Keeping To The Syllabus.

[Eamonn 61]

While serving as Council Training Chair I went out of my way to promote the idea that people could cross district lines and take the course that they wanted /needed when it best suited them.

I really went after some sort of "Standardized" training.The idea being that no matter where a participant took the course it would be the same course. At the start I went and visited each District Cub Scout Training and was I shocked. I have always been one to follow the syllabus and have used the syllabus as the "Only way to go." I didn't add to it or take away from it.I also have to admit that I found that the time alloted for most of the sessions is really tight.

Over the course of my little tour I found that many of the districts were using the syllabus as a guide. Some of the districts were adding so much of something that was the trainers pet thing that parts of the syllabus just wasn't being covered. At times this pet thing which might or might not be part of the program acted as a distraction. One Trainer was really in love with "Cub Bucks." She spent over 30 minutes explaining how to make them, how to use them, what she awarded them for, what they might be awarded for and how they were redeemed. In the other thread someone mentioned Den Doodles. I have seen them take up as much time as the darn "Cub Bucks" did. One District had gone as far as making the Cub Scout Specific training into an all day training.

Needless to say I wasn't very happy with all these changes and was surprised at how much resistance I met when I asked all the District Cub Scout Training Chairs. To just cover what was in the syllabus.

I don't have a problem with a display table being set up with all this stuff on it and the staff explaining how it might work while there is a break. I would much rather see this stuff covered at a Pow Wow or Round Table meeting. These add on's are all well and good, but so many new leaders see this stuff and get the idea that these add on's are a vital and important part of the program. Many of these new leaders are already feeling that they are in above their head and are overwhelmed. Making a big deal about this stuff doesn't help, making a big deal about it and skipping or skimping parts of the syllabus is negligence on the part of the Trainer.

Eamonn.

[scoutldr 732]

The most boring thing in the world is to have an "instructor" stand at a podium and read their notes to the class...especially someone who has never (or at least not recently) "been there, done that". I have had a great deal of experience in teaching, first as a scout, then as a Red Cross First Aid and Water Safety Instructor, then teaching adults and college-level courses. I think I know what I'm doing and I've been told I'm good at it...a "natural" if I do say so myself. The biggest complaints I get (nay, the only complaints) is with the material. New leaders come to training expecting one thing, and they are given something entirely different which is often viewed as useless. (I myself experienced this paradigm with the Trainer Development Conference which I was forced to attend.) I especially hate the part when they get the deer-in-the-headlights look when I tell them that no, it's really not one hour a week, in addition to den meetings, pack meetings and pack committee meetings, now they also need to go to Roundtable, PowWow and University of Scouting, and last but not least, Wood Badge, in order to get the information they are looking for and be able to perform in a minimally acceptable manner. The term "betrayed" comes to mind.

 

My opinion (not that anyone is asking): Trash the current Cub training syllabus. Do away with Fast Start and put YP and NLE on video (DVD or online). Then go back to the old Basic Training --- one shot that covers both Cubmaster and Den Leaders --- at least one full day that actually shows them how to conduct an effective Pack and Den Meeting (which is all they really want to know). Learn by doing...not by lecture and video. When they are ready to graduate to Webs, have another full day === outdoors. It's not helpful to get people to come to training (and charge them money in some cases) only to tell them, "sorry, if you want to know that, you have to read all these books and go to another course." What if you went to your Doctor and he told you, "if you really want to know what's wrong with you, go buy this book and read it." I, for one, would feel cheated.

 

I've been told by other trainers that if I can't cover the material in 2 and a half hours, I'm not doing it right. After all, all you have to do is read the stuff and play the videos on cue, then go home. You are right Eammon, that leaves no room for questions, exchange of ideas, concerns, games, songs, or even a bathroom break. But that seems to be the way it's been designed -- inherently ineffective. And we wonder why we can't get people to training.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

As far as quality of presentation, many that train are Scout leaders not teachers with varying degrees of training and experience. If you take a poll on what a person does or if you take the time to find out their background you will not find many with teaching experience. They come from a variety of backgrounds and they are generally volunteering for training because they have had a good time in Scouting.

 

When an experienced Den Leader is trying to explain how to run a den, it becomes frustrating. They know that new people will miss so much because they are given 5 or 10 minutes to get the point across. But the real challenge of training is to hold your tongue and have patience with the new people. The trainer must understand this concept and just give the basics. They also must trust that new leaders will learn more from experience and more from advanced training later.

 

The idea of the syllabus is to give the presenter cues, time lines, amounts of information, etc. which is a good second to having a highly trained instructor. I agree the manual should be used for all of the good reasons stated.

 

There is a full day course called Train the Trainer to teach trainers how to teach. When compared to a person that has had 30 course hours of college training to teach in schools, 450 clock hours, with several books to read, papers to write and practical experiences the comparison begins to pale. So, it is true if you have been trained as an instructor and if you have the ability to instruct you will be a much better presenter. You are much better prepared and can deliver your goods to the market in a much nicer package. There will be no comparison with someone that has those strong skills.

 

Teaching about ones pet project is generally about that person and their own pride than it is training. I have been in college classes where the instructor spoke about their life, their family, their dog, etc. and then tried to relate it to the topic. It is possible that what they are saying is related but when you have a person that knows the language of the discipline, knows the material, has insight into how it can be used, then it is more of an opera than an off key song. After being in several hundred hours of college and graduate training, I can personally vouch for those trained instructors that should deliver the training with aplomb, simply should be doing anything else other than teaching.

 

If a Den leader is asked to attend training then they should be told what will be expected. A simple bulletin or announcement can cover the basic points. Before the session begins, the material should be bulleted, and then after it is said, it is then summarized. Repetition is the bases to learning and the method generally followed in Scouting.

 

Will a Den leader become an expert in a two hour session? Some may be frustrated that they cannot give a bar of soap and a butter knife to a Den Leader and tell them to carve an animal but there really is allot more to having a good program. With all of the training available that still will not be enough because we will always have volunteers from all walks of life that have many different reasons for learning or for not learning. So, as far as following the syllabus, it is important that the reasons be taught as to why it is used and that its use is only the first step along a longer path to becoming a better den leader.

 

Fuzzy Bear

 

[eagle-pete 11]

WOW!

 

I will be stepping down as Cubmaster this month and taking on another job of training on the District level. This is EXACTLY the kind of information I need! Thank you!

 

I can see both points being made here. There absolutely are very good reasons to keep to a syllabus. And there are times when adding material or varying a course might be desirable as well.

 

A few years ago, I attended a Cub Leader Essentials. It wasn't my first, in fact I had attended this course before with the same staff and materials presented. At the time, I was attempting to get all my new leaders "Trained". This sometimes required actually dragging the new leader to the class myself and attending it with them, so I had attended several Leader Essential trainings in a very short period of time. For me, the course, staff, and material were all presented in essentially the same manner as all the others. This particular time, however, I was bringing a new Committee member along who apparently already had pre-conceived ideas of Scouting and the way in which the trainings were presented. The leader went expecting to be given useless, nonsensical and boring information.

 

Needless to say, the leader came away from their training with exactly what she expected. She told me she did not understand the material, her questions still were not answered (of which she asked none during the class), and she was still confused about her position in Cub Scouts.

 

As I stated, I attended the very course she was in with her. The material was presented well, the instructor was interesting and engaging, and I found it an informative and well presented class. But that was me. My attitude was simply different than perhaps some of the other people attending.

 

In my humble opinion, the course director, the instructors, nor the BSA for that matter cannot possible control or ensure that all Scouters attending any given course will benefit from the material or presentation of the course. So you have to go with the common denominator. I say present the material as it is laid out in a syllabus. Perhaps the majority of those attending will come away with a good and informative experience.

 

Scouting, for some, may take many years to "get". An experience here, a training there... For me, I can recall that I did take a few years of trying to understand the program. It wasn't until my attitude went from "I can't do this" to "Maybe there is something that can help me here" that I began to understand.

 

Show me a course that can convey that, and I'll have every Scouter in my district attend it! Wood Badge does come close but it is an advanced training... not for a new leader.

 

Gentlemen,

Thank you very much for this thread. It is precisely what I needed.

 

Pete

Eagle Patrol

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Along with general training, there should be follow-up. This could be done by a Unit Commissioner, UC, that attends a unit meeting and attempts to find if there are other questions after the general training. Then it is time for individual training/counseling

 

Scouting is an organization that has publications based mostly on long term experience. Even if the UC does not know the answer, a quick referral to the material will certainly find it.

 

The Roundtable Commissioner should be alerted to the specific training needs and a program can be easily fitted into part of most any program. It will give the person a reason to attend and will give the RTC a reason to invite that individual to the Roundtable.

 

Most questions can be answered in short order. Scouting is also a family and part of that experience is the social end of it. Getting together, helping each other, pointing each other in the right direction is fundamental and fun.

 

FB

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

First, I'm confused by this statement, "I can personally vouch for those trained instructors that should deliver the training with aplomb, simply should be doing anything else other than teaching."

 

Why? If one can teach with aplomb then one should be teaching.

 

I've been teaching and training folks for nearly thirty years. I've taught at the college level. I've been a trainer for my employer. I've taught umpiring and acting and public speaking.

 

A syllabus is usually a good thing as it tells the instructor what needs to be covered in the class. Having a script is a bad thing. However, going beyond the syllabus is not a bad thing. As it says in the material for merit badge counselors, adding material based on the couselor's experierence is permissible to enrich the experience for the Scout.

 

The problem with most Scout "training" that I've attended is that it really isn't training. Most of it has been a rushed presentation of a script, with a video tape followed by the instructor intoning, "You are now trained, go forth and Scout." Little time for questions, no discussion, and no practical exercises or test.

 

Call me wacky but I don't see why people complain about having to go to a day long session to be a Cubmaster. Do these same people complain about having to go to soccer clinics?

[Eamonn 61]

No good trainer worth his salt is going to stand up and just read from his notes. He has I hope gone over the syllabus many times and seen what the high points are and will cover these.

Also if the trainer is any good he will get a feel for the group and do what he can to meet the needs of the group.

I agree with FOG, someone just reading from a script is not the way to go about it. I think that if the trainer really feels that the participants need to know something word for word that is the time for a handout. Again nothing is worse then a having a handout and then having the guy read it word for word.

One of the reasons why the training becomes so rushed is because presenters run over.

Running over is OK if learning is taking place. However, I have seen a guy get up to make a presentation wearing a campaign hat and talk for twenty minutes about his darn hat.

The main thing about any training is that all the objectives are met. These are very clearly laid out in the syllabus. My thinking is that these have to be met.

It is sad that we can't teach the participants everything that there is to know about Scouting in a training course. My answer to that is that I have been playing this game for a very long time and I'm still learning.

In Cub Scouting there is in the perfect pack a Pack Trainer, who like the Den Leader Coach could and should be on hand to offer help and guidance on the stuff that the packs do. Things like Den Doodles and Cub Bucks.

Just as no two units are the same no two Trainers are the same. Each has some part of the training that they really like to bring home. A friend of mine who is about the best Cub Scout Trainer that I ever met has two sons that are very big for their age. One also has ADD. She really goes to town on "Ages and Stages." This is her thing. Our present Council Training Chair. Seems to race through the " Paperwork." Session in Boy Scout Fundamentals and use the time for the "Methods Of Scouting." presentation.

I think that the New Leader Essentials Course is a good idea and most of the course is good. I don't like the group splitting into the three groups to look at the Cub Scout, Boy Scout and Venturing outing. I don't like it because we have far more Cub Scout people there then anyone else and so few people from Venturing. Still that might change in time or be different in other areas. I'm not that keen on the bridge either. But that's just me. I still use the bridge, because it is in the syllabus.

Eamonn.

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

FOG,

 

You are correct it is confusing. I attribute it to circumstances beyond my control. I won't go into all of the reasons for my poor writing because that is not the subject and I am trying to write about people staying on the subject.

 

I meant to say that for those individuals that have been trained to teach but refuse to use their knowledge to teach, for whatever reason, they should choose to do something else. I am sure that we all have been subjected to listening to a person go on about their dog when the subject should be the cat. When we pay to hear about the cat and we also spend our time off to hear about it and then they talk about their dog that is when it is confusing.

 

I don't think that enrichment is the subject either. I think it is hearing someone speak about things other than what they are asked to speak about and doing it for a period of time that they are not given. The subject comes first, then the time allotment. If a person is going to enrich a subject with material that relates, it should be done within the time limits.

 

Secondly, it appears to me that Scouting is too large a subject to be taught in two hours or one day. Training is not meant to give a person the full knowledge of Scouting. It takes time and is supposed to be put into action over a period of time, just like acting classes or public speaking.

 

You teach acting and public speaking? Is someone else using your name?

 

FB

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"You teach acting and public speaking? Is someone else using your name?"

 

No, I'm me. I taught acting and public speaking. Many years ago, I toyed with the idea of being an actor but found that I had no talent but I could teach it so I did for a brief period. Why does that strike you as strange?

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

FOG

 

I didn't expect it. Your approach to message delivery indicates more of a person that has a technical/science background. You analyze a message and/or the person you are sending a statement toward. You tend to be direct, using fewer adjectives. Your criticism tends toward putting a person on the defense. If they do not have an answer, it is because you have rightly discerned, deconstructed, their message.

 

I guess that is the reason.

 

FB

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"I didn't expect it. Your approach to message delivery indicates more of a person that has a technical/science background. "

 

I do but that doesn't mean that I don't have an artsy side too. Heck, I even wear paisley.

[Big_Dog 10]

FOG-

 

XXL paisley?

 

bd

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Just XL. :-)