Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 76

Thread: Training Moan

  1. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,004
    Thanks
    2,669
    Thanked 2,004 Times in 1,267 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb123 View Post
    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.
    Right, then. Which of my Sections should I close?

    Yes, that's right, all of them.

    The training system has to be designed to facilitate Scouting within the constraints we have. I'd venture that at least two thirds of Sections would close were your view implemented. It's hopelessly idealistic to the point it isn't even worth considering.

    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.
    I'd have to go through them, but here's one to start with - History of Scouting. Utterly pointless. If you are interested in it, you've got Google.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Neil Williams For This Useful Post:

    pa_broon74 (16-06-2019),richardnhunt (17-06-2019),RisingStar (16-06-2019)

  3. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,275
    Thanks
    1,522
    Thanked 1,177 Times in 855 Posts
    I don't know why with new leaders, they don't have anything place along the lines of shadowing other existing leaders.

    Putting aside the notion, that the 'recruitment process' (horrid term for it) would hopefully flag up anyone that didn't have a default level of common sense to manage a bunch of kids...

    I would maintain, the training scheme is a best case scenario developed by people with a background in either workplace training schemes or something a lot more formal (and compulsory-based) than Scouts.

    I also think it very occasionally attracts the kind of person who can't help but get carried away with the nitty gritty of training as opposed to the actual aims of Scouts.

    It's putting those two things together which is causing the problems we have with it.

  4. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,051
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 197 Times in 144 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Williams View Post
    Right, then. Which of my Sections should I close?

    Yes, that's right, all of them.

    The training system has to be designed to facilitate Scouting within the constraints we have. I'd venture that at least two thirds of Sections would close were your view implemented. It's hopelessly idealistic to the point it isn't even worth considering.



    I'd have to go through them, but here's one to start with - History of Scouting. Utterly pointless. If you are interested in it, you've got Google.
    But why would you have to close any sections. What I said was a Section Leader. You donít need a section leader to run a section. You need two adults one of who holds a leadership manager or supervisor role. Many sections do not have a section leader and others have more than one section leader.

    If someone wishes to be section leader then they should be trained to take that role. That training could be course or simply validation via previous experience or knowledge.

    I agree that there are some that should not be necessary to hold a wood badge. The example you gave is one such example. Never quite understood that one.

  5. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,275
    Thanks
    1,522
    Thanked 1,177 Times in 855 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb123 View Post
    But why would you have to close any sections. What I said was a Section Leader. You donít need a section leader to run a section. You need two adults one of who holds a leadership manager or supervisor role. Many sections do not have a section leader and others have more than one section leader.

    If someone wishes to be section leader then they should be trained to take that role. That training could be course or simply validation via previous experience or knowledge.

    I agree that there are some that should not be necessary to hold a wood badge. The example you gave is one such example. Never quite understood that one.
    That doesn't work.

    You need someone to step up. We have no shortage of people who want to help, the offers flood in. But, when you ask for people to lead. The Russian Thistle rolls to the sound of a single bell tolling.

    It's the same story, you mention on here you're short of leaders for a section and someone always suggests a parent rota, never seeming to realise this is just another thing for your already much put upon leader to manage.

    We still need leaders.

  6. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,004
    Thanks
    2,669
    Thanked 2,004 Times in 1,267 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb123 View Post
    But why would you have to close any sections. What I said was a Section Leader. You donít need a section leader to run a section. You need two adults one of who holds a leadership manager or supervisor role. Many sections do not have a section leader and others have more than one section leader.
    Ah, so you're treating the roles as ranks rather than as practical elements (i.e. the one who has SL is in charge).

    I think that is unnecessarily confusing and so cannot support it.

  7. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,051
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 197 Times in 144 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Williams View Post
    Ah, so you're treating the roles as ranks rather than as practical elements (i.e. the one who has SL is in charge).

    I think that is unnecessarily confusing and so cannot support it.
    Not seeing it as a rank but one that indicates the main person responsible.

    We run a leadership team but the section leader is the one who has final say (other than GSL or DC). So why would you put someone as the responsible one when they are not trained. The section leader should be encouraging and supporting the assistants through their training and cannot do that if they havenít done it themselves.

    Like I said we will not agree on this.

  8. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,004
    Thanks
    2,669
    Thanked 2,004 Times in 1,267 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daveb123 View Post
    Not seeing it as a rank but one that indicates the main person responsible.

    We run a leadership team but the section leader is the one who has final say (other than GSL or DC). So why would you put someone as the responsible one when they are not trained. The section leader should be encouraging and supporting the assistants through their training and cannot do that if they haven’t done it themselves.
    Which is all very nice - but once again, which Sections and Groups would you like us to close so that we only have ones with Wood Badged Section Leaders?

    It's not about agreeing - it's about you wanting something that is simply impossible without reducing the capacity of TSA to provide Scouting substantially - I reckon it would be less than half the size it presently is.

    Do you accept that consequence? Fair enough if you do, I will agree to disagree - I do know someone else who thinks we should substantially reduce the size of the Association and introduce a "quality over quantity" policy; his view is not dissimilar to yours but he accepts and agrees (and supports) that it would mean us more than halving our capacity. If you do not accept that consequence, you are imagining an impossible scenario and this cannot go unchallenged because it really does cause us reputational harm in my view as it suggests we're not doing something we could be doing to improve Scouting.

  9. #53
    GSL & AESL shiftypete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    12,424
    Thanks
    3,588
    Thanked 1,196 Times in 793 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Williams View Post
    Which is all very nice - but once again, which Sections and Groups would you like us to close so that we only have ones with Wood Badged Section Leaders?

    It's not about agreeing - it's about you wanting something that is simply impossible without reducing the capacity of TSA to provide Scouting substantially - I reckon it would be less than half the size it presently is.

    Do you accept that consequence? Fair enough if you do, I will agree to disagree - I do know someone else who thinks we should substantially reduce the size of the Association and introduce a "quality over quantity" policy; his view is not dissimilar to yours but he accepts and agrees (and supports) that it would mean us more than halving our capacity. If you do not accept that consequence, you are imagining an impossible scenario and this cannot go unchallenged because it really does cause us reputational harm in my view as it suggests we're not doing something we could be doing to improve Scouting.
    Why would any Section need to close? Dave is not advocating not allowing meetings to be run without a fully trained Leader being present or anything like that he is just saying no one should be appointed as a Section Leader as opposed to a Assistant Section Leader without having completed their woodbadge.

    I don't personally agree with his suggestion but I don;t think it would result in mass closure of Sections.

    My preference is to reduce the training requirements for Assistant Leaders ad refocus training on practical skills and how to run a section and a good programme. Section Leaders would have additional training requirements relevant to their role (managing adults, trustee stuff, section administation etc etc). Of course Assistant Leader would be free to choose to do the additional training if they wanted to but they would not be required to.

    Peter Andrews AESL of Headingley Pirates ESU, Group Scout Leader & Webmaster of Falkoner Scout Group
    www.falkonerscouts.org.uk

    Previous Scouting Roles
    2003 - 2013 ABSL
    2017-2018 AGSL

    Wike, North Leeds District Campsite - www.wikecampsite.org.uk
    www.leeds-solar.co.uk
    Please note all views expressed are my own and not those of any organisation I'm associated with

  10. #54
    Sea Scout Leader richardnhunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,637
    Thanks
    909
    Thanked 413 Times in 255 Posts
    I see very little correlation, positive or negative, between wood badges and competence.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to richardnhunt For This Useful Post:

    Dr_Pepper (17-06-2019),hippysurfer (18-06-2019),pa_broon74 (17-06-2019),shiftypete (17-06-2019)

  12. #55
    GSL & AESL shiftypete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    12,424
    Thanks
    3,588
    Thanked 1,196 Times in 793 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by richardnhunt View Post
    I see very little correlation, positive or negative, between wood badges and competence.
    Me either to be honest. I can think of Leaders with a wood badge who have been doing it a while who are average at best and Leaders who have just been fantastic Leaders as soon as they volunteered. Now the latter tend to find the training easy as they are doing it all anyway but they are rarely imporoved as a Leader by the training.

    Peter Andrews AESL of Headingley Pirates ESU, Group Scout Leader & Webmaster of Falkoner Scout Group
    www.falkonerscouts.org.uk

    Previous Scouting Roles
    2003 - 2013 ABSL
    2017-2018 AGSL

    Wike, North Leeds District Campsite - www.wikecampsite.org.uk
    www.leeds-solar.co.uk
    Please note all views expressed are my own and not those of any organisation I'm associated with

  13. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    355
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by richardnhunt View Post
    I see very little correlation, positive or negative, between wood badges and competence.
    I have certainly seen a correlation between "training avoiders" and a lack of competence. Situations have arisen because Leaders did not know things that they should have known.

    I also think that we can all improve. This year I started helping on the first stage of St John Ambulance Trainer courses. I felt that the process improved my own training. I was thinking how had a learnt to do things? How could I improve as a trainer?

    Last weekend I observed a First Response course and found that I was more confident giving the trainer feedback because of the above experience.

  14. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,275
    Thanks
    1,522
    Thanked 1,177 Times in 855 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shiftypete View Post
    My preference is to reduce the training requirements for Assistant Leaders ad refocus training on practical skills and how to run a section and a good programme. Section Leaders would have additional training requirements relevant to their role (managing adults, trustee stuff, section administation etc etc). Of course Assistant Leader would be free to choose to do the additional training if they wanted to but they would not be required to.
    Hmmm...

    More admin stuff... Not sure that would go down very well...

  15. #58
    Sea Scout Leader richardnhunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,637
    Thanks
    909
    Thanked 413 Times in 255 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF View Post
    I have certainly seen a correlation between "training avoiders" and a lack of competence. Situations have arisen because Leaders did not know things that they should have known.

    I also think that we can all improve. This year I started helping on the first stage of St John Ambulance Trainer courses. I felt that the process improved my own training. I was thinking how had a learnt to do things? How could I improve as a trainer?

    Last weekend I observed a First Response course and found that I was more confident giving the trainer feedback because of the above experience.
    I partly agree. I think there are two types of training advioders:

    -Those who dont want to learn
    -Those who want to learn but find our system rubbish

    Thats where the difference is. I have adults that will pay and give up a weekend to do skills training - but really cant see the point of answering a quiz about how many Scouts there were I the world in 2009.......

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF View Post
    I also think that we can all improve. This year I started helping on the first stage of St John Ambulance Trainer courses. I felt that the process improved my own training. I was thinking how had a learnt to do things? How could I improve as a trainer?

    Last weekend I observed a First Response course and found that I was more confident giving the trainer feedback because of the above experience.
    I think trainers who are not developing skills are one of our nightmares. Well done for taking the step - I genuinely think its massively important.

  16. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,004
    Thanks
    2,669
    Thanked 2,004 Times in 1,267 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shiftypete View Post
    Why would any Section need to close? Dave is not advocating not allowing meetings to be run without a fully trained Leader being present or anything like that he is just saying no one should be appointed as a Section Leader as opposed to a Assistant Section Leader without having completed their woodbadge.
    That is not how I read it at all - he makes it clear that someone shouldn't be given Section Leader responsibility without being Wood Badged, at least if I read it. That's a lovely idea but impractical.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    Hmmm...

    More admin stuff... Not sure that would go down very well...
    I don't think he means additional admin stuff. More that A*L shouldn't have to do the admin stuff.

    I think Gilwell are doing that a different way - recent things I've read seem to legitimise using Section Assistant for people who don't do admin etc, and A*L more for those who are sharing the actual running of the Section with *L. Whereas I previously thought that was taking the mick and SA was literally only for the likes of zero-responsibility parent helpers.

  17. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    449
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 303 Times in 150 Posts
    I think that the distinction between Assistant Leader and Leader in the appointment and training system is unnecessary.

    I think it would be much more flexible if people where just Appointed as a "Scout Leader" (note: not a Beaver/Cub or Scout Leader). When I say Appointed, I mean the formal Appointment process.

    Once Appointed to the "Scout Leader" appointment it should then be up to the GSL to decide which role within the Group that a Leader performs.

    All "Scout Leaders" should undertake the same training.

    I say this because I have been working to get the leaders in my Group to see themselves as members of our Group, not members of their Beaver/Cub/Scout Section and to feel that they can regularly move between Sections as they want to. The need to send them back to Appointments just so that they can move from being an Assistant Beaver Leader to an Assistant Cub Leader is an obsticle and why does anyone at HQ care if Bob is currently Leading at Wednesday Cubs rather than Friday Beavers.

    The current system also works against the idea of a team running a section. In some cases I have a team of 5 people running a Section. Any individual night has a Leader-in-charge, but it may be a different leader each week. The idea that all of those people have to be Assistant Leaders is daft. The distinction between Assistant Leader and Leader Appointments just gets in the way.

    Who the kids think is "Akela" or "Skip" does not need to be linked to formal POR Appointment.

    We have far too many different roles.

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
  •