If a leader goes to their leader specific training, like say Scoutmaster Specific Training, and the trainer only covers 25% of the material and cuts the training session short, what happens to the person being trained?
- Do they need to retake the training?
- Are they really trained?
- What if they are handed a trained patch without having attended IOLS?
- Should they even get that patch with the training material not being covered?
- What percentage of the training should be covered in order to be considered trained?
My thoughts.............
Would we be comfortable with the fact that an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), an Emergency Room doctor or a soldier who only had 25% of the material they were supposed know presented to them by their teacher and only knew that said 25%.
- Is this a decent comparison?
Ideas on what you would tell:
- The trainer that ran the training session.
- The sort-of trained leaders that attended with the intention of getting trained.
- Why are LDS Scouters so determined to re-invent the wheel when it comes to "Mormon" Scouting and training?
5 comments:
Lots of tough questions. The trickiest part here is finding a way that doesn't punish the person attending as they were there trying to do the right thing.
If I were in the same spot (ie a District Training Chair or someone else ultimately responsible for the class), I would probably give the attendees credit and then offer each person the opportunity to attend another session - or to catch them up in person on a 1-on-1 basis (the exact decision would depend on how many people were in that class). The folks certainly need to be 100% trained both out of fairness to others that have taken it and out of fairness to the person who was short-changed. Everyone deserves to be fully trained and know what should be happening.
I would then have a serious talk with the trainer about expectations for them as a trainer and what they're trying to accomplish. I'd keep most of the conversation positive, focusing on why we do what we do and how important fully trained people are. I'd probably include some sort of brief (but clear) warning that if it happens again they won't be training any longer.
While re-inventing the wheel is prevalent among LDS Scouting, we certainly don't hold the patent on it. Lots of folks are looking to do more with less, add their own opinions about what needs to be included, etc.
Ultimately, I think it's a question of how much the person sees the vision about why it's important. Once someone understand the spirit and principles behind something, the rest comes more naturally. A quote from Joseph Smith comes to mind: "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." Once more folks understand the principles behind scouting, why the church chose to support it and why various activities are a critical part of scouting (training, safety, etc.), a lot of the shortcuts would go away.
First, I'm not sure it's fair to compare Scouters to EMTs or MDs, although I get your point.
I would hate to have our Scouters only 25% trained. However, most of what is presented at the position specific trainings isn't that much, and is all covered in publications the Scout leaders should have and read anyway (Scoutmaster's handbook, etc.) I'm not saying it's okay for a trainer to short-change their trainees, but if those leaders are dedicated, they'll read the handbooks and go to round table, and they'll get the information anyway. The problem is, how many of them are going to be that dedicated? Especially if they take the time to attend basic training and the "expert" sets a poor example like that.
In any case, those sort-of trained leaders need to understand that they were cheated--they didn't receive all the training they should have. An offer should probably be made to make it up to them somehow, as Brian suggested. Some may willingly re-take the training. Others may feel like they did their part and stubbornly refuse to do it again.
As for IOLS, it is clear that IOLS is required to be considered fully trained and to wear the trained strip. If you know someone who is wearing the trained strip but who hasn't gone to IOLS, I think it would be appropriate to tactfully tell them they need to go before they are eligible to wear the trained strip.
Why do LDS Scouters want to re-invent the wheel? I wish I knew. I suspect a large part of it is because they haven't read the handbooks. Part of it might be because they've read part of the handbooks and misunderstood it. Part of it may be a genuine desire to run Scouting as a priesthood function. But if that's it, they probably don't understand the priesthood any better than they do Scouting.
Both of you, great comments.
So let me throw another wrench at you. What if the trainer was not sanctioned by the District, the training was done behind their back because they knew they were altering the syllabus and when questioned claimed his "Priesthood" authority/calling overrides the District's Training Committee? Let say in this example it was the Stake Young Men's Presidency. I know this is a common issue in the Church. The lines are made to seem unclear but they are clearer than day. All Scout Training comes for the BSA in the BSA's way. Church Training (YM Presidencies) comes from the Church.
In discussion this week with a LDS member who works for the BSA at National, he said a Stake in SLC rewrote Varsity Leader Specific Training into a 14 hour course and then submitted it to the Church General Young Men's Presidency for their approval to use Church wide. A 14 hour course!!!!!!!! Who the heck would want to sit through that??? And why submit it to the Church? I don't see the BSA editing President Monson's talks for General Conference. Why do members edit BSA material?
My comparison to EMTs and ER MDs was used because while we may not hold a boy's physical life in our hands, we sure as heck have a lot to do with their spiritual life in Scouting and in the Church.
I guess I am a Scouting purist. I know there are always issues within organizations but the reason the BSA have hard feelings at times is because we think we are better than the BSA model. No wonder they think we are judge-mental.
P.1 of the LDS Scouting Handbook under Training and Development: "leaders working with boys and young men should complete the following BSA-required training:
Youth protection...
Fast Start...
This Is Scouting...
Position-Specific Training...
Introduction to Outdoor Leadership Skills..."
If the training isn't offered by the district, I don't think it counts as "BSA-required" training.
Also in the handbook: "Stake Young Men and Primary presidencies also offer ongoing training and support for ward Young Men, Primary, and Scouting leaders." Perhaps a well-meaning priesthood leader has interpreted this to mean they can offer the necessary BSA training. I would disagree.
The Church has included a lot of information about Scouting on their website. There are specific documents about training (separate from the handbook) that state clearly the required training comes from the BSA (either on-line or through the District). http://www.lds.org/service/serving-in-the-church/aaronic-priesthood/leader-resources/scouting?lang=eng (see the links under Adult Training)
The problem here comes in convincing the Stake Young Mens president (and the people he trained) that the training he provided is not official, and that from the standpoint of the district and the BSA, they have not yet had the required training. Fortunately, there are official church documents on the subject.
What gets me is the fact that all three members of the SYP as Wood Badge trained.............. :(
When I told the member that did the Varsity that it may not be accepted by the District his comment was "That is very possible." UGH! Then why do it if there is a chance?
Look, I was very grateful to not have to teach after two years of doing it but if I had known that this was the alternative, I would have prepared to teach as I am a District Trainer.........and I follow the syllabus.
Post a Comment