Jump to content

Social & Economic Forces & Their Effect on our Program


Recommended Posts

BP? Whoever taught BP his "Scouting" skills and philosophies? Who trained the developers of our first training classes? Who trained the developers of our initial forays into a quality program? Was it "Quality" as first sprung from the heart of BP?? Perhaps, god-sent like a gospel?? Just because we don't know their names, do you contend that they didn't exist???? Who developed the "square knot"?? Do we think it was his first try with a rope?

 

"Quality unit Awards" measure consistency with pre-determined program and program goals, they do NOT measure Quality of program. As I said, I believe "Quality" is a word based, atleast partially, in growth and change. Growth and change sometimes demanded by the public environment, sometimes predicated on a catastophic event, sometimes based on new information that arises out of mistakes, luck, etc. For example, science and medicinal "Quality" changed radically with the convenient discoveries of penicillin and radioactivity. To suggest that Quality Scouting is immune to such forces, cited specifically or not, is too narrowly focused thinking.

 

No need to teach us about the Pledge, BW. The point which you apparently missed, or intentionally avoided, is that cultural changes affect change in program. "Quality" is therefore susceptible to cultural changes. Cultural changes are susceptible to the whims of the people, so the whims of the people affect "Quality" program.

 

Training is vital, NO ONE here has ever debated that. Trained is better than Untrained. Everyone agrees. But, there is more to the conversation, because the conversation exists in the real world. If "Quality program" does not take into account the audience, then its "Quality" is tenuous at best. The guys who develop it, teach it, learn it, all agree it's Quality. That's a rather useless assessment if its the only criteria for Quality in an organization that spouts itself as World Wide. Certainly, different world cultures accept different Programs as Quality. Again, . . . therefore, Quality is a changeable assessment depenadant on public view.

 

jd

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bob, this is where I think weve reached an impasse. It seems that you feel training provides quality leaders. While I agree that training is an important part of being a quality leader, I dont think it opens any magical door to make a quality leader or guarantee a quality program.

 

You cant train a person personal motivation, passion, love, personal sacrifice, commitment, positive attitude or a personal desire to make the world a better place. You cant train a leader the drive that SR540Beaver exhibited when trying to find a place to meet and a charter for his unit. I believe it is these traits and many others that give us quality leaders willing to provide time, money and many other resources to the children in our program. I believe that quality training helps them to learn more about our program and how we as leaders are best utilized in the Scouting organization. But see, I now need to qualify even our training.

 

Im not sure how many hours Ive sat through training at every level, but I can guarantee you that not one of those hours gave me a badge saying that if I successfully utilized what I learned I could call myself a quality leader. Unfortunately after some training sessions, I had to wonder whether everyone wasnt just a little dumber than when we started. Most of the training that Ive enjoyed has allowed me to share and learn from others as I think that is what much training should be about. The know-it-all trainer does the entire group a disservice by not allowing the assets of the group to be shared. Granted there are times for policy and safety issues when instruction is essential, but most of the Scouting workshops and training seminars come from sharing. Learning the aims and methods of Scouting doesnt have to occur only through Fundamentals, Fast Start or Wood Badge. I can picture hundreds of leaders that Ive met through the years many with no beads around their neck, yet their 20, 30 and 40 or more years of service to our organization are heralding examples of quality leadership. I cant imagine considering them inferior leaders because they have not been officially trained.

 

Motivating kids to join our program and stick with it is our challenge. We have little value if we cant understand the ever-changing needs of the kids we serve. While our program stays steadfast to its founding principles and our Mission remains the same, our marketing has changed as well as many aspects of our program. Selling kids on the idea that well help them achieve their full potential isnt going to fly. So we have the opportunity to help them want to be in Scouting. And the assets available to us are only limited by our imagination and resources. Its a proven fact that Scouts that attend summer camp are more likely to stay in Scouting and Scouts that reach 1st Class in their first year are more likely to stay in Scouting. I also believe that troops with active outdoor programs will keep their Scouts interested therefore more likely to stay in Scouting. I think its clear that high adventure activities will keep kids in Scouting. I argue that all of these things and many more contribute to the quality of our programs and our ability to recruit and retain our members.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

cjmiam,

I have trouble understanding why you are so selective in your reading. Nowhere did I say that being trained was the same as being a quality leader. We have examples right on this board of trained leaders who lose boys faster than Brittany Spears loses husbands.

 

Quality leaders know and apply the methods of scouting to achieve the aims and mission. To do that you need to know what those things are, and how to do them, that takes training.

 

No one who lacks the love for the kids, and an enthusiasm for the program is going to make that effort.

 

Johndaigler,

I don't know were you found you definition of "quality' but it wasn't from a dictionary. Here is how Webster defines it, and let's compare it to what I have offered.

 

Quality n. That which makes a thing what it is, nature: kind or degree of goodness or worth; attribute; degree of excellence; excellence

 

A degree...a measurement. Quality is a measurable thing. We measure scouting quality with specifc measureable scouting elements. You either do something or you don't. You have or have not, you did or did not, things happened or they did not. The quality of scouting can and is measured objectively.

 

Can you honestly tell me that you cannot look at the performance of a group or individual and not be able to tell in specific terms if they follow the scouting prograzm or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

I think what jd and others were trying to say was at the early stages of scouting there were no formal training classes. The early leaders who later became the trainers had to initially try new things some went well, many failed. It was from these early scouting pioneers successes and flops that we have the training we do today, so we do not have to repeat the same things that do not work. That tradition lives on today as we learn new and better ways to do things from those trainers who admit what has not worked for them. Any good training program is ever evolving and changes over time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

back again -

 

BadenP, that's a pretty fair and clear summary - thanks.

 

BW,

 

I'd offer a draw, but somehow I don't see that as an option here . . .

 

So, here's a thought or two:

 

"A degree...a measurement. Quality is a measurable thing. We measure scouting quality with specifc measureable scouting elements. You either do something or you don't. You have or have not, you did or did not, things happened or they did not. The quality of scouting can and is measured objectively."

 

Nice try, but "degree" is not a measurement. It's a standard, designed to create a consistent base for scientific conversation and research. "Quality" is never measured objectively, but by an agreed-to set of standards. It's rather important to know what the standards are, who designed them, who's using them to assess "Quality", and how the assessments of "Quality" are interpreted and used - hopefully for future growth planning.

 

Even if the examiners are independant, the standards are not. "Quality Units" are judged against criteria set forth by Leadership. The criteria is designed not to assess quality, but to assess conformity with desired goals. That's fine and appropriate, but let's not confuse this pure definition of "quality" with consistency within an organization. It may seem a fine point, but since the "Quality" line has been so darkly drawn, the point would need to be sharp.

 

 

"Can you honestly tell me that you cannot look at the performance of a group or individual and not be able to tell in specific terms if they follow the scouting prograzm or not?"

 

Yes, BW, I think I can make that assesment, though I know and honor those who are better judges.

 

 

My concern remains that the definitions and descriptions of quality assessment that have been discussed in these threads is often incestuously narrow. "We do this. We believe this. If you do this and believe this, then you're a quality program, too." Again, it's not surprising that an organization values consistency with its Values. It can hardly do otherwise.

 

That however is not enough. A QUALITY program learns and grows. It gathers and accepts new thinking, knowledge, and experience different from itself -- the source of this would, of course, be individuals who the organization cannot presently consider "Quality" Leaders. Gathering and accepting data is only the first step in learned growth, though, there is also: interpreting and understanding the new information; evaluating; and using the new information. Orgs that do not open themselves to new data, interpretations, evaluations and assessments do not grow in a learned way, if at all.

 

Unfortunately, the world still spins around such stagnant orgs. All over the planet new ideas, new information, new interpretations and new uses are experienced daily. The world learns and grows daily. Quality today will not be Quality tomorrow.

 

Are we preparing for tomorrow?

Is our head in the sand?

Does protecting our Core Values and Quality Program mean stagnating growth and learned change?

Are we just so confidant and pleased with ourselves that we think we've reached the peak and don't have to grow any more?

Is there room already built in for learned change, that we just haven't gotten around to discussing?

 

I certainly don't have all the answers. But, I have one. Tomorrow each of our boys needs to be more than he was today. We can only help him do that if we ourselves are more tomorrow than today. We can only be that if BSA is more tomorrow than it is today. . . Or . . . will we be more tomorrow, with or without the BSA??????? . . .

 

 

jd

Link to post
Share on other sites

BP writes

"I think what jd and others were trying to say was at the early stages of scouting there were no formal training classes."

 

That's because in te early days there were no scout leaders. The program was Lone Scouts or boy run patrols.

 

But adult leader training began in 1916 (the same year the BSA organized as councils). Can there be any reason for a leader not finding time in the last 88 years to take a few hours of training?

 

A"Any good training program is ever evolving and changes over time."

 

Any good leader evolves with it. But to evolve with it you first have to follow it don't you? What the program has been and what it will be in the future is irrelevent to anyone who has never bothered to learn what it is now or practice it.

 

johndaigler writes

"Nice try, but "degree" is not a measurement."

 

Really? Lets look at the Webster shall we?

degree n. A unit of of measurement in a scale.

 

HMMM would you like a chance to withdraw that statement john? I will stand by my statements and I listed for you the BSA documents to prove that objective measurements exist. This is not a guessing game it is a structured program.

 

John how can anyone build on a structure they never took the time to learn or use?

 

"We can only help him do that if we ourselves are more tomorrow than today. We can only be that if BSA is more tomorrow than it is today.

 

Very pretty words, now what evidence is it based on? what if instead of the program being more than it is, what if the leaders improved? Would that have an effect? Until the leaders follow whatever the program is what difference will it make how it changes, or even how often.

 

BW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, maybe you can list some of the metrics by which BSA measures quality at the unit level, including the scores at which BSA considers them to be "quality."

 

I assume you are not talking about the Quality Unit criteria since those are really minimum standards. I've never really understood how meeting minimal standard makes you a quality unit. Seems to be an oxymoron, but I suppose that's another topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets start with the Quality unit awrd as that is on of the measuring devices I listed. I even said this measured MINIMUM activity a unit needed to be doing to be considered as offering a scouting program. And yet the number of units nation wide that do not even achieve these minimum levels are appalling. Less than 60% of units earn it on average.

 

Why don't they achieve it? They don't cost anything. They aren't dependent on a societal level. They are not dependent on family finances.

 

Its because the leaders haven't gone to training or don't follow the program. Want evidence find out which units didn't achieve quality unit and then find out who in the unit is trained. Your District officers have the report.

 

There are also commissioner evaluations for units ask you District Commissioner what units are in cautionaty or dangerous levels and then ask how many of them have trained leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

BW -

 

This isn't even a nice try. It's a poor word game!

 

"johndaigler writes

"Nice try, but "degree" is not a measurement."

 

Really? Lets look at the Webster shall we?

degree n. A unit of of measurement in a scale.

 

HMMM would you like a chance to withdraw that statement john? I will stand by my statements and I listed for you the BSA documents to prove that objective measurements exist. This is not a guessing game it is a structured program. "

 

Please re-read your own dictionary definition again and then use it without paraphrasing. A degree is NOT a measurement. (Unless of course, something is measured and found to equal 1 base unit degree.) Your definition says a UNIT of measurement - that is to say a standardized unit used for the basis of simplifying communication. Now, with that understanding please go back to my earlier post. The words cannot be dismissed as a misunderstanding of definitions. Disagree, if you like, with my words but don't try to correct my vocabulary - wrongly focusing on dictionary definitions rather sadly minimizes and distracts from the content of posts. Putting words in my mouth is worse. I, certainly, did not call this a guessing game. And, I believe, you'll need to re-"list the BSA documents" that you refer to, I don't think we've seen them on this thread.

 

 

"John how can anyone build on a structure they never took the time to learn or use?"

 

Again, please re-read my post. This concept would be yours, since it won't be found in my post. My words addressed a "Learning Organization's" ability to see outside itself and actively search for, and use new information. Your question wrongly minimizes and distracts from the words I used without addressing the point I made.

 

"We can only help him do that if we ourselves are more tomorrow than today. We can only be that if BSA is more tomorrow than it is today.

 

Very pretty words, now what evidence is it based on? what if instead of the program being more than it is, what if the leaders improved? Would that have an effect? Until the leaders follow whatever the program is what difference will it make how it changes, or even how often."

 

Again, your words foxtrot around mine and dismissing my point as pretty but lacking evidence distracts from and minimizes the point without contradicting it. Your point that trained leaders improve programs has been made and agreed with several times. The point I made stands adjacent to, not "instead" of trained leadership. Yes, we would better impact more boys tomorrow if more leaders took a training course today. Why come back here? Your repetitive words imply that I didn't agree or, more insulting, didn't understand.

 

My post focused on concerns that our present situation runs the risk of stagnating if we don't accept any data that isn't internally developed. If any program is stagnant then its training program's value will decrease over time. If an organization only relies on internally taught leaderhip, it will decrease over time because NEW ideas are too few. The point and question still remain. Are we capable of accepting new information as an organization? As leaders?

 

 

Now, since we have gotten to the point of word games, it's probably time to find a new thread.

 

jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

You wrote, Nowhere did I say that being trained was the same as being a quality leader. No and that is not what I was inferring. But you do seem to be quite set on the fact that the ONLY way we can achieve quality leaders is through training. And that is where we differ.

 

Your equation is:

 

Leader + Training + successful at aims and mission of Scouting = Quality Leader = Quality Program

 

And Im saying:

 

Leader + or - Training + successful at aims and mission of Scouting = Quality Leader = Quality Program

 

And while Im sure you have seen many examples where your equation works, I have seen many examples where my equation has worked as well. I would mention their names, but it wouldnt matter because you wouldnt know them. So then I started to think about some people you might know. I thought about your comparison to other professional activities that need training like how to be a teacher, firefighter, or any other job.

 

Don Shula for example, the winningest coach in NFL history. What coaching school did Mr. Shula go to that made him so good? I didnt find it in his biography, but I did find his philosophy on winning. To be the best, you have to have passion and dedication. Seems like he know what he was talking about with 347 victories.

 

I wonder about Steven Spielberg that dropped out of film school, Harry Truman that never got past high school, Thomas Edison with only 3 months of formal education and Bill Gates that dropped out of Harvard.

 

Remember, Im not against training. I just dont think its always necessary to get quality.

 

And with regard to the Quality Unit award Its because the leaders haven't gone to training or don't follow the program. That may be ONE reason, but Id bet just as many if not more just don't fill out the application. And they dont fill it out because:

1. its usually done during charter time when they already have enough headaches.

2. can't find their commissioner or dont know who their commissioner is to have them sign it

3. because it requires record-keeping and paperwork and people get enough of that at work

4. because there really is no benefit to it is there? I mean look at the requirements. Anyone with a Quality Program knows it and they dont need a patch to show it especially if the way of getting that patch is meeting requirements that they did in the first half of their Scouting year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But John you base your arguement on a false premise. You say "What if scouting doesn't change". But John scouting does change. It has changed in many many times over nearly one hundred years. And at at any point in time the best leaders were the ones who knew and understood the program at that time.

 

And it was changed by the ones who did it well and were able to move it to another level, not by people who never took the time to learn it.

 

It is the people who know scouting who grow it.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And before you get a chance to alter my meaning and intent and insinuate I am advocating a troop ran by buffoons... let me remind you that when I use the term training I am referring specifically to the courses offered by possible quality BSA personnel such as Fast Start, Basic, Wood Badge, ect., that allows us the honor of sewing that prestigious Trained patch on our shoulder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cjmiam

 

No matter how good the training was or how often a leader goes, if they never put in into practice it doesn't matter, they will not be a quality leader.

 

We have a leader on this board who has been to Wood Badge and even serves on a training team. He has scouts leaving his troop faster than passengers on the Titanic. Yet he constantly argues against the methods of scouting.

 

Nothing will change his ability to be a quality leader until he puts into practice the methods of scouting.

 

You look at ANY of the numerous threads on this forum of scouts, scouters, or parents having trouble with a unit, and every one boils down to someone not following the program.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how good the training was or how often a leader goes, if they never put in into practice it doesn't matter, they will not be a quality leader.

Poor training yields poor leaders.

 

We have a leader on this board who has been to Wood Badge and even serves on a training team. He has scouts leaving his troop faster than passengers on the Titanic. Yet he constantly argues against the methods of scouting.

Actually, you should this should have been worded "argues against Bob White's interpretations of the methods of scouting"

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to how we define and measure program quality--

 

No, Bob, I really wasn't talking about the Quality Unit criteria. As we seem to agree and is often said, quality unit is the minimal requirements. If anyone is unfamiliar with the requirments you can find the form at http://www.scouting.org/forms/ about half way down the page. They are really pretty easy to meet.

 

So beyond Quality Unit, what are the objective ways BSA measures the quality of a unit's program that you previously mentioned?

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...