Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 76

Thread: Training Moan

  1. #31
    Senior Member Shaun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Dewsbury, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,039
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 137 Times in 94 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    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.
    You dont need to get the RCO qualification for shooting, you can take a qualification course, I think it is YPS tutor, that covers you to run development and the NSRA youth qualification if you want to do more than plink at targets.

    Our local campsite may be running one as a few have let their qualification lapse.


    Sent using Tapatalk
    Shaun

    SL
    Hanging Heaton Scout Group

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    470
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 94 Times in 64 Posts
    Dont get me started on T2 permits. As an someone who's spent the last 10 years scrambling up and down mountains from Skye to Dartmoor and everywhere in between, it was like hell on earth to get permits to take explorers up a footpath on a simple brecon beacon in August.

    Quote Originally Posted by hippysurfer View Post
    Agreed. But does it need to be written and signed? Can it not be a telephone call? "Hi, did you watch X do the Grand Howl tonight?.... Great, I will validate that module."

    The pieces of paper are largely pointless. The paper trail is only worthwhile if:

    - there is an audit process that bothers to check them at some point.
    - there is a specified process for their storage and retention.
    - there is a sanction should they be found to be missing.

    The last one is perhaps the most important here. What exactly are you going to do if it turns out that there is no evidence available that someone completed there GDPR training but it is signed off on Compass?

    The requirement for these pieces of paper is based on the premise that no-one is dishonest enough to fake the paperwork - but they would be dishonest enough to sign off training if we did not have the paperwork.

    It is very easy to require other people to do lots of paperwork upfront in a process because it appears to be necessary, but never follow through on the implications of storing an managing the paperwork and the process.

    I think the general principle should be: "if you do not have a process that requires the paperwork to be stored and audited, don't generate it in the first place - word of mouth or informal communication (e.g. an email) is good enough."
    THANK YOU couldn't agree more. I recently signed a witness statement to show that our ESL taught some scouts how to do knots and lashings- it asked for a date so I put "1995 onwards" he was the one who taught ME how to do them when I was 10!! Then I get thr copy back 'for my records' - I put them directly in the bin. I dont want or need a paper trail for this.

    I think the biggest thing that's getting me is the need to validate a module even when someone went on a course. I mean I understand needing separate validation for an online module or a workbook but come on, surely if you make the time and effort to go on the official ****** course you should just have it signed off and validated there and then?

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 199 Times in 145 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Pepper View Post

    I think the biggest thing that's getting me is the need to validate a module even when someone went on a course. I mean I understand needing separate validation for an online module or a workbook but come on, surely if you make the time and effort to go on the official ****** course you should just have it signed off and validated there and then?
    Not necessarily. Just because you turn up and sit through the training does not mean that you understood it or could put it into practice.

    I remember the days of Basic & Advanced Training where you did the course and then some projects and reported back on them.

    There were some people on the course who just didn't take a part in the group discussions and then when a report back on projects didn't really offer much.

    This DOES NOT mean that they hadn't taken in the learning or being able to put it into practice. It could be that they didn't like talking in front of a group of people and felt a bit insecure.

    At least with validation PROVIDING that your TA is approachable you can have that discussion or they can even just come and watch you run you meeting whilst helping you.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to daveb123 For This Useful Post:

    shiftypete (14-06-2019)

  5. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,283
    Thanks
    1,528
    Thanked 1,181 Times in 857 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaun View Post
    You dont need to get the RCO qualification for shooting, you can take a qualification course, I think it is YPS tutor, that covers you to run development and the NSRA youth qualification if you want to do more than plink at targets.

    Our local campsite may be running one as a few have let their qualification lapse.


    Sent using Tapatalk
    Yup.

    There was no where in Scotland offering that course (that I could find), so I had to go down this other route.

    POR is also foggy on this, it says in one place the YPS tutor is enough, but in others that there needs to be an RCO in attendance on any range.

    Who knows. I'm 90% there, and, like the first aid certification - I feel that in this area, going above and beyond (given recent and not so recent accidents), having an enhanced qualification can't be a bad thing.

  6. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,006
    Thanks
    2,675
    Thanked 2,004 Times in 1,267 Posts
    How the old projects worked depended on the County. Mine were written and were marked like a piece of schoolwork, so no pressure to do a presentation.

    TBH I thought one "get your teeth into it" project covering multiple areas was a far better idea than the very bitty validation approach of the modules.

  7. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,283
    Thanks
    1,528
    Thanked 1,181 Times in 857 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb123 View Post
    Not necessarily. Just because you turn up and sit through the training does not mean that you understood it or could put it into practice.

    I remember the days of Basic & Advanced Training where you did the course and then some projects and reported back on them.

    There were some people on the course who just didn't take a part in the group discussions and then when a report back on projects didn't really offer much.

    This DOES NOT mean that they hadn't taken in the learning or being able to put it into practice. It could be that they didn't like talking in front of a group of people and felt a bit insecure.

    At least with validation PROVIDING that your TA is approachable you can have that discussion or they can even just come and watch you run you meeting whilst helping you.
    Since when was being involved in Scouts supposed to be a test though?

    There are far too many variables as it is in the process - is your TA approachable, is your TA local, is your TA on email, do you even have a TA. And that's not even getting into how the TA decides to do what ever it is they're supposed to be doing.

    Scouts is a hobby. It's not an occupation. Neither wonder hardly any one goes beyond the absolute minimum 'training' required. I have two new (sort of) leaders currently looking into progressing. Both were Scouts, both have serious skills, but both are either left swinging in the wind not knowing what they're supposed to be doing and with whom. One has been leading for three years, the other for six months. Both are highly competent, neither is making any headway in terms of the official training.

    That's down to the system and what it demands of the volunteers who're supposed to be administering it. It sounds great on paper, but in reality? Hmmm...

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

    Dr_Pepper (14-06-2019)

  9. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    470
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 94 Times in 64 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb123 View Post
    Not necessarily. Just because you turn up and sit through the training does not mean that you understood it or could put it into practice
    If it's that you're worried about, why dont the courses have a little mini validation at the end of them, what's the point of having to take yet more time out for another session with a validator?

    Anyone can bullshit through a validation anyway, has anyone ever attended one and been turned down?

    And to make the effort to take an entire day to do a course only to have to spend more time validating and then chasing 2 different people to go and put it on compass, is ridiculous. I wonder why the SA is short of volunteers?

  10. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 199 Times in 145 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Pepper View Post
    If it's that you're worried about, why dont the courses have a little mini validation at the end of them, what's the point of having to take yet more time out for another session with a validator?

    Anyone can bullshit through a validation anyway, has anyone ever attended one and been turned down?

    And to make the effort to take an entire day to do a course only to have to spend more time validating and then chasing 2 different people to go and put it on compass, is ridiculous. I wonder why the SA is short of volunteers?
    Possibly because again at the end of the learning if you are confident you can convince an assessor that you know your stuff. Someone else may not. You can do a tick box excercise and manage to get the questions correct but all of that is theory until you get a bunch of kids and actually do it.

    As far as turned down - certainly here yes some get turned down. I have seen some of our leaders having suggestions made of what else they need to do to meet the validation level.

    I take it you think someone goes on a course completes a tick box exercise then is allowed to run a section?

    Do you think say climbing permits should be awarded purely on what is written or spoken and no visual assessment too.

    I don't doubt that there are some modules that COULD be assessed at the end of learning but some in my view cannot.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    Since when was being involved in Scouts supposed to be a test though?

    There are far too many variables as it is in the process - is your TA approachable, is your TA local, is your TA on email, do you even have a TA. And that's not even getting into how the TA decides to do what ever it is they're supposed to be doing.

    Scouts is a hobby. It's not an occupation. Neither wonder hardly any one goes beyond the absolute minimum 'training' required. I have two new (sort of) leaders currently looking into progressing. Both were Scouts, both have serious skills, but both are either left swinging in the wind not knowing what they're supposed to be doing and with whom. One has been leading for three years, the other for six months. Both are highly competent, neither is making any headway in terms of the official training.

    That's down to the system and what it demands of the volunteers who're supposed to be administering it. It sounds great on paper, but in reality? Hmmm...
    Nobody is testing as such but ensuring that before you take care of a group of kids that you have knowledge and competence to do so.

    Scouts is a hobby but if you take a child to a Group you expect that the adults looking after them are able to run a section within the rules.

    I appreciate that where you live may not have the support structure that others have, but that should be sorted by those who can and not aim for the lowest common denominator. Support needs to be there for new adults but in rural areas that can be a bit sparce but it needs to have flexible people to ensure it gets done as an untrained adult in a rural area is no different to an untrained leader in a city area.

  11. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,422
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 700 Times in 408 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb123 View Post
    Nobody is testing as such but ensuring that before you take care of a group of kids that you have knowledge and competence to do so.
    Nope.

    "Ensuring... before" would mean completing all 19 modules before you are allowed to run a section - that isn't what the system requires. Without breaching any rules I ran a section for 5 years with no extension to the basic training deadlines and without completing the full training. In your argument that shouldn't have happened because I needed to have someone ensure I had the knowledge and competence to do so by validating all my training.

    Its an indefensible paradox.
    Does anyone know what's going on?

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to mang21 For This Useful Post:

    BigBadBaloo (14-06-2019),Neil Williams (14-06-2019),pa_broon74 (16-06-2019),shiftypete (14-06-2019)

  13. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,006
    Thanks
    2,675
    Thanked 2,004 Times in 1,267 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mang21 View Post
    Nope.

    "Ensuring... before" would mean completing all 19 modules before you are allowed to run a section - that isn't what the system requires. Without breaching any rules I ran a section for 5 years with no extension to the basic training deadlines and without completing the full training. In your argument that shouldn't have happened because I needed to have someone ensure I had the knowledge and competence to do so by validating all my training.

    Its an indefensible paradox.
    Agreed.

    It is certainly my view that we should only have essential training as being mandatory. If it's essential, it should be done before leaving you on your own in the role. If it doesn't need to be, it's not essential and should not be mandatory.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Neil Williams For This Useful Post:

    shiftypete (14-06-2019)

  15. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 199 Times in 145 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mang21 View Post
    Nope.

    "Ensuring... before" would mean completing all 19 modules before you are allowed to run a section - that isn't what the system requires. Without breaching any rules I ran a section for 5 years with no extension to the basic training deadlines and without completing the full training. In your argument that shouldn't have happened because I needed to have someone ensure I had the knowledge and competence to do so by validating all my training.

    Its an indefensible paradox.
    I know that people are never going to agree. I can see what you are saying and do think that in MOST cases there is someone else in the section or group who is 'keeping an eye out' for new Leaders and would hope but know it isn't always the case that in new Groups and those where there are no current leaders that they are overseen. This is not the ideal but it should not be used as an excuse for the adult not to progress their own training.

    Also I assume that it was a long time ago like it was for me to be allowed 5 years without breaching the rules as it has been three for many years now.

    It is my view too (and this will annoy some) and whilst I would not implement this as it is not in POR, that no adult should be appointed as a Section Leader (as opposed to Assistant Section Leader) until they have or are in sight of completing the training for their role.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Williams View Post
    Agreed.

    It is certainly my view that we should only have essential training as being mandatory. If it's essential, it should be done before leaving you on your own in the role. If it doesn't need to be, it's not essential and should not be mandatory.
    But in your view what would you consider to be essential to run a section. Is Module 1-3 enough or do you need more.

    For instance the rules say that you have to offer nights away to your section - so whilst you could work with another group or section to fulfil that is it not essential for you so that you can fulfil the rules in POR? What about the other modules - which are and are not 'essential' to run a section within the rules.

  16. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,422
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 700 Times in 408 Posts
    Literally just finished - but my time limits were reset because the DC (and acting GSL) realised that my ACSL role wasn't appropriate given I'd been running the section from a point 12 months after that appointment. (Even then I was running it jointly with another ACSL role holder as neither of us had been keen to be "the one").

    In reality as in my case people would just run sections as ASL's rather than SL's as a work around if your suggestion was implemented. Or you'd close a lot of sections because often the point where someone steps forward to keep it going is when the current incumbent stops, not 6 months before to give time to have a run at an extensive training schedule. In our case the whole thing very nearly collapsed around my ears and we were left with 2 of us with full appointments (but not completed training) and one SA propped up by parent rotas etc. I really get why TSA don't require the full workload but personally I would work towards a more flexible system whereby training is available where people either feel they need it or someone in their line management structure feels they would benefit from it.

    In terms of which modules we could do without, I'd bin 19 for anyone below Scouts - Cubs and Beavers are very unlikely to be doing overseas trips and the rest of the global trivia isn't essential. 5 (fundamentals of Scouting) 6 (changes in Scouting) and 7 (Scouting for all) could easily be heavily trimmed down and combined into one module. 8 & 9 (Skills of Leadership and Working with adults) could easily be optional as they don't affect safety etc of the young people. Similarly 11(admin and 13 (growing the section) could be optional - 13 is pointless if you are forever fighting off an endless waiting list! I'd probably then shove 12, 12B (Programme Planning) together with 16, 17, and 18 to make a tight one day course, backed up by local measures to ensure/encourage programme ideas sharing and training in skills like bushcraft etc.

    So you could pretty much then get the getting started bits (1,2 3) into a one evening session, questions at the end, validated and signed off, a practical day on making a great experience for the kids, and another evening on stuff like equal opps and fundamentals.
    Does anyone know what's going on?

  17. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,283
    Thanks
    1,528
    Thanked 1,181 Times in 857 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb123 View Post
    Nobody is testing as such but ensuring that before you take care of a group of kids that you have knowledge and competence to do so.

    Scouts is a hobby but if you take a child to a Group you expect that the adults looking after them are able to run a section within the rules.

    I appreciate that where you live may not have the support structure that others have, but that should be sorted by those who can and not aim for the lowest common denominator. Support needs to be there for new adults but in rural areas that can be a bit sparce but it needs to have flexible people to ensure it gets done as an untrained adult in a rural area is no different to an untrained leader in a city area.
    Ummm, yes, they are testing, that's what a lot of people are saying here. I get the impression you think it works the way it's supposed to work - it doesn't. So often you get TA's who can't help but build their job up to something that it's not supposed to be. I mean I get it, they're being enthusiastic and think they're doing a great, quality job, but it's actually a pain.

    Got to say, the guys I've been swapping messages with about the hill walking permit have been great. Very can-do attitude and obviously keen for me to get the permit in place and start getting the kids out. No whiff of a test, just a chat in a pub - okay, I might have to take some time out to do it, but for the level I'm looking at, they've already said a chat would suffice.

    I'd expect an adult to be able to run a section safely, not blindly by what ever wrote-learned rules they picked up on a training course. I'd want leaders with proper common sense, not some doorstop manual parachuted in by a committee that hasn't scouted in the real world.

    And, as I've already said, we get on absolutely fine without the support structures you speak of - so what does that say about them exactly? I'd put what we do up against any troop or group in the UK, it might be the lowest common denominator in-so-far as we're not in thrall to every dot and comma in POR, but it hasn't held us back.

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

    Dr_Pepper (14-06-2019)

  19. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    470
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 94 Times in 64 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb123 View Post
    Do you think say climbing permits should be awarded purely on what is written or spoken and no visual assessment too .
    No, I certainly never said there shouldn't be a practical, I just can't see why it wouldn't be part of the course. On a climbing course, youd be climbing - obviously. If the course leader, the one with the climbing qualification, says you are at the right standard that should be it validated, not by some district busybody.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Dr_Pepper For This Useful Post:

    pa_broon74 (16-06-2019)

  21. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Coast
    Posts
    2,326
    Thanks
    450
    Thanked 524 Times in 323 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Pepper View Post
    No, I certainly never said there shouldn't be a practical, I just can't see why it wouldn't be part of the course. On a climbing course, youd be climbing - obviously. If the course leader, the one with the climbing qualification, says you are at the right standard that should be it validated, not by some district busybody.
    Which is what happens - you can't expect every climbing course leader to be a TA, go through the training for that, and be knowledgable on Compass. But you can ask your TA to check with the (qualified) leader and there you go....

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
  •