Mandatory Training

[Bob White 20]

Mandatory training can hope to do one thing and one thing only, it can effect an increases in attendance at training courses.

 

Mandating training has no effect on the quality of the trainers, or on the quality of the learners.

 

When you really think about it, attending training does not guarantee you are trained, it means you attended training. Unfortunately there is no way to show that you actually learned or use any of the information once you leave, and that is the difference between those who were there and those who were trained. Unlike rank advancement where you do not get the badge until you prove that you can do the requirements, the BSA gives the adult the "trained" recognition simply for being present, not for actually learning or using the aims and methods of the program. They trust in the individual integrity of the learner to follow the BSA program. As we all know integrity comes in variable amounts.

 

Real learning requires effort on the parts of both teacher and student. If you want to effect the quality of scouting in your community then two groups must perform their jobs thoughtfully, and I am not referring to the trainers and the Scout leaders.

 

I refer to the District Committee and the Charter Organization. Unless they select and recruit quality people to lead their programs then very few good teachers will meet even fewer good students.

 

Good trainers will not have to be told to follow the syllabus, good trainers feel an obligation to teach the syllabus materials.

 

Good leaders do not have to be made to go to training. Good Leaders would want to learn their job and how to deliver a scouting program, and they make the time to get trained...and they would use what they learned

 

If training is to be mandated then let the unit make it mandatory since the unit volunteer belongs to the charter organization. Charter organization representatives should only choose leaders who feel an obligation to follow the program from the comittee chair and committee members through the Scoutmaster and assistants. When a adult is being recruited the unit chairman should make it clear that attending training and following the BSA program is a unit standard and not an individual option.

 

District Chairs should only select sub-committee chairs who are dedicated to learning and executing their obligations to the charter organizations in their community.

 

The solution to better unit scouting is solved when good people are selected.

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Good. Active listening is an essential tool of the leader. Feedback is a gift.

 

Bob, here's some feedback: Most of us here are unit serving, perhaps District level volunteers. While your message may well be valid, we're not the target audience. Bob, you need to get what you just wrote to the Professionals, Council Presidents, and Council Executive Boards who are putting these mandates for training in place.

 

John

I used to be an Owl

C-40-05

[Bob White 20]

Hi John,

The BSA has already said that the troop committee is responsible for seeing that quality adult leaders are selected recruited and trained. (see the Troop Committee Guide)

 

Some units do, some units don't.

 

As far as the councils that are mandating training we return to 'what the volunteers don't do the professions must'. If units did a better job of selecting leaders who would atttend training and get then there then professionals would not feel the need to intercede.

 

But that does not alter the fact that mandated training onle insures better attendance, not better trainers or better participants.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[BrentAllen 10]

"If training is to be mandated then let the unit make it mandatory since the unit volunteer belongs to the charter organization."

 

This is our philosophy. If you want to be an ASM in our Troop, you must attend SM/ASM training and ITOLS (along with YP), as a beginning. Candidates must also pass most of the T-FC requirements, get CPR/AED trained along with Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat. This is not a short process, and it gives us plenty of time to observe the Scouter to see if he fits in with our program. If he does, upon completion of all the required training, he/she is welcomed into the adult patrol, with much fanfare.

[insanescouter 10]

Mandatory training may have another impact ... decrease in the only slim group willing to be leaders ... I am one of those that can wear the "over trained" patch however sometimes getting even leaders who have been around a year or so to commit to being trained is a nightmare. Maybe it would be a good thread to start...

 

Scott Robertson

http://insanescouter.org

Helping leaders one resource at a time....

[Gold Winger 9]

My district recently made it a requirement that all "contact leaders" must complete training within one year of joining. Boy was there some uproar over that. But it's all calmed down and everyone is getting in line.

 

For my part, I don't understand why people would want to take on a job without training.

[evmori 11]

Nothing will ensure all adults will be trained properly or the trainers are good. Since the training is done locally, it will vary widely. Mandatory training will help eliminate those adults who don't want to commit the time to the program and it will get all the leaders in the same training area (district or council) on the same page.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[ElyriaLeader 11]

While I agree that the primary leader (DL,SM,CM) should be trained, but not so much for the assistant leaders, while it would be helpful I don't think that mandatory training for all leaders is the answer. My take on this is...if you agree to take the top position, then you are agreeing to take on whatever training is required for that position, not everyone has that additional time to devote to scouting but want to help out, and are real assets to the units they serve, so why force them out by mandating that they go to training? I have an assistant den leader who is an eagle scout, super knowledgable of all things scouting, works well with the kids, gets along with all the parents, but because of his work schedule, courses to further his education/make him more valuable to his career, and other family commitments (he has 2 other kids besides his scout)he can not find that "extra" time to attend scout training. So according to the guidelines he's not qualified? ......please!

[OldGreyEagle 5]

COmming from a Council that requires training and has the highest perentage of trained leaders in the BSA, I dont see an issue with requiring training. It hasnt effected the number of volunteers (as yet). Its hard to deliver the promise, when you dont know what the promise is

[John-in-KC 311]

Mr Dunlap was a great metal shop teacher. He taught me several gut-check sayings about life:

"Wisdom is experience gained with tears."

"All the moving parts have to work together, or the machine won't work."

 

The second of those sayings applies to training and education!

 

The learner has to recognize he/she has a gap in skills, and be willing to accept training to correct the gap.

 

The trainer has to have both content and presentation skills.

 

The environment has to minimize distractions to training, so both trainer and learner stay on task.

 

There are multiple issues with mandatory training. I think a Chartered Partner is certainly within rights to require training and proficiency for adults to serve youth.

 

I think, though, a Council mandating training automatically assumes obligations laying out said mandate. As we've seen in one thread, a Council decided an 8 hour version of an overnight, done indoors, was enough to get the trained card. To me, and perhaps Gunny, there's an old military term for that: Pencil-whipping.

 

If the Council is going to mandate training, it assumes the obligation to provide instructors who know both the content and the delivery methods. Buffaloing either makes the whole matter a pile of Doctor (Colonel) Sherman T Potter's horse hockey.

 

We ask new volunteers to give up time and occasionally money to attend the various training events BSA offers. We owe them a product which meets the need.

 

I have a couple good friends who are on my Council's Executive Board. I will share my thoughts about training in general, and Council-imposed mandatory training in particular with them.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[FScouter 24]

The council leadership training committee already has the obligation to provide quality training. If a mandate helps spur the committee to improve the quality, then a mandate is a good thing. Poor quality does not follow from a mandate to get leaders trained. Support from the top is a good thing.

[Bob White 20]

Mandating training is not a bad thing, the unit I serve requires training from the CR on through the entire adult leadership. My primary point was only that mandated training only has a measurable affect on attendance. If a unit selcts the wrong person to be a leader then you will end up with a poor leader with a trained strip.

 

Understanding and using the scouting program is what makes a person a trained leader. That will depend more on the character of person selected as a leader. The more careful charter organizations are in choosing and recruiting volunteers the more effective the training will be.

 

Charter reps need to be involved in overseeing the quality of their Scouting programs. They need to see that the training recieved is being used, or that the leader revisits the training, or is replaced.

 

[Eamonn 61]

I'm 100% for Trained Leaders.

Before I'd rush to make training's mandatory, I'd like to see why the people who do attend are attending?

What makes volunteers want to give up their time and hard earned cash to want to attend a training?

On the the other hand I'd also like to try and find out why some people don't want to attend?

How far do we go with this "Mandatory Training"?

Do we insist that everyone is trained?

Does everyone include members of the Board?

If training's were seen as being informative,well run, fun and presented at times when everyone could attend; would we need to make them mandatory.

As a Trainer do I want to present to a group of people who are there because they want to be there or because they feel that they have to be there?

Will this group who feel forced to be there interrupt and take away from those who want to be there?

I'm still unsure how a Council can turn around to a CO who has selected and is happy with the people they have selected and say"Sorry he or she has to go"?

The long term plan of the BSA talks about bringing one million new adult volunteers on board by 2010! Are Council /District Training teams ready for one million people who are mandated to be trained?

As things are now (At least in the Council I'm in) Training's have to be seen to be worthwhile, if they fail to be seen as worthwhile people just will stay home. If we make them mandatory will we risk losing quality because we know that "They have to attend"?

While it might be OK for a CO to mandate training, I do have issues with this idea of an adult patrol??

Eamonn

[scoutldr 732]

As a former training chair, I found the most complaints from attendees centered on content...which I had no control over. If I strayed from the syllabus to add things of interest, we went over time and they were unhappy about that too. The Cub Leader specific courses were the worst. Council would advertise the training as "Cub Leader Specific", and would issue quotas to anyone who signed up. I would end up with a class of 10 people...2 WL, 3 DL, 1 CM, 1 MC, 3 ADL, etc., and only one instructor. I did my best, but it was inadequate. As designed, the Cub training is too cumbersome to do it correctly.

[Beavah 205]

I'm with BobWhite, eh?

 

I've never seen mandatory training accomplish anything more than increasing seat-time and resentment. And as often as not, decreasing the quality of training either because of the resentment of some participants or the need or desire to fudge, use weak trainers, etc. Yeh really think a DE is gonna take a loss of a unit over the mandatory trainin' rule, without being at least sorely tempted to "come do a personal, one-hour IOLS? Like dat silly one-day indoor IOLS course in the other thread - a classic result of "mandatory" trainin'.

 

And how many gawd-awful droning on sessions of SSD/SA have we all sat through?

 

To my mind, mandatory trainin' is the cheap way out. The way that requires effort and would achieve results is uppin' the quality of training so that it's perceived as worthwhile. Then all the right sort of adult leaders want to take it. Think WB.

 

And as BW suggests, we can never do much about the wrong sort of adult leaders until the CO deals with it.

 

Beavah