Following the Program

[Prairie_Scouter]

I don't think that we'll ever get to the point that BSA can create a program that can be run by virtually anyone of any skill level, nor, I think, would we want to. Now, that's different than educational approaches and resources. I worked as an industrial trainer for a couple of years, so while not an expert, I do know that different people learn different ways. So, BSA might consider providing training, and training materials, in different ways, such as those suggested by some of the posters here. Some of leadership is just personality. Some people have that charisma that draws the Scouts to them, and some don't, regardless of how much they might try. If a leader doesn't have the ability to present the program in an interesting way, I don't think it matters much how good the program is; the Scouts won't buy into it. And that's why it's such hard work to be a good, effective leader. Anyone can just read from the books, and follow it verbatim. Taking that same content and making it interesting for the Scouts is another story, I think. A poor leader can take the most fun activity and turn it into a dreary, awful task, while a good leader can turn a garbage pickup into a fun activity.

[Bob White]

The job is of a scout leader though an important one and a challenging one is not a difficult one. The only thing that keeps any individual from following the BSA program and having a successful unit is the attitude they bring to the position more so than the aptitude.

 

The program can be easily taught if the volunteer makes the choice to accept it.

 

 

 

[evmori]

The only thing that keeps any individual from following the BSA program and having a successful unit is the attitude they bring to the position more so than the aptitude.

 

Another interesting statement!

 

So training has nothing to do with running a successful unit. I'll bet all the district & council & national training chairs would disagree. And so would most if not all of the posters in this forum.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SWScouter]

Hmm, I'm having a lot of trouble following Ed's leap to training isn't important from Bob White's assertion that attitude has a greater influence than aptitude.

 

Here I agree with Bob White. If someone has a bad attitude they probably aren't going to do a good job (provide a strong program) whether or not they are capable (have the aptitude).

 

SWScouter

[OldGreyEagle]

SWScouter, Ed's post isnt hard to follow when you factor in he will try almost anything he can to demean BobWhite's posts. He took one sentence and mocked it, completely ignoring the sentence:

 

"The program can be easily taught if the volunteer makes the choice to accept it"

 

That's the crux of the matter, you have to first want to learn before you can learn

 

[acco40]

The real question is what of volunteers who have great charisma, attitude and accept what they perceive the program to be (but it isn't).

 

Some will vilify that individual, others will complement him.

[johndaigler]

There are good curricula and bad. The boys' is pretty good (I can only speak informedly about the Cub's Program - pretty good, not great). At present the adults' has shown itself to be ineffective - if only, based upon it's intrinsic inability to motivate participation and promote success. Trainers struggle to make it worthwhile to adult students.

 

IMHO, we need to improve the Curricula, AND the Peeps.

 

CO's and CC's are charged with the "hiring" of volunteer leaders. Perhaps, they need more (better) training with this skill. More likely, I think the reality is that most scouters are drafted through coffee-clotches and friendly wrangling - without much real emphasis given to the "quality" of the service; and without all that much participation on the part of the CO or CC.

 

Sure, we like "nice" people, but I'm not sure many volunteers are asked if they're willing to read the Leader Book and the boys' handbooks. Maybe the screening process should be that simple. . . "We'd like you to be a leader for our boys. Are you willing to read these two books within the next week, then come back to me and agree to lead according to them?"

 

jd

[Bob White]

No team can operate successfully if only one member knows how to play the game. No scout unit can succeed based on the ability of just one person.

 

It is not necessary to learn the program in a week, a month, or a year. What is needed is the attitude that the program works and needs to be followed, and a knowledge of where to go to get questions answered.

 

How often during a committee meeting have you heard someone say,"what does the handbook say about that?". You don't need to have the program memorized to look up a specific question or learn a skill. You just have to be willing to learn to do it right. Everyone needs to be willing to do it right.

[evmori]

SWScouter,

Shouldn't be too hard to follow. According to the statement, there is only one thing needed - attitude.

 

OGE,

I am in no way mocking anyone. I don't operate that way and consider your comment about me an insult. I did not ignore the next statement. I agree with the next statement but it is in no way related to the one I referred to in my post.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SWScouter]

Ed Mori writes, "According to the statement, there is only one thing needed - attitude"

 

The statement written by Bob White, "the attitude they bring to the position more so than the aptitude."

 

I don't see how the statement excludes aptitude. It does, however, say that attitude is more important than aptitude.

 

Perhaps OldGreyEagle is on to something, Ed does seem to have the aptitude for demeaning Bob White's posts, or is that attitude...

 

SWScouter

[CNYScouter]

IMHO, I think that its pretty rare to see a Troop where the leaders have great attitude, but no aptitude (training) that are running a successful Scouting program.

 

On the other side, I also think that it is pretty rare to see a Troop where the leaders have the aptitude, but no attitude, that are running a very poor program.

 

Most Troops fall some where in between.

 

However, with what I have experienced, the Scouting programs that I would consider successful have leaders that are both.

I have found that most leaders that have a great attitude go out and get the aptitude.

 

Most Scout Leaders that I have run onto have the just enough to get by attitude.

They take the minimum amount of training and are not willing to take the extra time to learn about the program. They are willing to go camping and on outings, but they are not willing to put in the extra effort it takes to put on a good scouting program.

 

One of the most discouraging things is that most of the leaders in our Troop are college educated. Most have graduate level degrees or higher. They all talk about how they constantly take training at work to update their knowledge and skills.

 

If you ask them if they could do their job after taking just a basic course, they respond of course not. However, they do not perceive Scouting the same way. They feel that the basic courses are enough and they do not need more training.

 

I am hoping I can spark some enthusiasm into this bunch. One reason I transferred my son into this troop was that I saw with a little effort they had the potential to turn into a really successful program.

 

 

CNYScouter

[dkurtenbach]

Lots and lots of Scouting -- perhaps the vast majority of Scouting -- is done by volunteers who are just in it because their kids are in it. There are in Scouting only as long as their kids are in Scouting. They see value in Scouting, but see value in lots of other programs as well. They are willing to take some training, but within limits they believe are reasonable for them (and who are we to judge their decisions about their own time and resources?). They are willing to go camping, organize fundraisers, serve as Advancement Chairman, and take on lots of other jobs big and small so their kids can have a successful program. But, to a greater or lesser extent, they are not interested in becoming immersed in the program and do not take it on as a lifetime endeavor. They are there to *help* -- often as Den Leaders, Scoutmasters, and Committee Chairs. They are willing to follow the lead of "more experienced" leaders -- or whatever passes for more experienced leaders (such as long-standing unit practices and traditions), without making serious inquiry into whether that guidance is really valid, authoritative, or useful. Many of them are very knowledgeable, many of them are barely knowledgeable. They haven't caught the Scouting "bug," and don't necessarily understand leaders who have (or view such leaders as any more knowledgeable or committed or authoritative than they are themselves). Not knowing the Program, they don't necessarily recognize Program elements when are presented, and have no particular reason to trust those "ideas" above their own or others they have been working with.

 

The practical reality is:

-- We need those people; Scouting would be much smaller without them.

-- Though not as good as it could be, those folks do a lot of good Scouting (in addition to a lot of poor Scouting).

-- We aren't going to get a significantly larger number of them to training under our current system.

-- We aren't going to get a significantly larger number of them to read the program materials under our current system.

-- We don't have a system in which Scouting "experts" who know the Program can go out and fix things; Unit Commissioners don't have that authority, often don't have the knowledge and experience, and often aren't even assigned to units; and our "experts" aren't evenly distributed (they are often highly concentrated in certain units).

 

If we want a fundamental improvement in the quality of our unit programs, we have to do something differently. On one end, that may mean imposing training requirements on Scouters; on the other end of the scale, it may mean simplifying and streamling the program so it is easier to understand and operate by the average Scouting volunteer, or finding a way to provide more "active" outside guidance to units.

 

Dan K

[Beavah]

Woodbadge BobWhite comments that being a scout leader is a challenging but not a difficult task, that requires only attitude and acceptance of the program.

 

While that's hard to parse syntactically, my point was similar. Good youth leaders come with significant prior knowledge (aptitude) and significant natural inclination (attitude) to work with kids. Curriculum (program) and training are never sufficient to replace these things. At best they can supplement or shore up a weak spot... maybe.

 

Relying on program / curriculum is never sufficient. You have to find good, capable, enthusiastic people... what B-P called "the right sort of scouter."

 

In response to Dan's question, I'm not sure what to do with the part-time parents, if that's all you have to work with. They're fine "extra hands," but on their own they're not enough to run a good program.

 

Boston Beavah

[dkurtenbach]

I agree that the absolute best way to improve the quality of a unit program is to get leaders who are "the right sort."

 

Sadly, the mechanism for finding and selecting unit leaders -- the Chartered Organization and Chartered Organization Representative -- often does not work well and the unit is left to fend for itself. Even if the mechanism does work well, the problem is often finding volunteers willing to take on the jobs, and there is not the luxury of ensuring that the "willing" are also "the right sort."

 

If we want to rely primarily on "better leaders" to improve the quality of units and the overall quality of the Scouting program, then we need to either use our existing leadership recruitment methods better and more consistently, or else develop better leadership recruitment methods. This is a laudable goal, but success seems unlikely -- we have been trying to do those things since Baden-Powell's time. Success is usually localized to a district or often a single unit, and is usually temporary.

 

While "better leaders" may be the best solution, it may not be a practical, workable solution that can be implemented in the short term or sustained over the long haul. Therefore, it seems reasonable to also work on a range of other, lesser methods for improving unit quality and getting units to follow the program more consistently -- methods that are practical, workable, and can be sustained. What conditions discourage units from following the program? How can we eliminate those obstacles? What conditions would encourage units to more consistently follow the program? How can we implement those incentives? What conditions encourage units to deviate from the program? How can we eliminate those incentives?

 

Dan K

[Beavah]

Ahoy Dan K!

 

You say we haven't had much success with improving leader recruitment. At the same time, you admit that we haven't had much success with improving training / materials / developing a "leader-proof" program that everyone can follow successfully.

 

The thing is, we've spent a lot more time and $$$ trying to do the latter. And we continue to spend more time and $$$ on curriculum and regulation even though we know, as you admit, that finding better leaders gets us a much bigger bang.

 

That's just poor economics.

 

I wonder what would happen if half the $$ spent on curriculum / materials were instead spent on helping CO's recruit, select, and evaluate leaders? I wonder what would happen if half the time spent on discussing regulations for "following the program" were spent on recruiting high quality volunteer adults with a commitment beyond the tenure of their own son?

 

Beavah