Are we about to make TRAINED meaningless?
Christopher Strauss (Chris_Strauss@UNT.EDU)
Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:02:54 CST6CDT
FLAME ON. Don't say that I did not warn you first...
Last night I heard a "rumor" from a well-placed source that so
appalled me that I must raise the topic for discussion on this list.
I was told that when the new training syllabus for Cub Scouting
appears this fall, it will reduce the basic training session to half
of a day, eliminate the requirement for outdoor training for Webelos
leaders, and change the special training requirements for positions
such as Den Leader Coach to optional training only. While the last
change may simply be a recognition that it is very difficult for
councils to provide specialized training for low-density positions,
it is the changes proposed for Cub Leader Basic that concern me most.
These changes may already be locked in at the National level and
considered not negotiable with those of us expected to implement
them, but that does not make them smart, or right. In fact, from
what little I have heard they appear to be ill-advised, self-
defeating, and just plain foolish. The publicity on this has been
nil... and I can see why. I would personally be embarrassed to
present it to a group of dedicated Cub Scout trainers.
As I understand it, the Cub Scout Leader Basic Training syllabus will
contain much of the same outline it has now, but without the time to
properly present it. Sessions will be shorter, allowing even less
detailed presentations than before. We will apparently be forced to
skim lightly over the top of every topic a Cub leader should know,
without adequate time to explain any of it. What was already a
difficult task is now made impossible. I cannot remember ANY session
I ever taught that had enough time allocated to it to properly cover
the topic. I always had to leave out some information I knew that
they would need almost immediately in their new position. There
simply was not enough time. If someone does not understand, you
won't even have time to take their question. The "fun" we constantly
tried to inject at every opportunity to impress them with the
principle of KISMIF will be another casualty... we won't have any
time for it in the syllabus. At the end of the half day's session,
we will pronounce them "trained" and send them out, ill-equipped to
succeed as leaders. The worst part of this is that we will be doing
this at a time when leaders need more and better training just to
protect themselves, and the value of serious training has finally
been recognized by most of the corporate and service industry
sectors. Are we planning to pioneer a new theory now (actually an
old one, disproved in blood in every war ever fought), that if we
pretend hard enough that we are properly trained, then we really are?
This change, if true, flies in the face of everything I have learned
about training in twenty years of military service and eight years of
Scouting. The quality of every unit I have ever seen was largely
determined by the amount of energy they devoted to serious training.
Poorly trained leaders, units, and individuals failed and died, while
those who did their "homework" succeeded and survived. In the
military, abbreviated or shallow training got people killed. Dead.
Unfortunately, and all too often, those responsible for the lousy
training usually survived to perpetrate the folly. By cutting back
on the time devoted to Leader Basic in scouting, we will be setting
up our new leaders for a similar dismal fate by skimping on their
initial preparatory training, then sending them out to lead units
with barely a clue about how to do it properly. We will lose these
leaders when they try and then fail to operate a program that they do
not understand. Instead of preparing them to succeed, we will be
setting them up for a fall, telling them that they are trained and
ready when we know that they are not. Our new leaders deserve much
better than that. It almost goes without saying that our boys
deserve better too.
As to the supposed move of Webelos Outdoor training from "required"
to "supplementary" . . not too bright! By scaling back on the
requirements for those who will take boys into the field, we not only
set up our Webelos leaders for a rough time now, but we discourage
them from ever becoming Boy Scout leaders two years down the road.
Inadequate training, followed by failures during performance, leads
to lousy retention. Ask anyone who served in the Army in the early
seventies. In fact, if I were a council risk management staffer, I
would have to question the intelligence of those who must think that
Webelos leaders who have never had outdoor training (and don't need
it unless they are in the 10-20% who want to work on their knot) will
be adequately prepared to take proper care of their scouts while
camping. I for one would not like to have to review the incident
statistics from the next five years and say "I told you so" to my
council executive. By implementing these rumored changes we will
"fail to train," and our newest and most vulnerable leaders will be
"trained to fail." Is this really where we want to go? I sincerely
doubt it.
Is the problem that it is just too hard to get our leaders trained,
and National is tired of hearing complaints from those in the field
who cannot make the grade? "They can't make quality unit because
they cannot get their leaders to training?" "They cannot make
quality district or council because they can't get quality units?"
Of course it is hard! Anything worth doing usually is, or it at
least requires some sort of serious effort. If it is the whining
that has brought about this change, then maybe it is time for the
serious trainers to start doing some SCREAMING. Please, someone,
tell me that this is not true. And if it is, I really would like to
hear someone, anyone, attempt to intelligently justify it. Good
luck! Trainers, if this is news to you, and bad news at that, please
add your comments to the fray. If these changes are as
counterproductive as I fear, but have not been put into effect yet,
it is not too late to do something about it. Once it is published
and mandated, we are stuck with trying to overturn "established
policy." And how much support for returning to longer training
requirements will there be from new leaders once they have received a
"shake-n-bake" four-hour "trained" patch? It's like trying to change
the legal drinking age to 21 after it has been 18 for a number of
years; forget it!
Sorry if I have been long-winded and angry, but I AM ANGRY. I lived
through this foolishness in the Army somehow, and know first-hand the
tremendous effort it took to correct it. I certainly do not want to
see it happen in Scouting. We will pay dearly in lost scouts,
disillusioned volunteers and poorly run programs for YEARS after
CORRECTING the training program deficiencies (assuming that somewhere
down the road we DO correct them). It takes that long to overcome a
system built on a foundation of poor leader training. I know, so I
had to say something.
With apologies to those who already care, FLAME OFF.
YiS, Chris Strauss
Pack 69/Troop 65, Frontier Trails District, Longhorn Council
Christopher E. Strauss Internet:strauss@unt.edu
Computing Center Support Services Coordinator (817) 565-4979/2324
University of North Texas, Denton, Texas 76203 FAX 565-4060
{ GRADUATE!!!, School of Library and Information Sciences }
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City |
