Mandatory Training

[DPWatson]

My CC just got a letter from Council (Baltimore Area) indicating that they are going to phase in a mandatory training policy over the next couple of years. If all unit leaders are not trained in their positions, the unit will not be allowed to recharter. Is anybody else doing this?

 

/dpw

 

[Buffalo Skipper]

I am on my district's training committee, and we certainly have nothing like that happening here. We have pretty good training program, and though not everyone is trained, we have a large enough percentage that there is little complaint from the higher-ups.

 

I cannot really believe they would enforce this policy. National/council attitude is so registration-number driven that following through with a policy would be like shooting themselves in the foot by cutting program.

 

That's not to say that training is not important or to disagree that everyone should be trained. I just cannot see this as a way to do follow through with it.

[DPWatson]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

/dpw

[Twocubdad]

I can't imagine trying to enforce a policy like this.

 

It's been run up the flag pole here a time or two, but no one salutes.

 

The big problem is training records. They are notoriously inaccurate. A few years ago our training committee established a policy that requiring 100% training. I, and others, asked the obvious question, what percent of our leaders are trained now? Uhhhhh. How will you know when you're at 100% Same response.

 

So a month later, the commissioners come out with a request for every unit to do a training inventory and reconcile it against the council records. All but the newest leaders in our pack were trained to position. According to the council, only one of 22 leaders were trained. So I trot down to the council office, sit down with the registrar and try to figure out the descrepancy. I start with my own training. I had dates, places and cards for the training I had taken, so this should be a short putt, right? Forty-five minutes later I still hadn't confirmed one of my courses. When I reported this back to our district commissioner, he said, yeah, don't worry about it.

 

You can't make stuff like this up!

 

.

 

 

[John-in-KC]

There are other Councils which are trying it. One of the long poles, as someone mentioned, is getting the data into ScoutNet and getting it to units for review.

 

I understand the logic, and I will say there is a fair amount of training (YP, FS, NLE is coming) at MyScouting.

 

The question your COR should be asking your District Chair and Council President is how convenient are you going to make training for volunteers?

[Buffalo Skipper]

As the pack trainer (and the district coordinator of cub scout training), it has been a pleasure to have our 10 or so pack leaders 100% trained for 4 years now. We also face the same problem of reconciling the training records on file with the council. Our registrar is so busy at this time of year inputing thousands of new Cub Scouts that our training (we have 2 fall sessions for NLE and PST) usually gets filed away in some cabinet somewhere.

 

We do not have a council training committee, but I can say that at least half of our districts run excellent training programs (I am not slamming the other half, I simply don't have any knowledge of their training from 100+ miles away). Occasionally we run council wide training, and I have been involved in that from time to time. I don't see that happening to us (keeping my fingers and toes crossed as I bang my head on the solid wood desk...).

 

[Eagledad]

>>The question your COR should be asking your District Chair and Council President is how convenient are you going to make training for volunteers?

[AlFansome]

Here's another council that looks like it's got it all just about in place and mandatory at this point .... http://www.ctyankee.org/program/training/required

 

The rollout plan looks good, but as has been mentioned it's all the dotting the i's and crossing the t's in the database that seems to be the weakest link (definitely is the case in our Council).

 

 

[Twocubdad]

The other result of this will be a massive kill-off of marginal leaders -- the dad who sits an occasional board of review, the pack's Blue and Gold chair, a parent who just wants to be supportive and registers as a committee member. If these folks start counting a unit's percent trained numbers, they'll just disappear off the charter. This folks will probably keep doing their same job, the only difference will show up in membership numbers and registration dollars.

 

Aren't we in the middle of a national initiative to recruit 100,000 new volunteers?

 

There's a reason the Quality Unit criteria specifies training for "dirct contact" leaders.

[nolesrule]

In one of the units I serve as a UC, the Cubmaster was never listed as trained on the unit inventory printout. Not only had he been trained and had the card, he had also completed Wood Badge and even served the district as a trainer for the position. It was never fixed by the time that he resigned as CM and moved on to the troop that his son crossed over to.

 

Heck, I just got an email the other day from my DC that they had none of my training records on file.

[NeilLup]

Our council is considering this but likely only for direct contact leaders phased in over several years.

 

Training records are a major concern of mine. Availability of training is another.

 

Having said that, is any of us really comfortable entrusting their child to a Scout leader who is unwilling/unable to take the time to become trained to do their job in Scouting.

 

There are, after all, at least 3 ways to be certified as trained:

 

1) Group training

2) Personal coaching

3) Self study (including on-line)

 

If someone is an experienced leader doing the job, they can be certified as trained based on self-study. The idea is not to fill training courses; it is to ensure that each Scout has a leader who knows what they are doing.

 

BTW, DPWatson, I just checked the Baltimore Area Council web page. It refers only to mandatory training of DIRECT CONTACT leaders and that phased in over a 3 year period.(This message has been edited by NeilLup)

[Eagle92]

Yes training records are a major problem. I've already posted in another thread the problems I encounter when I tried to get a list of trained leaders in the district. I was never trained, despite working for this council at one time and conducting a bunch of trainings as both a pro and Scouter. PTC staff from my district were not trained. SMs who had not only gone through Woodbadge, but staffed it were not trained. folks who had their Training Award, Key and the various Cub Leader awards were not trained. Took two years to fix the records and they are still not 100%.

[scottteng]

One small tip that does help make sure that your full legal name is legibly on the training attendance sheet. The data entry person has no idea that Jim Jones from troop 6 is the same person as the James A. Jones that is registered in troop 6. The same thing applies to advancement report we have several goes by's in our troop their legal name needs to be on the advancement report so their records will be accurate. I know this because I am guilty of it going by my middle name.

[CNYScouter]

Our council tried to do implement this a few years back and got no where.

 

Any new adult leaders registered after a certain date or registered in a new position had until the next recharter to get trained for their position or they would not be allowed to reregister.

 

The thought behind this was that within 5 or 6 years most of our leaders would have taken training.

 

Our council requires that you fill out an application anytime you change positions so at that time you would need to be trained

 

The only time this would have affected a units recharter was if a unit didnt have the minimum number of adult leaders to recharter because of this.

 

The reasons I saw this didnt work were:

 

I know adult leaders that have been in a position for 10+ years without having training. As long as they didnt switch positions they wont have to take training.

 

The one troop we were with the SM took his training in the 60s and the two ASMs took there training back in the urban scouting period.

None had been to any training since.

 

These two items caused a lot of resentment with new leaders feeling they were being single out.

I met many Adult leaders who felt that many of these long term people needed to retake training but has been grandfathered in.

 

In most of our Districts the Commissioner Service is not where it should be.

So unless this was done by unit leaders there was no real support or push

 

Our council training records are a mess.

 

I think that because of these things our council never followed through with not reregistering anyone.

 

I am looking for a pack for my Tiger son and me to join.

I just met with a pack that has 0% trained leaders.

They have the same UC when my son was in cubs and we never saw him back then (6 years ago) so its been quit a time since a UC has paid a visit.

 

Right now I know of a few Troops and Crews (and the other ship in our council) that have 0% trained leaders

 

 

[Twocubdad]

This is a gross generalization, but my experience is that most leaders who are active and involved in the program are trained. In ten years between the pack and troop I only remember one den leader who took Tiger training and nothing more. He served through Webelos and did a decent job. By the time his son got to the troop, he registered as an ASM, but never did anything and never trained. We finally dropped him from the charter, although his son is still active. I had another really good den leader who wanted to take training but worked weekends. Training here is offered only on Saturdays. That one I count against the training committee.

 

To me 100% training is another version of zero tolerance. There are better ways of cracking the nut.