Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 76

Thread: Training Moan

  1. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,414
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 690 Times in 403 Posts
    Bottom line for me is that TSA needs to decide what its training programme is for.

    Is it:-

    1. A system for ensuring that if/when something goes wrong, the organisation has a comprehensive evidenced system of training that it can point to and say "Look we did all this, and so the fact that something still went wrong means its not our fault"

    or

    2, A system for ensuring that leaders have the skills they need to call on in the roles they are engaged in so that young people have safe high quality activities run by motivated leaders.

    At the moment it doesn't work on either level. It fails on the first count, partly because a high proportion of leaders never complete it yet are let loose with sections (in order to keep them running and numbers up) before they've completed anything like the whole system. (Which then prompts the obvious question as to why you can supervise 30 cubs after just mods 1-3 for up to 3 years but then NEED to do the other 16 modules to carry on using that gained experience etc). It fails on the second count because it requires everyone to plough through everything (OK so you don't need to train but you still need to chase around to get validated) rather than it being on say a "risk" assessed basis where people do the training you need. We have the ludicrous requirement that an experienced special needs teacher would still have to validate a module on dealing with challenging behaviour. Why all Beaver leaders have to sit through the parts of Module 19 on running overseas trips is also beyond me!
    Does anyone know what's going on?

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mang21 For This Useful Post:

    pa_broon74 (13-06-2019),shiftypete (13-06-2019)

  3. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,048
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 196 Times in 143 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by big chris View Post
    There has very much been a feeling that becoming a leader is only really for people who love folders, dividers, tabs etc. and enjoy spending ages collating evidence and making it look pretty.

    The last time i tried to get involved as a TA etc, the training team were clearly very organised people who loved paperwork in triplicate and neat folders etc... the idea that this was quite onerous and offputting simply did not compute. There was this amazing hovering constant nonsensical threat that gilwell would descend at any moment and demand to see 17 modules (or however many) of perfectly organised evidence or we'd all be our on our ear.
    Similar to my experience and why having done one of the early courses never took the role on.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by mang21 View Post
    Bottom line for me is that TSA needs to decide what its training programme is for.

    Is it:-

    1. A system for ensuring that if/when something goes wrong, the organisation has a comprehensive evidenced system of training that it can point to and say "Look we did all this, and so the fact that something still went wrong means its not our fault"

    or

    2, A system for ensuring that leaders have the skills they need to call on in the roles they are engaged in so that young people have safe high quality activities run by motivated leaders.

    At the moment it doesn't work on either level. It fails on the first count, partly because a high proportion of leaders never complete it yet are let loose with sections (in order to keep them running and numbers up) before they've completed anything like the whole system. (Which then prompts the obvious question as to why you can supervise 30 cubs after just mods 1-3 for up to 3 years but then NEED to do the other 16 modules to carry on using that gained experience etc). It fails on the second count because it requires everyone to plough through everything (OK so you don't need to train but you still need to chase around to get validated) rather than it being on say a "risk" assessed basis where people do the training you need. We have the ludicrous requirement that an experienced special needs teacher would still have to validate a module on dealing with challenging behaviour. Why all Beaver leaders have to sit through the parts of Module 19 on running overseas trips is also beyond me!

    I agree with much of this but this part only partially. 'We have the ludicrous requirement that an experienced special needs teacher would still have to validate a module on dealing with challenging behaviour.'

    I agree that a teacher may well have certain knowledge on this (possibly not all do), how it is dealt with in Scouting could well be very different to how it is dealt with in a school.

  4. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    263
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 72 Times in 46 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb123 View Post
    'We have the ludicrous requirement that an experienced special needs teacher would still have to validate a module on dealing with challenging behaviour.'

    I agree that a teacher may well have certain knowledge on this (possibly not all do), how it is dealt with in Scouting could well be very different to how it is dealt with in a school.
    That, and the validation for that particular module could be as little as a chat with an adviser:

    To validate this module the learner will need to complete one of the following:

    Outline strategies used to promote positive behaviour in your section
    Evidence you could use may include one or more of the following: discussion with the learner including specific examples of appropriate strategies

    <snip>

    And also complete one of the following:

    Show evidence of de-escalating an incident of challenging behaviour appropriately
    Evidence you could use may include one or more of the following: <snip> discussion with the learner focusing on responding to an incident of challenging behaviour.
    Not particularly onerous really.
    James

  5. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,414
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 690 Times in 403 Posts
    OK so would you throw out said experienced leader because they hadn't either been retrained in the Scouting specific way of doing so (i.e. gone through the validation process) or been able to find the time to track down a TA for this purpose.

    If TSA sorts out ensuring every leader has easy access to a TA then maybe some of this stuff that I'm arguing wouldn't be relevant. However I got my wood badge presented this week having been a leader since 2014 and NEVER in all that time did I have an assigned TA. In the end the way I got it sorted was to copy and paste all the validation criteria from the training advisers manual into a Word document and write up how I felt I met those criteria, sent it all to our DC who had the sense to sign it all off on the spot based on that and his personal knowledge of my capabilities.

    The system is currently broken. It doesn't have the manpower to run the training programme currently in place, that leads to leaders being frustrated at having to work harder in order to be able to volunteer, and more importantly IF the training is vital for safety etc, its putting kids at risk because a high percentage of leaders in positions of supervision of sections haven't completed it. So saying a particular validation criteria isn't onerous seriously misses the point.
    Does anyone know what's going on?

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to mang21 For This Useful Post:

    Puzzledbyadream (14-06-2019)

  7. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    263
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 72 Times in 46 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mang21 View Post
    OK so would you throw out said experienced leader because they hadn't either been retrained in the Scouting specific way of doing so (i.e. gone through the validation process) or been able to find the time to track down a TA for this purpose.

    If TSA sorts out ensuring every leader has easy access to a TA then maybe some of this stuff that I'm arguing wouldn't be relevant. However I got my wood badge presented this week having been a leader since 2014 and NEVER in all that time did I have an assigned TA. In the end the way I got it sorted was to copy and paste all the validation criteria from the training advisers manual into a Word document and write up how I felt I met those criteria, sent it all to our DC who had the sense to sign it all off on the spot based on that and his personal knowledge of my capabilities.

    The system is currently broken. It doesn't have the manpower to run the training programme currently in place, that leads to leaders being frustrated at having to work harder in order to be able to volunteer, and more importantly IF the training is vital for safety etc, its putting kids at risk because a high percentage of leaders in positions of supervision of sections haven't completed it. So saying a particular validation criteria isn't onerous seriously misses the point.
    Would I personally throw them out? No.

    If the delay in validation was because no TA was available over 3 years, why should the person be expelled? POR Appointments 4.9.b allows for a 2 year extension - if a TA wasn't found for 5 years then I *really* wouldn't throw them out.

    Conversely, I happen to think that as much as we want/need volunteers on board, we (as an association and the volunteer "line managers") should be doing our best to match people to appropriate roles. If the local training provision is running as it should be and a person still isn't finished after 3 years then maybe it's time to move them to a role with less training obligations.

    I'm not saying the system is perfect, far from it. There are lots of things wrong with it as have been mentioned already and for what it's worth I agree with your point about whether it's for 1 or 2 above. I think Gilwell want it to be both, but it's currently neither.

    All I was doing was answering the point about that particular circumstance and suggesting a viable, not too onerous workaround. We all know it's not perfect and we all do our best to muddle through it and around its quirks, rightly or wrongly. It all comes down to pa_broon74's favourite word: pragmatism.
    James

  8. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,275
    Thanks
    1,522
    Thanked 1,177 Times in 855 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dragonhhjh View Post
    Not particularly onerous really.
    Heh!

    When my Dad was ill (basically the last six years of his life), people used to say that to me.

    "Just drop in for ten minutes, it's not too onerous..."

    I lived 45 mins away, so that's an hour and 40 mins. He'd need something from the shops... Another half hour... He'd insist on going with you, add 30 mins. Lunch? Dinner?

    If validation could be done on line, that might help. Saying it's not too onerous I don't think is strictly true. It could take as much as half a day.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to pa_broon74 For This Useful Post:

    big chris (13-06-2019)

  10. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    263
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 72 Times in 46 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    Heh!

    When my Dad was ill (basically the last six years of his life), people used to say that to me.

    "Just drop in for ten minutes, it's not too onerous..."

    I lived 45 mins away, so that's an hour and 40 mins. He'd need something from the shops... Another half hour... He'd insist on going with you, add 30 mins. Lunch? Dinner?

    If validation could be done on line, that might help. Saying it's not too onerous I don't think is strictly true. It could take as much as half a day.
    But that quite clearly is onerous. A chat with someone (nobody said it had to be in person) is not.

    If validation were done online, some people would claim that was too onerous as well... registering, logging in, typing up the report, uploading photos (who knows how it would be done). As long as validation is required, there's always going to be *something* involved that some people may find onerous.
    James

  11. #23
    Senior Member big chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    12,204
    Thanks
    1,839
    Thanked 3,323 Times in 1,431 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dragonhhjh View Post
    A chat with someone (nobody said it had to be in person) is not.
    that chat normally has to be in person.

    no matter if it is 5 minutes or 2 hours... it is going to write off a night pretty much.

    one of the most damaging things to leader retention can be people that don't have families (or rather an understanding of the dynamics) and/or whose only hobby and interest is scouting.

    "this is my 4th scout meeting this week" is not the sign of a healthy life balance but people say it with such pride.
    Last edited by big chris; 13-06-2019 at 02:01 PM.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to big chris For This Useful Post:

    BigBadBaloo (13-06-2019),Neil Williams (13-06-2019),pa_broon74 (13-06-2019),shiftypete (13-06-2019)

  13. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    263
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 72 Times in 46 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by big chris View Post
    that chat normally has to be in person.

    no matter if it is 5 minutes or 2 hours... it is going to write off a night pretty much.
    But does "the training scheme" specify it has to be in person? Or is that local roolz again? Genuine question, I don't know the answer (and not particularly inclined to find out). If it does then fair enough.
    James

  14. #25
    Senior Member big chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    12,204
    Thanks
    1,839
    Thanked 3,323 Times in 1,431 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dragonhhjh View Post
    But does "the training scheme" specify it has to be in person? Or is that local roolz again? Genuine question, I don't know the answer (and not particularly inclined to find out). If it does then fair enough.
    we know the answer to that...

  15. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    263
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 72 Times in 46 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by big chris View Post
    we know the answer to that...
    Say no more. I agree with the Scouting games of top trumps, too.
    James

  16. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,275
    Thanks
    1,522
    Thanked 1,177 Times in 855 Posts
    I'm currently trying to put together a hill walking logbook. All I'm looking for is a restricted T0 for the local area. But I'm still having to get this log book together citing the experience I have. I'm told I still need to meet with two assessors (in the pub). Actually, I think that's just the informal meeting, there will be an assessment after that.

    We have no assessors in East Lothian, so it won't be a local pub.

    All that because there are two hills in East Lothian above 500m - and even then, they're on 20 odd metres above 500. I can't remember how many times I've been up them with or without Scouts in tow.

    Maybe they'll look at my log book and just issues the restricted permit. If I wanted to do the West Highland Way again, it wouldn't be enough. I think there's one point of the Great Glen Way that sticks it's snout up over 500m... I don't think I ever did that stretch though... The Explorers did right enough, I drove the van...

  17. #28
    ASL Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Hwicce
    Posts
    3,732
    Thanks
    370
    Thanked 740 Times in 542 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    I'm currently trying to put together a hill walking logbook. All I'm looking for is a restricted T0 for the local area. But I'm still having to get this log book together citing the experience I have. I'm told I still need to meet with two assessors (in the pub). Actually, I think that's just the informal meeting, there will be an assessment after that.
    You don't need a T0 permit. Do you mean restricted T1 permit? I'm no expert but I've asked about this sort of thing in the past. I think they like to see entries in your log book where things have gone wrong and how you sorted it out (eg. illness of one of the party) and that you have changed plans because of the weather forecast or conditions found on the ground, that sort of thing.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Kev For This Useful Post:

    pa_broon74 (13-06-2019)

  19. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,997
    Thanks
    2,669
    Thanked 2,002 Times in 1,265 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    All that because there are two hills in East Lothian above 500m - and even then, they're on 20 odd metres above 500. I can't remember how many times I've been up them with or without Scouts in tow.
    You know what? I'd just avoid them if that's all it's for. (Pentland Hills, perchance? There's some bits of that that probably break the travelling-time-to-a-road bit too).

  20. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,275
    Thanks
    1,522
    Thanked 1,177 Times in 855 Posts
    Lammermuir Hills.

    We might go a wee bit further afield though. I think, since this is a very scouty permit, it's one I don't mind going through some hoops for.

    I'm also currently trying to get an RCO qualification - that's turning out to be something of an undertaking. The Range Conducting Officer is an external qualification, I couldn't help but feel - due to the requirements to get it, that it's a wee bit over the top.

    However, there was a story in the press recently about a 7 year old boy who was killed by an air rifle, so again, these are hoops I think are worth jumping through. (The main hoop being, I need to be a member of a shooting club for 6 months before I can apply for the RCO qualification. I've been using air rifles and pistols for years, but not as part of any club.) There's also a significant financial outlay

    But, I think these are good quality qualifications to get, so I'll persevere with them.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to pa_broon74 For This Useful Post:

    Neil Williams (13-06-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. I'm going to moan about D of E
    By ianw in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 05-05-2012, 08:10 PM
  2. Time for a moan
    By dmoorcroft in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 10:13 AM
  3. Quick moan
    By CambridgeSkip in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 19-11-2009, 02:47 PM
  4. Just a little moan
    By Raksha W in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 13-11-2009, 06:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •