Re: Quality Unit Growth Requirement
Mark Wilson (mwilson@POLARIS.ORL.MMC.COM)
Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:05:01 EST
If you think about it, BP wouldn't qualify for Quality
Unit. His idea of an idea troop size was 32 based on his
(quite mistaken) opinion that other leaders were twice as
capable as he and he felt the most he could handle was 16.
Randy has a good point. I think that once again National
has gotten wrapped around the axle. The last time they
tried the numbers game, we got the first class in a year bit.
That was predicated on a study that showed a relationship
between retention and advancement. Note that relationships
do not imply causality. I've not seen a followup study that
shows that retention has improved since that change.
Now we are being told, in essence, that growth is not just
one of many indicators of a quality program, but it is an
essential component. By requiring growth, BSA is saying that
without it, you do not have a quality program. That flies in
the face of common sense and experience.
For a long time I have held that Quality Unit is simply a tool
for National to meet it's own objectives. Were we to really
analyze what makes a quality program, I suspect that
many of the items on Nationals list wouldn't make it.
SM Troop 565, Deltona FL.
Eagle, 1974 - I used to be an Antelope...
also at firstname.lastname@example.org
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City