Troop Level Training for Boy Leaders

[blw2]

our troop runs ILST

apparently we do elections on a 6 month cycle, with ILST planned soon after for the newly elected leaders.... even if they have taken it before.

I sat in the back of the room, since my son wanted to take it and so I was going to drive him anyways (he hadn't been elected, but saw it as a good stepping stone to a por)

 

Overall, I'm guessing it followed the BSA syllabus fairly closely.

We have a Committee member that is very energetic, and did a lot of work pulling together a class.  

Teaching is split up by several folks (SM, ASM's, Committee Members) and this breaks it up.... and the exercises/games rotate so that if somebody took it before they are likely playing different games.

 

Generally, ... probably with a lot of help from the organizer/trainer... that it's a decent little class to cover leadership concepts

EXCEPT

too much classroom setting and adults doing the talking instead of the scouts.

[fred johnson]

Some of the responses remind me why we moved away from the BSA training course. I'm not complaining about the course because it helped get us started when we were kind of clueless about junior leadership training. But we found that scouts only needed the course once. After that, it was extremely boring. And we found that once our troop was maturing and had developed set routines, the course didn't really meet the needs of the scouts. 

 

So we developed two courses. One course was for scouts that had no leadership experience. It was an overnight course that gave the scouts basic skills of leading they may have not observed in their patrols. The other course was presented after each election. It is basically a couple hours of guiding scouts of  their new responsibilities. 

 

As for the leadership and management skills the scouts uses, we found that the scouts had at least the raw basics already from observing their predecessors. If the scouts were struggling in specific areas, the SPL would set up quick courses for that specific to the need. A scout theoretically never has to repeat a training course until they are instructing or directing it.

 

Barry

 

Well said ... BSA ILST is a once and done type of course.   It's only fresh and meaningful once.  It's part of a continuum and a prerequisite for the rest.    ISLT --> NYLT --> NAYLE.   The person who benefits significantly from the 2nd time through is the SPL who leads the course. 

 

I agree.  There needs to be position specific training too.  But, I doubt a couple of hours is necessary and even then I'd expect it's a once-and-done situation.  ASPL training overlaps with SPL and PL.  etc.  

 

Anyway ... I've seen the BSA ILST done really well and it was useful.  Not done well, I'm sure it's lame.  Sort of like Wood Badge.  Done well, it can be almost life changing.  But if you've seen it before, it's a little hoo hum.

[Sentinel947]

My Troop has run ILST for a couple years. I think it's time to develop a plan since most of our scouts have attended it. Maybe scale back from doing it every year to every other year. The most important training of Scouting is done on a weekly basis and comes from experience. 

[fred johnson]

our troop runs ILST

apparently we do elections on a 6 month cycle, with ILST planned soon after for the newly elected leaders.... even if they have taken it before.

I sat in the back of the room, since my son wanted to take it and so I was going to drive him anyways (he hadn't been elected, but saw it as a good stepping stone to a por)

 

Overall, I'm guessing it followed the BSA syllabus fairly closely.

We have a Committee member that is very energetic, and did a lot of work pulling together a class.  

Teaching is split up by several folks (SM, ASM's, Committee Members) and this breaks it up.... and the exercises/games rotate so that if somebody took it before they are likely playing different games.

 

Generally, ... probably with a lot of help from the organizer/trainer... that it's a decent little class to cover leadership concepts

EXCEPT

too much classroom setting and adults doing the talking instead of the scouts.

 

That sounds like an adult modified ILST where the adults modified it to run it themselves.  What scares me about that is 

• Sounds more complex than it is meant to be.
• Sounds more sitting than it is meant to be.
• Sounds more like a PowerPoint presentation than it is meant to be.

From what I saw, the best ILST, is a partnership between the SM and SPL.  The SM mentors the SPL.  The SM helps the SPL prepare materials and get organized.  The scoutmaster supports the SPL.  Otherwise, the SM sits quietly ... maybe asking questions such as "What did you do?", "How did that work for you?", "How did they react?"

 

Adults talking subverts the concept of ISLT..

 

Sitting too much defeats the concept of ISLT.

Edited March 7, 2016 by fred johnson

[Hedgehog]

My cousin did a cool thing. He was took the old JLT and built their TLT on that model. I borrowed it. Far superior to what BSA offers today.

 

Any chance your cousin would let you share it with me to use as a reference?

 

Modify every lesson in ISLT into a wide game. S

 

My problem is that the boys view it as a game and don't really internalize the lessons.  I guess I'm thinking more real life challenges that require leadership, decision making and challenges.  

 

The agenda was based very closely to this.  In fact, after scanning this, it is very very close. 

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/training/pdf/ILST%20FINALS%202011%20-%20Item%20Number%20511-016.pdf

 

 

Yep, that's the one... 4 hours of PowerPoint, check the box... you're trained.

 

Hmmm, I don't do JLT, TLT, or ISLT.  I use a loosely defined patrol training program based on the GBB training program.  Everything is done on the patrol level only and issues are addressed only when the PL runs into difficulty. 

 

That is the method I've been using.  Took one boy aside this weekend and told him that he was showing real leadership because every time I saw him he was doing what had to be done without anyone telling him what to do.  He was taking care of the guys in his patrol.

 

No, he created the Brownsea 22 ( BA22) syllabus and crest.

 

 I'll have to track that syllabus down...

 

So we developed two courses. One course was for scouts that had no leadership experience. It was an overnight course that gave the scouts basic skills of leading they may have not observed in their patrols. The other course was presented after each election. It is basically a couple hours of guiding scouts of  their new responsibilities. 

 

Do you have any materials that you could share?

 

Generally, ... probably with a lot of help from the organizer/trainer... that it's a decent little class to cover leadership concepts

EXCEPT too much classroom setting and adults doing the talking instead of the scouts.

 

Your assessment is pretty  much the same as mine.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Hedgehog

[fred johnson]

Fred johnson, on 07 Mar 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

The agenda was based very closely to this.  In fact, after scanning this, it is very very close. 

 

http://www.scouting....ber 511-016.pdf

 

 

 

Yep, that's the one... 4 hours of PowerPoint, check the box... you're trained.

 

 

Argh.  Sounds like someone took a good course and restructured it because they did not want or have time to learn how the course is meant to be taught.  The result is creating a death by PowerPoint situation.

 

The BSA ISLT course can work.  But it's like an course syllabus, you have to learn how to teach it.   Otherwise it becomes a "not invented here" situation and people end up re-inventing what already exists.  

[MattR]

I just did something for a group of new scouts as well as a patrol that is struggling that I'd like to work into patrol leader training, and it worked really well. It was about teamwork, leadership, and how the two interact. I took a bunch of the low cope style activities, one for each person in the patrol, and had the scouts do them with one exception. There is a patrol leader (everyone has a turn at this). The patrol leader has the ultimate say in what happens and everyone else must obey what he says. Also, we stress that the PL needs to be aware of this responsibility. His ideas of how to solve the problem aren't nearly as important as how his patrol solves them. After each activity we talked about what happened. By forcing the leader to lead, the team to obey, and also taking turns at this, everyone got an appreciation of both sides of leadership and teamwork.

 

It took about 90 minutes. Each activity was 10-15 minutes. The improvement in that 90 minutes was surprising. They started off flailing and arguing. It was everyone for themselves. We reviewed, they tried again, it was a little quieter. All the bad ways a PL or patrol member could abuse things came up, we talked about it, they made it better. They learned the importance of listening. Eventually the quiet scout had to be the leader and by then everyone knew he was quiet, and gave him the time to muster up courage and tell everyone else what to do. This was the quiet scout's first campout and he was telling the 16 year olds what to do. That night several other adults and a few scouts mentioned how well the troubled patrol had worked together for the rest of the day.

 

I like the model of giving the scouts lots of problems to solve. For us it was more like 5% talking, 75% activities, and 20% review. Unfortunately our SPL is not capable of teaching this. Let's just say he needs to take the course.

 

The regular ILST has always seemed like a waste of time because the resulting scouts weren't any different than before. It has always seemed like a great set of tools once you know the basics but they skipped the basics. The basics are more about people than the job at hand. What I don't understand is why nobody that writes up these courses gets that. What kid in school ever sees any of this? These scouts have next to no experience at this sort of thing. I tell these guys "don't make a decision that your patrol can make without you" and this is just hard for them to get their brains around. From the scout viewpoint, of course leaders make decisions for everyone, that's what their parents and teachers do.

[Stosh]

Sorry, MattR, but to have one person make all the decisions and everyone else is forced to obey is not the definition of leadership, it's the definition of authoritative management out of control.

 

True teamwork is when everyone, regardless of of any identified "leader" works together to solve the problem.  A good team won't know which member is the leader until well into the process.  The leadership of any good team depends on the problem and which member of the team has the skills and talents to solve it.

 

If the patrol doesn't have enough Dutch ovens for the evening meal, it's not the PL/APL or Grubmaster who has the best opportunity to solve the problem as well as the QM can.....A PL who has to tell the QM to go get a DO for the Grubmaster is basically admitting there is absolutely no teamwork going on in the patrol.

[Krampus]

Any chance your cousin would let you share it with me to use as a reference?

 

 

He used to be on the forum but left during all the membership hullabaloo. I will find out if he's got the modules to share. It is a big set of files (over 50MB). The great thing about the old JLT/TLT is that it actually taught something. The current ILST is nothing more than an outline of what to teach, but there's no solid takeaways for the boys. Moreover, if you don't know how to teach the subject -- which a large percentage of the leaders and scouts won't -- the course is worthless. 

 

BSA needs to develop training that can be taken out of the box and run with little effort or knowledge. Or, they need to have a training course that teaches how to teach ILST, but that ALSO has the "how" built in to the course.

 

Lastly, JLT/TLT should be a "once and done" course, BUT the BSA needs to develop a module for teaching leadership skills that can be done annually as a re-fresher. Re-doing ILST is like reliving the Titanic; you did it once and God forbid you ever have to do it again.

[Eagledad]

I like the model of giving the scouts lots of problems to solve. For us it was more like 5% talking, 75% activities, and 20% review. Unfortunately our SPL is not capable of teaching this. Let's just say he needs to take the course.

 

 

Good job. We have done something like this and found as did you that scouts love solving problems. The more you can get the problems scouting oriented, the better. I remember one of our adults had a couple older scout handbooks with the Semaphore Flag signal translation. He handed the books to the patrols with a couple of flags and gave them a couple messages. He separated them by a couple hundred yards and told them they couldn't have lunch until each Patrol learn the message of the other patrol. He didn't give any other instructions. The scouts had so much fun figuring it out and sending messages that they asked for another message instead of eating lunch.

 

Many of us old timers remember that most of the skills competitions at Camporees where problem solving events that required using scouts skills to complete. For example: The patrol leader is told that they just walk on a 50 ft. diameter pond with someone struggling to swim in the middle. Each scout in the patrol has an eight foot rope; how will they save the struggling swimmer? They have one minute to save the swimmer. Of course the proper knots tied correctly gets a lot of points, but the patrol has to get the rope to the swimmer as well. There is only one way it can be done in one minute.

 

In fact as I think about it, we injected a lot of our old scouting ideas into training sessions. Our scouts found that they loved Chariot Racing. Anyone remember Chariot Racing?

 

Well done MattR.

 

This goes back though that an inexperienced troop that has never done training before can't just go out and try these ideas. It takes the adults some time to understand what training does for scouts and how to inject creativity into the training once they do figure it out. The BSA course is a good place to start.

 

Barry

[qwazse]

You all are beginning to make me think that a few rounds of British bulldog has more leadership training potential than most of what we pawn off as such ...

[Eagledad]

Not so much as leadership training, but before the G2SS restriction, we took the patrols to play indoor laser tag. Participants are divided into groups and then compete to win by tagging each other out until the last man standing. Each competition last about five minutes, but it is a fast furious five minutes. I have never witness a faster or better team building activity. Patrols of Scouts who barely knew each other at the beginning were full functional patrols an hour later.

 

To win each group must come together as a team almost instantly. The leaders pop out quickly because there is no time for shyness. To win, a team member ask for ideas and pulls together a plan in a matter of 30 seconds that every member agrees and follows. It was truly amazing to watch. I found this activity to be the best team building activity I have ever useen.

 

I learned that finding activities which appeal to boys and are of a competitive nature build teams the fastest. The more intense the activity, the faster it pulls the team together.

 

In a larger picture, "time" serves the same purpose at a troop level. Agendas or schedules with incentives to stay on schedule is another great tool to force groups of boys into functional teams.

 

Barry

Edited March 8, 2016 by Eagledad

[Hedgehog]

I like @@MattR's approach of learning through doing and I agree with his learning through doing.  But I agree with @@Stosh that leadership isn't JUST telling people what to do and having them follow.  Servant leadership is about listening and building consensus.  Servant leadership is about working to enable the scouts you are leading to succeed in their roles.  Servant leadership is asking not what the scouts you are responsible for can do for you, but what you can do for them.

 

@@Eagledad and @@qwazse, I agree -- challenging activities can teach lessons better than any simulated activities.  

[MattR]

What I did was an exercise. Everyone took turns at being the leader. Everyone spent most of their time listening and if they had an idea they suggested it knowing it might get rejected. Everyone was also forced to take a turn at deciding everything for everyone. Believe it or not, this was the hardest part for most scouts. One scout out of the two patrols that participated refused to listen and just decide for everyone else. It was a teaching moment when his approach failed. This approach worked very well. Despite everyone's fear that it would turn into a dictatorship, the scouts were working better as a team under those rules then they ever did before. Furthermore, they also worked better the rest of the weekend. It certainly is a paradox that a leader with final say can create teamwork. But maybe there's a useful nugget there.

 

I've seen these team building exercises for a long time and they have never worked very well. What usually happens when we run these, even though we repeatedly suggest that the scouts have to listen to one another, is they do what they are inclined to do anyway. The extroverts usually take over and the introverts rarely speak up, no matter how good their ideas are. During this exercise the extroverts had to learn to listen and the introverts had to learn to speak up, because those were the rules of this game. It has nothing to do with bad managers, it's just personalities.

Edited March 8, 2016 by MattR

[Stosh]

If a group has only one leader there cannot by definition be any team work.

 

A PL can determine the menu, but if the Grubmaster doesn't know how to prepare the food selection, the PL will have to cook.

A PL can determine the equipment but if the Quartermster doesn't have the equipment the PL will have to bring it.

A PL can pick out the movie for movie night but everyone's seen it the rest won't show up.

 

To think that rotating around the PL leadership among all the boys is like saying everyone has the same skills, the same talents, the same interests, the save drive, 

 

Sure a boy might be able to solve a problem given in a training session, but did they do the best job?  Chances are one boy might be miles ahead of everyone else solving that problem.... but what about the next problem down the road, will that same dynamic hold true?  I wouldn't put any money on it, To train as it is a possibility is a waste of time.

 

Leadership is not a one-size fits all.  Rotating leadership on a problem only teaches one boy to solve one problem and teaches the rest that they aren't going to do as well.

 

They never make recordings of pigs singing for a reason. most people would prefer song birds or even whales over a pig.

 

Every person on a team has something to offer the group, not just the guy we designate as a "leader".  Once a group figures it out one has teamwork and in reality, one doesn't need a designated leader to make it work.