Jump to content

Social & Economic Forces & Their Effect on our Program


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not true. Good leadership would have a plan in place as to who would be selected to fill in the responsibilities of a leader that left under any circumstance. So even death would not have to harm a program that had quality leadership.

 

Creative attempt though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

You asked, And what element do you believe affects a quality program more than the ability of the unit leaders? And I responded that I never claimed such a thing exists, but there are several factors of at least the same importance. If you do not believe that having an organization willing to sponsor a unit is at least as important as quality leaders, I cannot help you. Granted, humankind has shown us its ingenuity, creativeness, and ability to overcome some of the most insurmountable tasks imaginable. I never claimed that we dont have the ability to cope, fix or reason. I am pointing out that you must have an organization within your community willing to sponsor a Scout troop before you can get a charter. No organization willing? No charter. You can say that a quality leader would find a sponsor, but what if he cant? Is he then not a quality leader?

 

By golly by gosh, I knew our BSA training is pretty fantastic, but I never imagined that it would be responsible for training the quality leaders that would find the cure for cancer, A.I.D.S. and world hunger. Someone needs to get this to the A.P. ASAP B.W. Finds Cure to Fix all Problems: Quality Leaders.

 

By the way Bob, Im just curious which came first the quality leader or the people that trained them?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just look at the movie "Follow me Boys", old Lem Siddons never received any training but did alright by his troops, he didn't even have an ASM.

 

What do you think Bob was that a quality scout program? It sure wasn't by the book, lol. As you probably know it was based on a true story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

Guys, I think you are going off the deep end. If you state that the definintion of a quality leader is one who creates a quality program then yes, no argument, a quality leader is needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW lots of good questions. Pull a log up to the fire and lets share.

 

"How about a Scout Executive who sets his own membership requirements for new units and refuses to accept your application for a new Venture crew, even though it meets the published standards?

 

Lets stick to the topic, "program quality" we can do conflict resolution another time. While the CR is working with the SE what kind of program is being delivered to the Scouts. thats what we are talking about.

 

 

"If you do not believe that having an organization willing to sponsor a unit is at least as important as quality leaders, I cannot help you.'

 

None needed at the moment, thank you though. I gave you a unit with a charter as well as other conditions which you chose, but without quality leadership. Was it a quality scouting program? you never answered.

 

"By golly by gosh, I knew our BSA training is pretty fantastic, but I never imagined that it would be responsible for training the quality leaders that would find the cure for cancer, A.I.D.S. and world hunger. Someone needs to get this to the A.P. ASAP B.W. Finds Cure to Fix all Problems: Quality Leaders"

 

And there no doubt is the wall that separates us in how we view this topic. Scout Leader training and the program resources of the BSA, as good as they are were never designed to cure cancer or AIDS. They were designed to deliver a Quality Program and when leaders learn and apply those skills that is exactly the results. I am not the one who discovered this. That credit goes to the likes of Baden-Powell, and William Hillcourt as well as the volonteer trainers all across the country working to have 100% trained leaders. Why? Because we know that is what will have the greatest benefit for the youth scouting serves.

 

"By the way Bob, Im just curious which came first the quality leader or the people that trained them?"

 

Easy... The quality program came first, then the leaders who learned how to do it, then the leaders who learned from them.

 

"Just look at the movie "Follow me Boys", old Lem Siddons never received any training but did alright by his troops, he didn't even have an ASM.

 

What do you think Bob was that a quality scout program? It sure wasn't by the book, lol. As you probably know it was based on a true story."

 

Follow Me Boys is a fun movie, but let's not forget it's a movie. We have our hands full dealing with real life. If I thought that our discussion would alter the film in anyway we could talk about it.

 

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Guys, I think you are going off the deep end. If you state that the definintion of a quality leader is one who creates a quality program then yes, no argument, a quality leader is needed.

 

Close, what I am proposing isn't that "definition" of a quality leader is one who creates a quality program, but that the result of quality leadership is a quality program.

 

The definition of a quality leader is one who is has taken training, learned the methods and apply them to achieve the aims and mission of scouting.

 

Every Boy Deserves a Trained Leader.-Baden-Powell

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hola -

 

 

I think, BW, your words confuse me. It seems you want to have this two different ways. I'm not sure these two sets of words from your last post go together very well.

 

..."By the way Bob, Im just curious which came first the quality leader or the people that trained them?"

 

Easy... The quality program came first, then the leaders who learned how to do it, then the leaders who learned from them. "

 

"what I am proposing isn't that "definition" of a quality leader is one who creates a quality program, but that the result of quality leadership is a quality program. "

 

Of course, . . . the quality program cannot be the result of quality leadership if, indeed, it came before the leaders who learned it and trained others.

 

I guess I'm not getting something.

 

 

 

Also, BW, your words give no respect to the many untrained, "unQuality" leaders whose efforts, mistakes, time, sweat, passion, money, creativity and Spirit eventually led to the "quality" of which we are so proud and take for granted.

 

And, if those people did actually exist - perhaps someone would like to argue the point - then doesn't it stand to reason that "Quality" is a journey rather than the place we are standing today - or any single place BP stood 100 years ago? Doesn't it stand to reason that there are still many Scouters who fit that description? "Quality" programs grow and change, and its quite difficult for "Quality" leaders to be the change agents, being neck deep in their aforementioned "Quality" program. Often, "Quality" is a result of dumb luck, deliberate risks and serendipitous errors and coincidence - to be sure, I intend no slight to training and quality leadership - but there is more to the real world.

 

 

Going back to the original quest to prove or disprove BW's hypothesis that quality leadership is the greatest impactor of quality program . . .

 

I submit . . . since "quality" is obviously a "qualitative" assessment, then the court of "public opinion" has a greater impact on program than quality leadership. It's not the designers of the program, nor the leaders of the program who in the end pass judgement on "Quality", but the folks who choose or not, to participate; the folks who fund or don't fund said program; the folks who press for changes or whose behavior and beliefs alter said program. For example, Bobcat #8, the lack of acceptance for a Unitarian Religious Award, Tiger Cubs, and Blues for Tiger Cubs. The world around us can't be ignored. What will we do if and when the Supreme Court changes the Pledge of Allegiance?

 

Unfortuantely, this truth leads to the worry that "quality" for one is not quality for all. And, of course, that would be a whole new thread . . . or two . . .

 

 

jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that truly is a breakthrough Bob. Have you considered sharing this idea with Rod Paige? I really think the Department of Education could learn a lot from this concept. All theyd need to do is train teachers so that they learn the methods of teaching and we wouldnt have any more kids that dont know how to read. No more high school graduates unable to pass college entrance exams. No more kids being tardy or skipping school No more apathetic teenagers! It wouldnt cost a dime either, because as youve proven social and economic factors are not a factor. We all can get all of our tax dollars back for what we spend on education. Well, except for the cost of properly training those teachers so that they finally figure out how they are suppose to be teaching kids. And to think, all this time weve been worried about putting up new schools, replacing old textbooks and asbestos wrapped around the heating pipes.

 

Easy... The quality program came first, then the leaders who learned how to do it, then the leaders who learned from them.

 

Well, I didnt ask about a quality program, because I thought that is what you stated is the result of quality leaders. Somehow I think you jumped a step. So how did we get a quality program without quality leaders?

 

What I am proposing isn't that "definition" of a quality leader is one who creates a quality program, but that the result of quality leadership is a quality program.

 

The definition of a quality leader is one who is has taken training, learned the methods and apply them to achieve the aims and mission of scouting.

 

So an untrained leader can never be a quality leader? And a Scout troop can never have a quality program if they dont have a trained leader?

 

And if a Scout troop does not achieve the aims and mission of Scouting then it is the fault of whoever trained the trainer that trained the trainer that trained the trainer that trained the trainer So it must be Baden Powells fault because he did not train the person that trained the person that trained the person that trained the troop leader right?

 

Id really like to get this straight, because the next time one of my Scouts guilty of unbecoming a product of the aims and methods of Scouting I want to know who to blame. It certainly wouldnt be the Scouts fault, because I was suppose to teach him better, but it couldnt be my fault because I was supposed to be trained better, so it must be either my trainers fault, or the guy that trained him fault

Link to post
Share on other sites

So cjmiam, you don't think if we had better teachers it would have an effect on the quality of education?

 

"So an untrained leader can never be a quality leader? And a Scout troop can never have a quality program if they dont have a trained leader?"

 

That can't possibly be a new concept, can it?

 

You mean to be a teacher you have to go to school?

 

To be a firefighter you have to take training?

 

To work in any job you have to get learn how to do the job?

 

Who would of thunk?

 

 

"Id really like to get this straight, because the next time one of my Scouts guilty of unbecoming a product of the aims and methods of Scouting I want to know who to blame.

 

If you have never attended training, or have and don't use the skills you were taught, then the first person to blame is in your mirror.

 

BW

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

cjmiam,

 

Actually, you can have a charter without a traditional organization like a school, church, VFW post or Masonic Lodge. A "Concerned Citizens" group can be a charter. I know, because our DE told us about it and that is how our Troop started this past June. They are not very common to my knowledge and I assume that is why you seldom hear of them. Our group was called Concerned Parents of OKC and we borrowed space from a church that was the charter to our old Pack. They would only allow us to use the space until the Pack started their new year. Our preference was to find a charter organization, but our efforts failed to turn one up. I looked long and hard and was turned down flat numerous times before I did find a church that thought a Scout Troop would fit nicely into their outreach plans. I'd like to think it was a desire by myself and our quality leaders that got us to start this troop and eventually ferret out a "real" charter so we could continue delivering a quality program. In our case, it wasn't the charter that came first, it was quality leaders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sort of been assuming that by "quality leadership" we were talking about people with the personal qualities needed to be good leaders. Bob seems to be suggesting now that quality leader means trained leader. It seems to me, though, that training is not enough to produce a quality leader, and that some people without training will nevertheless be able to provide a quality program, if they follow the methods provided in BSA materials (I guess you could say they are "self-trained"). I certainly know people who have never been formally trained to perform tasks, but who nevertheless do them well, because they observed others, did some research, etc. I certainly think everybody should get training, but I think what makes a "quality leader" is a lot harder to pin down than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

being trained is only half the equation. There are lots of trained scouters who do not follow the program and it shows in the poor retention rates, poor advancement, continual administartive problems in the unit, injured scouts, and on and on.

 

It's getting trained and using the training that makes the difference between a leader and quality leadership.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Johndaigler

,

"Also, BW, your words give no respect to the many untrained, "unQuality" leaders whose efforts, mistakes, time, sweat, passion, money, creativity and Spirit eventually led to the "quality" of which we are so proud and take for granted.

 

And who would they be? What untrained leader making mistakes improved the quality of scouting anywhere?

 

I submit . . . since "quality" is obviously a "qualitative" assessment, then the court of "public opinion" has a greater impact on program than quality leadership.

 

But that is not true John. Have you never heard of Quality Unit Awards? Commissioners Unit Evaluations? Camp inspections, Scouting methods, aims and missions?

 

The BSA has many measuring devices that look at specific elements to evaluate the quality of the program being delivered to youth. This is not a subjective "hey let's have a vote" situation. Scouting is a specific and unique program with known program elements that are either practiced or not.

 

"what will we do if the Supreme Court Changes the pledge?"

 

Well John, I expect we will do the same thing scouts did when Congress changed it the last time, we will say it. This isn't the first version. No one ever promised you it was the last one. How does changing the pledge affect the quality of your next Scout meeting?

 

How would changing the Pledge affect the leadership abilities of any person?

 

John, quality in Scouting is specific and measurable. Here is an example. The National Quality unit Award is given to units that achieve a minimum level of program activity set by the BSA program. John, nationwide fewer than 60% of all units meet these minimum requirements. Of the ones that do not do you know what nearly every one has in common? NO TRAINED KEY LEADERS.

 

Specific, and measurable. Ask your District Executive for the numbers in your district and see if the same thing isn't true.

 

BW

Link to post
Share on other sites

SR540Beaver, That was a nice story. And thanks for sharing. I have no doubt that your efforts were the reason you now have a charter and place to meet. I dont think I was suggesting the exclusion of a certain type of organization. Sorry if thats how it appeared.

 

But Bob was trying to ask me what I felt was more important than quality leaders or something of that sort, when I never asserted that there was a substitute or equivalence. It was then that I used some fundamental items needed to have a troop. Bob asserted that a quality leader would overcome those obstacles and you just proved it to be the case. But that wasnt the point. I was using it as equal importance. Im guessing five kids could probably find a quality leader if they had the desire to do so as well. Im guessing a local organization could find five kids to join Scouting. Its simply the point that you must have a charter, you must have a safe place to meet, you must have quality leaders, and you must have kids that want to be in your program, they arent mutually exclusive.

 

My original argument never was meant to trump the importance of a good leader. However, I believe many aspects are involved in a quality program that will gain a childs interest and keep him involved in our program. And based on a units resources, these aspects may grow or lessen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...