, you will be able to reach a majority of volunteers, and provide them with information they can actually use.

 

Also, determine which training elements need to be delivered at which time to which volunteers. At a national level, develop an outline of "required training," "suggesting training," and "extra training" required for each position. For instance, for an Asst Scoutmaster, required training would include youth protection, overview of Scouting as a national organization down to the troop level, how a troop functions, and the job descriptions of each leader in the troop (both youth and adult). This is something that could easily be done in 2-3 hours, which shouldn't be that unreasonable. Suggested training would include whatever the current incarnation of OLS is, first aid/CPR/AED, and youth leadership development training. Extra training would be Wood Badge, specialized outdoor skills training, etc.

 

For this type of model, National would need to re-work some of their training materials to allow it to be more "modular," and to give volunteers the flexibility to deliver the material in whichever way they see fit. I'm not suggesting that the content of the training materials change in any way, but instead that the context because less rigid, and that the delivery method be determined by the trainers at the council/district/unit level.

 

I think this has the best chance of working, and I'm eagerly awaiting replies telling me why I'm wrong ;-)(This message has been edited by dScouter15)

[Bob White]

I absolutely agree with you that the key is that we do our best dScouter15. So let me ask you this. Is a leader who chooses to not attend training "doing his or her best"?

 

Is a leader who takes training and knowingly doesn't follow the Methods or use the program as taught "Doing their best"?

 

Is a trainer who chooses not to follo0w the syllabus even though they are told to.... "Doing his or her best".

 

You are right there is no perfect way to use volunteers to reach over 100,000 other volunteers. So we must trust in each other to "do our best". Units need to trust that the leaders they select have the character and characteristics to do their job, Leaders need to trust that trainers will share the program information according to the training plan an all its content. Trainers need to trust in the training materials and follow the syllabus. The efectivenes of training and the delivery of the program rests in the character of the volunteers.

 

But as we know very few direct contact leaders attebd even the basic training courses, and we know tht not all trainers are sharing the information in the syllabus, and we know not only from these posts but from observing the behavior of other "trained" leaders that only some follow the program, and they take that path intentionally.

 

So many not trying to "do thier best" and who is hurt by that?

 

Ed asks 'maybe we should blame the CO's?' It's not about blame it is about taking responsibility. The IH/ CRT amd CC of units need to take the responsibility for their Scouting program. They need to take their responsibility of selecting quality unit leaders seriously. They need to monitor to the units program and progress and actually administrate the program as they agreed to do in their charter with the BSA.

 

No unit ever failed because of having a strong CO and trained leaders who followed the program.

 

If any unit does not have those elements, then they either need to be working a plan to get there, or they are just waiting to collapse.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[evmori]

No unit ever failed because of having a strong CO and trained leaders who followed the program.

 

Absolutes are rarely true but I will accept there is some fact in this statement.

 

The assumption is the CO is very involved with the unit it charters. I would bet this is not as common as one would think. I would bet most CO's are in name only & devote little if any time to the unit they charter.

 

Now you can have an uninvolved CO & very well trained leaders. And you can have a very successful unit this way. A strong CO doesn't mean the leaders will be well trained just as well trained leaders doesn't mean there is a strong CO.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Beavah]

No unit ever failed because of having a strong CO and trained leaders who followed the program.

 

Yeh ever heard of ScoutReach? Trained professionals as leaders. Infusion of outside resources to help. Yet they fail all da time.

 

Fact is, it takes a lot of things to come together to make a unit work, and almost all of da units that work adapt "the program" in some way or another.

 

Gotta admit I'm a little miffed that this whole thread wasn't really lookin' for ideas, but was more of a setup so we could keep poundin' on da claim that there are bad volunteers out there. Lots of folks contributed interesting thoughts and suggestions just to end up with "it's volunteers not doin' their best?!!"

 

Seems like a Scout is Cheerful and Kind, eh?

 

I know a heck of a lot of volunteers. They're great people. They run some wonderful programs. All of 'em have their weaknesses and challenges, but let's celebrate da good things, eh? Small and large, struggling and hyperactive, seat-trained or not, I'd stack da weakest troops in any council I've seen against da soccer and hockey crowd in terms of the long-term benefits the kids get out of it.

 

Anybody who's givin' their hour a week per kid for somebody else's kids is doin' their best in my book.

 

We're here to be of service to kids and each other, of course. If we see weakness, we begin by lookin' at ourselves, and improvin' personally where we can. Then we look at what we have the talent and ability to change. If we find some local weakness in program, and after observin' troops and listenin' to people and considerin' all kinds of perspectives we really feel that the point of breakdown is trainin', then that's where we should be puttin' our volunteer time. Do the marketing study, find out why people really don't come rather than guessin', revise our district's trainin' program so as to meet the real need rather than just deliver a can. BSA gives us da flexibility to do that. So if you're findin' that need in your area, address it.

 

I reckon that's lots better than blamin' the customer.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Beavah]

Anyway, for those interested in wild trainin' alternatives, here's an interesting article base on da MMO idea I proposed a few messages back:

 

http://www.americasarmy.com/intel/article.php?t=271086

 

Beavah

 

[Bob White]

Anybody who's givin' their hour a week per kid for somebody else's kids is doin' their best in my book.

 

Gosh you would think that someone who was "doin' their best" would at least attend training for their job wouldn't you?

[Beavah]

Gosh you would think that someone who was "doin' their best" would at least attend training for their job wouldn't you?

 

I can't speak for others, eh? But I sure wouldn't make that assumption. Not without first takin' the time and effort to understand what da issues are. To talk to folks and get a sense for the obstacles, or how they were handlin' it differently. And not until I'd actually established that the trainin' itself was worthwhile and had positive effects on unit program.

 

Is a person who did da Catholic Church 3-hour YPT but hasn't yet gotten around to doin' our YPT really not doin' their job? Da ARC WSI not doin' his job because he hasn't sat through SSD yet? Is da trainin' offered only once every six months so there are conflicts? Does the unit do internal trainin'? Did the person choose to go to WFA rather than this year's IOLS? Are our council's trainin' records even close to accurate? Is da person workin' flat out in a strugglin' unit just to keep things afloat, so we need to go to them?

 

And on and on. If a unit is struggling, we go help 'em where they're at. The fact that there's an adult showin' up at the meetin' room door means someone cares, and is doin' the job. The rest is all about service.

 

Beavah

 

 

[dScouter15]

I absolutely agree with you that the key is that we do our best dScouter15. So let me ask you this. Is a leader who chooses to not attend training "doing his or her best"?

 

Is a leader who takes training and knowingly doesn't follow the Methods or use the program as taught "Doing their best"?

 

Is a trainer who chooses not to follo0w the syllabus even though they are told to.... "Doing his or her best".

 

Bob -

 

Its been a long day, and I'm getting a little confused here. To begin with, I can't determine whether a leader is doing his or her best based on his or her compliance with the Official BSA Program. Regardless, I thought that your intention with this thread was to discuss methods of conducting training in such a way that each volunteer has reasonable access to training material in an effective learning format. In my reply, I posted my ideas for reaching this goal.

 

So, are you trying to brainstorm effective training methods, or just lamenting the fact that Scouting is not always delivered "correctly?"

[Bob White]

I am trying to show that delivering training to an organization the size of the BSA is a very difficut task. And while it is easy for some to crititicize the delivery mechanism, it is still the most feasible way at this point in time. Is it perfect? No, because it depends on individual integrity. Something that is difficult to control.

 

But clearly the only way to improve on it is through the careful selction of both trainers and leaders. And that seems to be the weakest link.

 

Units are obviously not populated by volunteers interested in learning the Scouting program or their specific role in it.

 

Trainers do not always deliver the information completely.

 

The Councils all have the exact same syllabi. They are designed to be delivered to any size group of participants. The problem is not in the training continuum or the course materilas. And no one has yet to offer a feasible alternative to the delivery mechanism.

 

The solution it seems is to select responsible people rather than alter the training.

[scoutldr]

Training WAS delegated to the unit level, with the "Pack Trainer" concept. The original concept has since been watered down to the point that the position is useless. Largely due, I think to the reluctance of Council training committees to "let go" control of "their" training. Sad.

 

We can pontificate all we want as to the value of training, and castigate those who, for whatever reason, do not place a high enough priority on getting themselves trained. Bottom line is, scouters are not getting trained, and Council training committees need to find out what the obstacles and perceptions are. Most of the comments I heard after a training course was that the course did not meet their expectations...that's the syllabus' fault, not mine. Another barrier is cost. All training should be free to the volunteer...period. If they give up their valuable time to go to training, we should meet them halfway and not charge them for the privilege.

[dScouter15]

Bob - seems like a straw man argument you created here, but OK, I think you're right. Now what?

[John-in-KC]

The attitude that training matters has to start at the top of the ownership chain, and work its way down to the volunteers in direct contact.

 

If the DE, District Chair, and District Commish (through the UCs) are not regularly encouraging the IH/COR of the Chartered Partners to support training in their units, then all the flagellation we do won't be worth diddly.

 

Of course, that means that those who allegedly pride themselves on being Commissioners (that means you BW) need to admit they have ownership of a share of the problem.

 

The problem is systemic and holistic; so the fixes must also be.

[evmori]

This is off topic but I think it begs to be here.

 

If units are populated with volunteers that aren't interested in learning the Scouting problem, it would seem the CO is the one dropping the ball & then maybe it's the council not doing enough to ensure the CO is more involved than in name only.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[John-in-KC]

Ed,

 

I think you and I are in pretty darn close agreement!

 

John