Following the Program

[Eagledad]

>>So, we can beat our heads against the wall trying to get people to read the books, or we can present the program in other ways.

[Hunt]

I think the pamphlets aren't a bad idea (I prefer the FAQ) version, but I think the future of this kind of information delivery is online. I recently took the Safe Swim Defense online training, and although it's pretty rudimentary, I think it probably sank in more than reading the same material in a pamphlet would have.

[dkurtenbach]

Pictures, charts, and other graphics, of course -- a lot of folks learn best from pictures rather than words. We'd want to have a good mix. Take a look at the Boys' Life Program Notebooks. The Unit Commissioner notebook, for example, has text, calendars, forms, even an insignia placement guide, in 90 pages (including the inside covers) and measures just 3 7/8 x 5 3/4 x 3/16.

 

Dan K

[dkurtenbach]

Online, of course. TV/video, yes. Audio, comic books, Scouter's Hint of the Day email services. The point is to get out of the "big book/training classes only" mode and use comfortable, familiar media to get information out on how the program is supposed to work.

 

At the same time, we are already plagued with too much information out there -- too many books, too many videos. How many training courses are recommended for someone who plans to be a den leader from Tigers through Webelos? Average Jane who just wants to help her son have a great time Scouting throws up her hands in confusion. The information "set" we really want people to learn needs to be relatively small and well-defined -- X number of chapters, segments, or topics (each presented in as many different media as you can dream up). And it has to have a clear end or result -- learn this small, well-defined set of material, and you get _this_ (diploma, "Trained" patch, certification).

 

Simple, easy to understand, not intimidating, reward at the end. Learn this small set of material, apply it just like it says to, and you will have good program.

 

Dan K

[dkurtenbach]

One more note and I'll shut up for a while.

 

Most of you have probably seen or used _The Elements of Style_ by Strunk and White, a manual of English grammar and usage. White's Introduction captures perfectly what I think is needed to reach the vast audience of Scouters with BSA's Program:

 

"It was Will Strunk's _parvum opus_, his attempt to cut the vast tangle of English rhetoric down to size and write its rules and principles on the head of a pin . . . In its original form, it was a forty-three-page summation of the case for cleanliness, accuracy, and brevity in the use of English . . . Seven rules of usage, eleven principles of composition, a few matters of form, and a list of words and expressions commonly misused . . . The _Elements of Style_ does not pretend to survey the whole field. Rather it proposes to give in brief space the principal requirements of plain English style. It concentrates on fundamentals: the rules of usage and principles of composition most commonly violated."

 

Dan K

 

[johndaigler]

I agree everyone's better off following the program than being ignorant of it, but I think its a mistake to confuse "training" with an ability to follow the program. Given the present state of CSLS and NLE, new Cub Scouters do not walk away with enough practical knowledge, or an appreciation of further training.

 

Most of us have suffered through the 3 or more hours it takes for NLE and CSLS. I agree, a "Cliff's Notes" approach would be better than what we presently use. However, in order to be concise with information context, we'll need to be concise with content. So, what are we going to chop out? IMHO (and professional educator experience), its painfully ineffective to skim a thinner slice from each topic and keep it valuable to adult students. So rather than do less with each topic, I'd suggest focusing on the needs (real and preceived) of the students.

 

I'd suggest redefining each course to be specific for a smaller subset of students. We'd be better off if DLs knew more about Cub Scouting and weren't troubled with Boy Scout and Venturing info. So I'd focus on the CS Promise and never bring up the BS or Venturing Oath, Salute, etc. Take out the sections on recruiting adults, FOS, etc.

 

New DLs need, and want, info to help them run a good Den Program. We should focus on quality use of: the Handbooks, the Leader Book, Program Helps, Boy's Life, The How-To Book, etc. Too often we're concerned that our Cub Leaders don't get, or value, training; but our training shows we don't get, or value, new DLs.

Committee members, CMs, CCs, would need some of the "expanded" knowledge now included in CSLS and NLE, but when it's time to train them we should slice out the details of Den Program Leadership and deepen the info pertaining to their role needs.

 

Duck! Single paragraph rant coming . . .

 

Additionally, a key improvement would be for District staff to answer questions with, "On page XX of your CS Leader Book, you'll find answers to your question.", as opposed to the ever-popular, "Well, that's really a Pack decision."

 

jd

 

 

 

[madkins007]

The new training program was rolled out after I was a CS training chair and completed my SM training so I am not as familiar with its content, but, were I offering input on a new training program, I'd...

 

1.) Make youth and adult position patches restricted items, not available until SOME level of training has been accomplished.

 

2.) Streamline Youth Protection. With a good handout, it really should be able to be covered in about 45 minutes.

 

3.) Provide training materials in multiple formats. I REALLY like the idea of making 'Scouting Pocket Guides' with 'mini' versions of a lot of our materials- for youth AND adults! Besides pocket formats, offer on-line versions, e-versions that can be downloaded to a PDA or laptop, possibly even 'books on CD' versions to listen to!

 

4.) Offer a good 'History, Purposes, and Methods of Scouting' booklet/comic that can orient leaders, youth and parents to help provide a stronger shared culture.

 

5.) Minimize AND maximize video use. If you are short on trainers, videos can be a godsend! One trainer, a buncha videos, and some good discussions can accomplish a lot. On the other hand, live humans are generally better and harder to nod off during.

 

6.) Most position-specific sessions end up taking a big chunk of time on one or two points and having to rush to cover everything else. Things like DL craft ideas, unit finances, and so on can chew up TONS of time. Identify these segments, and if they are not needed in the initial training, cut them to bare bones and use them as cores to create a second wave of training of some sort- Roundtable discussions, Pow-Wow/U of Scouting sessions, etc. (Yes, I know this already happens, but in training we often get caught up in covering this stuff when some of it can wait while we hit other, more timely topics)

 

7.) Aim for a goal of a trainer in each unit. I'd love to see this be a person who can do most of the 'basic' training unit leaders need. Have the trainers be certified and give them access to some good materials, then let them loose to get unit leaders trained- Fast Start, Fundamentals, YPT, unit-level supplimental, etc. [i firmly believe that there are huge benefits to group training as it exists now, and I know that a unit-level training program will be corrupted somehow somewhere, but I also believe in removing barriers togetting people trained. This would remove a LOT of them!]

 

[CNYScouter]

I am seeing posts on what a new training program for leaders should be.

I think that the topics covered in the SM Training course that I took were good but they could have presented the concepts in a better way.

 

One of the things was that was done was that part of the training was held on a week night and then 2 weeks later the rest was done over a weekend. There was not a clear connection between the topics covered on the weeknight and the ones done over the weekend.

 

For example: We covered the Troop meeting plan on the weeknight. Over the weekend, we had patrol competitions. However, the connection was not made that these were examples of the types of things that we should be doing at Troop meetings and outings.

Many leaders got the impression that it was just way to teach us the skills and not something to use in our Troops.

 

When shopping for a new troop, I noticed that very few Troops used patrol competitions at meetings or outings. Every troop I visited had multiple leaders that had taken the same training as I did, but very few made this connection. I also have to add that for the most part the more successful (and biggest) troops I visited did use patrol competitions as a regular part of their program.

 

Another example I saw was that anytime the QM was introduced for an announcement or was even mentioned, they had everyone cheer. Many leaders saw this as just a way to bring some fun to the training. Very few saw it as a way to take a one of the most boring PORs and make a scout want the job and feel important doing it.

 

I think that many people need to be hit over the head and have it explained why these things were being done.

One thing I would like to have had was to do an actual troop meeting as done with the Troop planner. Instead of having 4 different competitions I would have rather had done one in an example of what a troop meeting should consist of.

 

One of the biggest problems I had with the training was that the last thing the course director told us was that the things that were covered were just guidelines. He made it sound as if everything presented was optional and to find out what worked for our program. Although I agree that this statement should be made I would have like to see added to this was something along the lines of this program works. It has been developed over the last 95 years and any problems you have are nothing new and it is covered in the handbook During the training it was said that the BSA has books covering every situation but not that the ideas presented are tried and true and do work in most situations.

 

I did let the course director know these things at the end of training.

 

I dont think many leaders are purposely not following the program, but many do not or are not willing to take the time to understand what the Scouting program is actually about.

 

CNYScouter

 

 

 

 

[Backpacker]

I agree with others that the mode of training could stand some real improvement and that many trainers need to instructed on how to give a decent presentation. When I went through Venturing Leaders Essentials in 2003 I went out of council to a team that had a great rep on their training methods and they were fantastic. I gave their names to my council to have them come train our council trainers and I wound up being placed on the council training committee. Now we have properly trained trainers. How many of us have sat thru trainings where the instructor just reads out of a pub for hours? If the training is done well than the leaders will better absorb the material and use it in their units, if the quality of the presentations are boring leaders will zone out and not really understand the full impact and methods of the program and not use them.

[Beavah]

Interesting discussion.

 

New and "undistinguished" teachers are helped by being provided a good, highly specified and well developed curriculum. If they follow it. Following the program can move a poor teacher into the lower end of mediocre.

 

Good and experienced teachers do better when they are provided a good, highly specified and well developed curriculum AND ADAPT IT to the local conditions. That's the difference between a mediocre teacher and an excellent one.

 

In education, we're pretty sure that curriculum amounts to something like 5% of the variance in outcomes. That is to say, having a good program and following it gets you an added 5%. Under the best circumstances with lots of added resources, maybe 10%. The big effects are from having the right people, and having those people adapt to meet the needs of the kids they have.

 

So sure, if somebody is new or weak, getting them training to follow the program will help. It's a good start, but it's not a panacea. You might be better off looking for better people (perhaps ones that read books...). Putting your faith in people is a better investment than putting your faith in a program.

[dkurtenbach]

Five percent is five percent. There doesn't have to be a choice among remedies -- all reasonable methods for getting more leaders to follow the program should be pursued.

 

It is easy to say "look for better people"; far harder to actually find them. In the meantime, we have to work with the folks we have, the good-hearted parents who are giving up their time, energy, and resources to do something great for their kids. Maybe they aren't the best people for the job, but we owe it to them and their kids to do what we can to make them successful.

 

I would also say this. If our program cannot be successfully implemented without talented, highly effective and experienced people who know how to adapt the program to local needs, then Scouting is largely an exercise in futility. I don't believe that it is. I believe that the program can be successfully operated by anyone with enthusiasm, a willingness to work with youth, and the ability to follow instructions. Very often what is missing, it seems to me, are clear instructions.

 

Dan K

 

[Beavah]

Our educational community has spent 50+ years and some billions of dollars attempting to come up with "teacher-proof" curricula... programs and materials that do not require good people but are still successful.

 

I think that (with the exception of the commercial promoters) the consensus is that "human-proof" programs are not possible. "Just follow the curriculum" doesn't work. Anywhere. Ever.

 

Finding good people may seem harder. But perhaps if we put the same energy and money into that as we have into fine-grained analysis of the program we'd show better results.

[Bob White]

It is said that in the future all factories will have only three components: a computer, a man, and a dog.

 

The computer's job will be to run the factory. The man's job will be to feed the dog. The dog's job will be to keep the man away from the computer.

 

Not all training requires a skilled trainer. Depending on the complexity of what is being taught there are technologies available that can transfer the information just fine.

 

The greater the complexity and the more vital the information the more important the skill of the trainer becomes. However even more importatant that the skill of the trainer is the ability and the willingness of the participant to learn.

 

Send a bad leader to training and more often than not you will get back a trained bad leader.

[evmori]

Send a bad leader to training and more often than not you will get back a trained bad leader.

 

This is a interesting statement. While I am sure this does happen, I thought one of the ideas of training was to train bad leaders so they could become good leaders! If training bad leaders yields only trained bad leaders what is the point of sending them to training?

 

I have found the bad leader don't want to attend training because they will find out they are bad leaders.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

If you have a leader dead set against the First Class Emphasis/First Class First Year program, sending him/her to training on it, wont accomplish much. If a scout leader is convinced his trops adaptation of the Boy Scout Program, steeped deep in the Troops tradition is the only way to go and mocks the NLE presentation, nothing good can be accomplished.

 

Part of training requires an open mind of the part of the student and a willingness to implement the training regardless of how they have done things in the past. Not to disagree to much with Bob White, but when you send a bad leader to training, I dont think you get a trained bad leader, you have a bad leader who had the material exposed to him, and thats about it, a characteristic of a bad leader is that he is untrainable.