Tiger cub & the professio
Steve Beluch (steve.beluch@SYSLINK.MCS.COM)
Thu, 23 Feb 1995 21:07:18 LCL
S>Why is it the professional who is the whipping boy? Is it *always*
S>the professional who is at fault?
Hi ya Craig, Ok, I'll try to justify what I am saying. The original
discussion was started when someone stated that they asked "council's
advice" as to wheather or not it was appropriate to use belt loops for
S>What we may have is a demonstration, as if one is needed, that
S>professionals *cannot* and do not attempt to run program at the
S>unit level and move to intercept only when there is serious danger
S>to youth or to the program.
I don't expect the professional to run a program, but I do expect that
a professional to be knowledgeable of How a program works and that the
units are correctly utilizing the program(s).
S>Respecting the Tiger Cubs, B.S.A. program, there are at least three
S>major variants out there, some of them with the full approval of
S>the Scout Executive and to the consternation of the Cub Scout
S>division national and in apparent contradiction to the national
Why? What gives the SE the right to encourage mis-use of a program?
Look, I'm sure there are well meaning pro's who rather than take a stand
and encourage proper use, proper understanding, and proper training will
just bury their head in the sand and "let the volunteers do it". All it
takes is one error and if not corrected, will multiply until it is
believed to be fact.
S>What you need to understand, perhaps, is that a Scout
S>Executive at a large council (say Sam Houston Area Council, for
S>example) has had at least one tour through the national office and
S>maybe a couple tours. He recognizes the program as a parade, a
S>fluid thing that is continually in stages of development and re-
S>development. And he knows the staff of the various divisions, has
S>worked with them, maybe was their leader at one time in his career.
Any SE worth his pay check recognizes that _A L L_ the programs are
fluid and evolving. But there are methods to facilitate changes into
the program! taking it upon oneself to "say its OK" is wrong! Most
volunteers really don't know what a DE, SE or Field Director does, all
they understand is that you are a _P A I D_ BSA employee and as such
they look to you as the "last word" wheather that's fair or right is
subject for a different debate. Its like going to the hardware store
and asking a question on plumbing. We all know the poor guy is not a
plumber, but we ask his advise anyway.
S>I've said to my own volunteers (oooohhh am I gonna get into trouble
S>for this one) that nothing has ever come out of National that was
Naw, I'll be the first to agree with you. But the fact still remains
that a program is a program. And If a DE or SE allows a program to move
that far afield. Then their wrong.
S>The truth is
S>different, of course: program is continually in development and the
S>application of program, particularly a program that is as new as
S>Tiger Cubs, B.S.A., is often out ahead of the national office.
S>Did you really think that volunteers follow staff in program
S>development? Rarely, IMHO. New program percolates through layers
S>of volunteer and professional bureaucracy until it gets codified,
S>generally in a pretty good form. Then it gets sent out to the
S>field for implementation.
No, not with the entrenched programs. But that's not where the problem
lies. Tiger Cubs is new, and most councils really don't know what to do
with the program. Every council committee has a professional advisor,
wheather its training or membership. And if the Advisor would advise
then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
S>But just as the Venture and New Boy Patrol programs have been
S>variously implemented (sometimes ignored, sometimes altered,
S>sometimes followed carefully and completely) in Boy Scout troops
S>across the land, or the Varsity program has been used within Boy
S>Scout troops when it is clearly described as a program separate and
S>apart from the Boy Scout troop program, so Tiger Cubs, B.S.A., is
S>being implemented differently in units across the land. That this
S>continues is not necessarily bad nor is it necessarily the "fault"
S>of the professional staff (at least not at the 90% level).
Again its semantics. How the program is used IS a direct result of the
council's professionals! The way the program was integrated into the
council at its inception has a direct relation as to how its used today!
If a council was indifferent to the New Scout Patrol back in the '80's
then today its probably rarely used. It boils down to the fact the the
BSA brings programs to the units _T H R O U G H _ the local council, if
the local council doesn't do its job then don't blame the volunteers!
thus 90 % blame!
(Continued next message...)
* CMPQwk #1.4 * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City