Tuesday 29 December 2015

6-year-old Brownies, 9-year old Guides, 13-year old Rangers, Great Auks and Dinosaurs


The above - is a list of things which do not exist in the UK.  Yes, all of them.  Do not exist.  No exceptions.

 

The first three don’t exist because Guiding’s rules clearly and strictly do not permit them to - and have never done.  The latter two haven’t existed for many years (unless proof to the contrary emerges) due to extinction.  (And for that matter, outwith Northern Ireland, 4-year-old Rainbows do not exist either).  Oh yes, no matter how close to being 10 a girl might happen to be, she cannot be and is not a Guide, not until she reaches double figures.  And no Unit Leader or District Commissioner has the authority to permit otherwise. 

 

(Yes, if there are no other realistic alternative childcare options available, then children of staff of whatever age or gender may visit Guiding meetings – but they are there as visitors and solely as children-of-staff, they are not there as unit members or helpers, and they would only join in with some unit activities where appropriate, having other occupations for the rest of the time they are in the meeting room.  Yes, that applies to all of them, even if they happen to be girls aged 6 years, 11 months, or 9 years 11 months . . .).

 

So why can’t 9 year old Guides exist?  Why can’t we just let a 6-year old into Brownies if it happens to suit us, or them (or perhaps even all parties)?  Why can’t our mature 13 year old join Senior Section with her older pals instead of having to wait?  Why the restrictions on 3 or 4 year olds joining Rainbows?  Why does letting a group of pals move on together mean they all have to wait until the youngest of them is old enough, even if that is some months after the others could have moved?  Why can’t we let a girl who has outgrown her current uniform wear the next one early, rather than have her squeeze into the uniform or wear plain clothes for the last few weeks or months?  Is it down to plain meanness, that girls are being selfishly denied the chance to join a club their older friends are already in, regardless of individual maturity, family circumstances, or any other factors they might plead?  Is having an age limit not discrimination, not unfair, not illegal, not plain wrong?  Is it not ridiculous?

 

Actually, no, the lower age limit for each section is based not on selfishness or lack of care for the individual, but upon sound factual reasoning.

 

Guiding has spent a lot of time considering what the right age group and age range for each section should be, and studying educational theory and child development in order to ensure the programmes of each section provide the right level of challenge for all in a progressive educational package, tailored to the needs of the individuals.  So for Rainbows, from 4/5 to 7.  For Brownies, from 7 through to 10.  For Guides, from 10 through to 14.  For Senior Section, from 14 through to turning 26.  Each section’s programme has been carefully designed to last for the appropriate number of years, and provide on-going challenge to each individual who falls within the ranges of maturity and intellect expected within the given age group, throughout the duration of her time in that section.  And although there is a minimum age for joining the sections, there is also scope to stay up to 26 in each one, if that is what is appropriate for the individual, intended to allow for those whose developmental age is behind their biological age.  The aim is always to ensure that each individual can move on to the next section when they personally are ready to do so, whether that is shortly after reaching the minimum age, or some months (or even years) afterwards.  Regardless of whether they are the only one to move on at that time, or whether a group are ready at the same time – and that is how it should be managed.  There is, however, no flexibility on the lower age limit of sections, because the programme of each section is designed to provide on-going challenge to even the most mature individuals within that given age range.  So girls shouldn’t be starting to outgrow a section until they are almost old enough to join the next one anyway, with only a few weeks to wait.  If outgrowing is happening in the unit in more than the very occasional short-term case of an ultra-mature girl, then the unit may wish to consider reviewing their programmes, to judge whether they are really still giving enough responsibility and challenge to their older members, or whether there is scope to offer more responsibility, and raise the expectations.  For the answer lies in dealing with the problem at it’s source, and in making any necessary adjustments to the unit’s programmes to ensure it still provides a challenge for all the girls it should - not be seeking to send girls into the next section underage in order to pass the problem onto them, to add to their workload.  On the other hand – once a girl has spent the appropriate number of years in a section, she should be starting to want to move on to greater adventures and challenges anyway, it’s all a natural part of growing up and maturing – and if she isn’t, that can be a cause for concern too.  It’s important that we as Leaders take the right attitude - when a girl moves onto the next section we aren’t ‘losing’ them, and we should be careful not to be clingy, or hold onto them because it suits us – our raison d’etre as Leaders is to prepare girls for the next section, so each girl who is starting to outgrow our activities at around the age for moving on - is actually one of our success stories, and those who want to stay on longer in the unit may even be our failures.  There should be very few 8-year-old Rainbows, 11-year-old Brownies or 15-year-old Guides around the country . . . and in each case, the Commissioner should be aware of them, and of the special circumstances for giving that individual a special exemption to still be in their current section.

 

The second reason is a practical one – having said that the unit’s programme should simultaneously provide challenge for the full range of age and maturity in the age range it covers, what age range can a unit reasonably serve, to keep the girls across it’s full age range learning and progressing and facing new challenges?  The experts are agreed that a 2-year age span for Rainbows, a 3-year span for Brownies, a 4-year span for Guides and a 12 year span for Senior Section is as large a range as could be managed and still achieve this challenge and progression, given the range of different maturity levels across each of these stages.  So Guiding’s age ranges are based on these findings.  Not just selfishness, or unfairness, but a factual base.

 

To be honest, the minimum ages for the sections - is one of the clearest rules in the manual.  Many of Guidings’s rules are vague or flexible, or can be open to more than one interpretation if you hunt for loopholes hard enough, but this one is clear and unambiguous – the minimum age for each section is 4/5, 7, 10, 14.  Statement of fact, and no exceptions offered.  And as girls automatically become members of a section at their second regular attendance, it is therefore clear that they must have reached that minimum age by their second meeting.  So that gives an absolute maximum of 13 days’ grace, and no more.

 

And yet.  In spite of that clarity and lack of scope for confusion, some people still want to argue about the rule.  They vainly hunt for exceptions that don’t exist.  They want to ‘bend’ or ‘stretch’ (which if we’re honest, just means break) the rule ‘just this once’.  Who want ‘their Flossie’ to be treated as a special case – despite in many cases offering reasons that are not particularly special at all.  The most common reason given is ‘the rest of her school class will be joining and she’ll be the odd one out’.  As if school classes have anything to do with anything other than school!  Well, it may sound harsh, but my answer is ‘yes, maybe her friends will all get the chance to join first, that has doubtless already happened to Flossie a few times in her life if all her friends happen to be older than her, and it will happen to her many times in the future.  It happened when she moved between rooms in nursery, it happened when she joined Rainbows, it happened when she joined Brownies, and it will happen when she joins Guides.  If she’s the one who is youngest in her group of pals, then she’ll also be the last to learn to drive, the last to be old enough to drink alcohol in pubs, among the last to reach school leaving age, the last to get the vote, the last to get her state pension, the last for all sorts of things in life which have age limits attached to them.  At some point Flossie is going to have to learn to cope with the fact that there will be many things her older friends will get to do before she does.  Given that, is now too soon for her to start learning to cope with it?  Do we do her any favours by putting that day off?  Somebody has to be the youngest in every friendship group, just as somebody has to be the oldest.  It could be reckoned a positive that she gets to enjoy a few more months in her current section, and has the chance of the adventures/special events which those who have already left the unit will miss out on.  We could equally well ask, is it fair that someone has to be the first in a friendship group to move to a new section?  Or do we just accept that the oldest one in a group will always have to cope with being the one to do things first, sometimes to her benefit and sometimes not?  The other reason commonly given is “if she doesn’t get to move up with her pals she’ll leave”.  For the sake of waiting a few months longer?  Is her enthusiasm for Guiding so flimsy that that, and that alone, would make her leave Guiding and never come back, that even a few months would be the one thing to put her off, regardless of how much she enjoys every other aspect of her Guiding experience?  Or would it be more honest to admit that she was halfway out of the door anyway?

 

And how much pressure would we get to accept even more ‘one-offs’ and ‘special cases’ of an ever younger age into each section, it we allowed the rule to be flexed a little?  If, for example, we said girls could join Brownies at 6 years 11 months, would we not then have people arguing that their 6 years 10 months girls were especially mature for their age, and for the sake of a week or two shouldn’t be held back . . . ?  And if we were to flex the lower age limit, what effect would that have on the older girls in each section?  It’s already hard enough for Leaders to find activities which simultaneously challenge the immature just-7 year olds and the very mature almost-10s, or the nervous just-10s and the extra-mature thirteen year olds – if the ranges were extended still further, it would go from difficult to near impossible.  As it is, a lot of older girls in units already find the younger ones trying at times, would that not be exacerbated if still-younger girls joined?  Some 6-year-olds will struggle with the lively games the Brownies like to play (after all, some shy 7-year olds already do).  Some 9-year-olds would struggle with the Guide meetings finishing at or after 9pm, being used to earlier bedtimes than that – some 10-year-olds already take a few weeks to adjust.  Senior Section already covers a vast range of life-stages, from high school students working on their exams, FE students and those starting jobs, through those starting long-term relationships and those having children - without extending the range even further into the early years of high school.

 

On the other hand, we shouldn’t be throwing girls out of their units the day they turn 7, 10, or 14.  There should be a transition, with preparation starting well before the girls reach that minimum age, so that they see moving to the next section as the natural and near-automatic thing it should be, with regular mention of the next unit and the opportunities it offers along the lines of “when you are a Brownie you’ll get to . . .”, and preparation work done in their unit (if possible using the official transition packs) as the girl approaches the minimum age, and planning of just when the girl wants to make her move, whether she is moving on to a local unit, or is being registered with the Country/Region Lones unit.  Through visits, joint events, and Leaders regularly letting their older girls know about the next section and what they do, moving to the next section should not be a leap into the unknown, but something which is looked forward to with excitement as well as a modest but natural quantity of nerves.  Sure, some girls will be more confident than others, but most girls are ready to move on sometime within 6 months of reaching the minimum age.  We should do all we can to ensure that each girl moves on at the time that is right for her, with what is best for the girl always coming first.  Units should not be reluctant to let go of their older girls either . . . Of course waiting lists and lack of spaces is a factor, nevertheless what’s best for the girl should come before our own love of capable Sixers/Patrol Leaders, or indeed our longing to move on those girls who are starting to involve themselves in low-level disruption . . .

 

We all seem to be agreed that a line has to be drawn somewhere, dividing Guiding into sections.  We can discuss long and hard whether 4/5, 7, 10, 14 and 26 are the right places for those lines to be drawn, and I’m sure there would be a range of opinion on whether Guiding currently gets it right or not in the placing of these lines, and how much crossover there should be for the majority of cases – but can we agree that there does need to be some sort of dividing line between the sections, and that wherever we end up drawing them, we can’t then allow exceptions to the dividing lines to be made, else why have sections at all?

Friday 20 November 2015

Badges in Guiding


Over recent years, there has been an explosion in the number of badges in UK Guiding.  Gone are the days when the only badges a girl would sew on her uniform were her Six/Patrol badge, unit name tape and country badge, and the interest/proficiency and progress badges she had earned – and all of those bar the Promise badge were meant to be returned to the Leaders when she left the unit (later on the opportunity was offered to ‘buy out’ the badges earned).  Apart from these, there were only the occasional jubilee or anniversary badge, if she timed her membership right.

 

Now it seems that no Guiding event, of however modest a scale, is complete without a ‘badge for turning up’ being issued, and sometimes some other badges for participating in the day’s organised activities being issued as well.  Even if it’s only a single unit’s event, perhaps even just a theme night done at an ordinary unit meeting and all done on the one night, there is often a badge.  Gone are the days when the only badge you got for attending a unit camp or holiday was the cardboard name badge for wearing during the event only.  Every week more and more challenge badge packs are being launched, on a bewildering range of themes, each, naturally, accompanied by a fabric badge. 

 

We also find people are seeking more uniform space for badges to be displayed – we’ve gone from sash, to extra-wide sash, to some saying the extra-wide sash is not big enough or the badges are too big.  Rainbow polo shirts are apparently becoming covered both front and back.  Even Rainbows and younger Brownies have enough badges to start a camp blanket . . .

 

So I think we are reaching the stage where we need to step back for a moment, and start asking ourselves about this proliferation.  Why do we issue badges?  When and for what should they be issued (or indeed, not be issued)?  What value should be attached to the earning of a badge (if any)?  Which categories of badges should be worn on uniform, and should any be restricted to display in locations other than on uniform – or not?  Should all badges worn have a Guiding significance, or be a notable achievement directly linked to Guiding?  What about non-Guiding badges – charity badges, military or civilian medals, souvenir badges from Guiding premises visited, name badges, Leaders wearing interest badges which their unit has done jointly, etc – and should there be different rules for one-off wearing of some badges on relevant anniversary dates, (e.g. poppies or medals in early November) against what can be worn regularly on uniform through the year?  Are there occasions when it would be inappropriate or unfair to issue badges?

 

When badges were few, the girls could often give anyone who cared to ask them some idea of what they had done to gain each of the badges they wore.  They could recall tracking progress in their test card or pocket book, or the weeks of practice prior to attending the proficiency/interest badge test, or the special venture or pack project they took part in, or the anniversary of making their Promise.  There was some awareness behind each badge, and they felt they had earned each one they wore (perhaps helped by the limited number they received?), and that the badge was evidence of skills mastered and a particular standard attained.  And, of course, of skills which could be used for good turns.  As the number of badges issued went up, and the range of occasions when badges were issued increased, were they still as valued, is there still that feeling that each one has been thoroughly earned through serious effort - or has that faded into the background?  And does it matter if it has?  Are we reaching a stage where the girls (and Leaders) have come to expect ‘a badge for everything’ – and is that an appropriate expectation to have?  Should badges be automatically given for ‘turning up at events’, or should there be a requirement to actually do something specific in order to earn the badge - or should some occasions not merit the issuing of badges at all?  Or not?  Are badges the most appropriate type of award for all occasions, or should there sometimes be another option considered, or even no reward save the fun of the activities, or the honour of representing the unit at an occasion - which may in some cases might be considered reward enough?  Is the buying and issuing of yet more unofficial badges the best use of unit funds, or would it be better to utilise the funds for buying equipment for long-term use instead?

 

I don’t have the answers to even a fraction of all these questions, but I think we should be pausing and asking ourselves – what should badges on Guiding uniforms stand for?

Thursday 29 October 2015

What is a Promise Badge?


In Guiding in the UK, a Promise Badge is a metal pin badge.  Currently each is in the same design, but with a different colour of ‘enamel’ infill for each section.  Not always very expensively made, nor of great monetary value, but after all, not everything can be measured by the quality of it’s manufacture or the price at purchase.  And such it should be with Promise Badges in Guiding.  They have always been far more valuable than their monetary value ever was. 

 

In it’s way, a Promise Badge is a bit like a wedding ring.  It’s a tangible symbol or representation of the lifelong commitment to keeping certain promises which were voluntarily entered into, often at a comparatively young age, presented at the very time those commitments are first made.  The one difference between them is that although divorce has been created to allow people to give up their wedding commitments if they feel they can no longer continue the commitment they made - no such system has been created to allow people to give up their Guiding Promise.  Once made, the Guiding Promise lasts every member for life, in uniform and out, no matter what life brings, and whether they feel as able to keep up the commitment as they did when they first agreed to do it.  You can cease being a member of Guiding at any age, and yet your Promise will still be just as binding.  And yet – whereas making marriage vows is restricted to over-16s only, Guiding Promises are lifelong commitments being made by children as young as four or five years old!  Who can say being a Guide isn’t tough?

 

In the first handbook back in 1912, the Promise badge is stated as being the “Guide’s life” – something to be worn with pride as a symbol of the commitment made - but it is to be returned to the Guide Leader in shame, if the Promise were ever broken.  Losing one’s Promise badge in this way or for this reason - was reckoned to be the most severe punishment for wrongdoing which a Leader could apply.  Because it showed a breach of trust.

 

Over the years, designs in Promise Badges have varied – and there have been times when they were hard to obtain due to wartime conditions.  But Leaders did everything possible to ensure their members had the badges they were entitled to, in spite of factories turned over to war work and bomb damage to warehouses – homemade badges if needs be, but badges they would have.  There are accounts from WW2 of Rangers and Leaders wearing their Promise Badges under the lapel of their military uniform jackets or works overalls while they served their country, as a constant reminder of their Guiding Promise.  And there are also accounts of Guides in concentration camps, determined to keep their Promise despite their circumstances – even one account of a Guide keeping her Promise Badge in her mouth whilst being body-searched by camp guards, so precious a possession was it when all other possessions were lost.  It really meant that much to them.

 

On the surface, we may seem to take our Guiding quite a bit less seriously than that nowadays.  Where once it was daring and radical to join Guiding, and not the sort of thing genteel parents would approve of for their girls, that hasn’t been the public perception for many years now, we’ve become entirely mainstream as far as much of society is concerned, perhaps too much so – but nevertheless, each person’s Promise Badge should, and in many cases does, still mean quite a lot to them, and many adults will still look after their Promise Badge, and remember the commitments they made all those years ago.  Many of us can remember where or when we made our Promise, some can even quote the date.  I know I can.

 

Sadly, some people don’t take the Promise and Promise badges very seriously – even amongst Leaders within Guiding.  Some see Guiding as little more than a craft club or a games club for children – a place for girls to have fun, and nothing more than that.  Perhaps it’s a lack of awareness and understanding of the founder’s ideas and aims?  Perhaps more training is needed on some of the core principles which lie behind Guiding during the training for Leadership?  Embarrassingly, we hear of girls being given fabric fun patches instead of proper Promise badges, sometimes by Leaders whose mentors have clearly not shared all the knowledge they should have done, sometimes through Leaders not understanding the meaning behind the badge – but shockingly, sometimes through Leaders who knowingly and deliberately deny their girls the badges they are entitled to.  And in these cases all sorts of excuses are given.  Sometimes they claim it’s on safety grounds, that the girls would injure themselves or damage their clothes.  Sometimes the excuse is given that ‘there’s no point, they just lose them’.  Is either claim really true, or justified?  Some even claim that the fabric badges are equivalent whilst knowing that it’s a bare lie!  And I can’t help but wonder – why?  Are their girls so much less capable than their equivalents in the rest of the UK, who manage to go uninjured by their Promise badges month by month, and who either don’t lose their precious badges, or pay up for replacements if they do?  And is ‘it happened to someone once’ reason enough to deny every girl who joins that unit thereafter the chance to prove herself capable and responsible?  And – what message does it send to the girls about their Leaders, if the people who accept their solemn Guiding Promises – are adults who will choose to lie to the children about one of the key parts of that very ceremony, the presentation to the girl of her ‘Guide Life’? 

 

A Promise Badge is important.  A Promise Badge is precious.  A Promise Ceremony should be a meaningful occasion where a girl makes, of her own free will, certain lifelong commitments.  We are asking each girl to take on a lot at a young age.  A commitment that may last 365 days a year, for a hundred years or more.  Do they not deserve to be given the proper £1.50 metal badge in return?

Wednesday 14 October 2015

Commitment to a Common Standard?


In the modern Guiding programme, there are 5 essentials.  And one of them is, “Commitment to a Common Standard”.  So what does that mean?

 

Well, to my mind, what it means is that we should all be pulling in the same direction.  Striving for the same aim.  Working to achieve the same result.  Laying aside personal opinions and preferences in order to be part of a unified movement.  It doesn’t have to mean agreeing with everything that’s said – for of course we won’t all agree 100% with all the policies in such a large movement with such a diverse range of members, so there always has to be scope for us to make representations to Headquarters about any issues we feel strongly about, or to advise them of local circumstances they may not have been aware of and thus able to take into account when making their decision.  But it means that once we’ve made our appeal and received a response to it, whatever that response may be, we accept the majority decision and whether we like or lump it, we don’t keep grumbling away, or ignore the rule just because it doesn’t suit us.  A Guide is honest and can be trusted.

 

Yet, if you visit different units, all of them considered to be ‘well-run’, and all reckoned to be fully committed to those common standards, you will see some significant differences in style and content between them.  How can that be?  How can they simultaneously be committed to a common standard, and yet be so different in what they do and how they do it?

 

The thing about the common standard is that even if we all have the same aim or standard, we still have a choice of different paths to take in order to reach that aim.  So long as the core values are the same, then the little details around the edges can vary to suit our own circumstances.  The core values are laid down for us by the Promise, Law, Section Programme, Guiding Manual contents, and the guidance issued from headquarters.  So those things are non-negotiable, and each individual should be encouraged to do the work to prepare herself to be ready to commit to and take on the challenge of making and keeping the Promise, each individual should have the opportunity to earn the appropriate progress badges for her section provided she attends and participates regularly in her unit’s activities, each individual should be encouraged to (wittingly or unwittingly) pick up on the educational and moral ethos which lies behind the fun activities she gets to do as a member of a uniformed club (the founder’s original idea of ‘learning through games’), and Leaders should be both providing the means, and encouraging the progress, within the rules and programme laid down.  Whether they are 100% in agreement or somewhere short of 100%.

 

But, if we are meant to be committed to a common standard, and yet all these variations are permitted, then how can we square that?  How can it be okay to ‘follow different paths’ towards the aim?  It’s because the ethos of each unit depends, more than anything else, on it’s Leaders.  Yes, the members have a large input, but it is the Leaders who will decide whether a unit’s ethos is fun, serious, silly, challenging, outdoorsy, arts-based, campaigning, strict, informal, or (ideally) combinations thereof.  Though they should collect the input of the unit members to a relevant extent for the age group in question (10% Rainbow, 25% Brownie, 50% Guide, 75% Senior Section), and the members’ personalities and tastes will have strong input too - the Leaders have the final decision on the unit’s programme, they decide how the programme ideas which have been chosen will be implemented, they choose what extras they are able to run in the way of outings, residential events, international opportunities, fundraising etc.  It is they who apply the imagination to the basic ideas, and find new ways of presenting and running the regular parts of the programme.  They choose how much responsibility and independence the girls get and how much is directly led by the adults.  It is the Leaders who interpret the Promise and Law, the Section Programme, the Manual contents and Headquarters guidance for their units, consciously or otherwise giving their own take on it.  And it is the Leader’s personality which decides quite how she will do things – whether she is serious or whether she has a sense of humour, whether she is tense or relaxed, whether she is enthusiastic or reserved, hearty or gentle, strict or easy-going – or a combination of these depending on circumstances.

 

And these interpretations, and these personality styles, and these skills, talents and preferences - will vary from unit to unit, both in what they choose to do, and how they choose to do it.  Depending on the Leaders’ talents, skills and tastes, as well as the talents, skills and tastes of the members.  And it is the variety thus generated that creates the differences between units, and these differences are what creates variety and choice in Guiding – so that within a locality a girl then has the option of finding the unit which best suits her tastes.  We’re still committed to a common standard, and in a well-run unit that common standard is visible through everything like a ‘golden thread’ – you can see at the core of what is done, despite the variations in approach, that determination to ensure the girls follow the current programme, they learn the self-reliance, they respect and follow the rules and guidance – they look and feel and act like a Guiding unit, not a bunch of individuals in fancy dress who gather weekly for a games session.  The Leaders will set the standards and expectations, and that old saw about being able to judge a unit by it’s Leaders - is more true than we may care to admit!

 

Oh yes, it is true.  As Leaders, whether it sits comfortably with us or not, each one of us is ‘an example’ the girls in the unit look up to – and sometimes the parents too.  We are Girlguiding UK’s representatives in our local community.  The public will (and do) judge the whole movement by what they see of us.  Whether we are wearing the official uniform with pride or are clad in some other garb (be it neat or scruffy), whether we are friendly or gruff, whether we are cheerful or stressed out, whether we are helpful or obstructionist, etc.  They will judge the whole movement by any single short encounters they have with any individual member of the movement – of any age - and will remember any perceived errors of courtesy far longer than the many times we did the right thing.  They will also remember what we say – whether we are telling people the movement has high standards, is well managed and offers great opportunities – or whether we tell people anything will do, it’s poorly run and nothing much happens.  So it’s up to us to do what we can to set an example – to keep trying our best to be good representatives of the Guiding ‘brand’.  To commit ourselves to supporting the common standard, the policies, the guidance, the Manual, even if that means putting it’s rules before our personal feelings at times.  It’s the challenge we accepted when we said “I Promise that I will do my best . . .”.  The common standard is that end point we all aim for.  And that’s how it can be squared.

Monday 14 September 2015

Copyright


I have a friend who is a writer.  Writing is her profession, and her main income comes from selling her work.  Even a comparatively short newspaper or magazine article is the result of several hours’ work in researching and fact checking, followed by more hours of initial drafting, plus the time spent thereafter honing the prose, with each word and phrase carefully chosen and placed to be as effective as possible in setting the tone, and providing smooth readability.  A short story or book can take weeks or months of drafting, editing and re-drafting.  It’s the same with all experts who manufacture handmade one-off items for a living – the income comes from selling what you have made, and what puts you in the bracket to earn a living from your talent - is being able to make something of a better quality than most people could.  And each thing any professional craftsperson makes - has to bring in enough money in comparison to the cost of the materials and the number of hours spent on creating it, to make a viable profit.

 

I know there are a lot of Leaders within Guiding who find copyright and performing rights laws an inconvenience, a barrier to what they want to do, or feel they should only apply to professionals and not to amateurs like them, or charities such as their units.  Or who don’t understand them, or don’t realise that they apply to everyone no matter at what scale.  It can be easy to imagine that ‘big business’ can afford to give away it’s produce cheaply or free, and therefore shouldn’t be charging fees to the small-scale users of their wares – what’s a children’s performance at the village hall, or a few dozen photocopies of a script, or showing a video at the Brownie sleepover, or photocopying a resource, to them?

 

The initial difficulty which writers and composers face is similar to the one the chair-maker has – that once they first sell the item they have painstakingly made, that item can then be sold on repeatedly over the coming years, possibly for a higher amount than the maker was paid for it.  But until recently the chair-maker has at least had the assurance that her chair can only be used by one owner at a time, and that if people want more chairs to exactly match the original, then they have to hire her services as no-one else would be able to make an exact match – however for writers, that safeguard does not exist.  Photocopy machines and scanners mean that it is easy for a handcrafted piece of writing to be copied hundreds of times, in seconds, and circulated far and wide without the creator knowing, far less benefiting.  If people ignore copyright laws, then the writer does not get their share.

 

Also, the reason a handcrafted chair can be sold for a price which reflects the quality of materials and number of hours it took to make, is because people appreciate and respect the skill of the carpenter, sure that they could not possibly make anything as good themselves.  Yet writers and composers often don’t get the same respect for the skill of their craft – lots of people fondly imagine they could write a novel if they only had the time – they assume that time is their only barrier, that the original idea and the talent to write that idea up well would both follow automatically.  Yes, anyone can fasten together a few planks and make something which could be termed a chair – though it may well lack the comfort, beauty or stability of a well-made chair.  And anyone can throw together a few sentences into paragraphs and make a story or article out of them, but it takes a craftsperson’s skill to add design, style, quality, artistry, beauty, clarity, polish, readability, atmosphere, tone . . . most of us do not have that talent.

 

‘The labourer is worthy of his hire’ – well, if you want to use a script or song someone else has written, then you are effectively hiring them and their skills.  And that is what you are paying for, when you pay a copyright fee on a script or piece of sheet music.  If you want to use an artist’s recording of a piece of music, for the girls to sing or dance to, or a writer’s play script for a pack performance, or an activity pack someone else has written for your unit programme or camp theme, then the same principle applies in terms of the performing rights.  You’re hiring both the original writer of the piece, the performing artists on the recording, and all the trades involved in the production of the recorded work - and it therefore seems only reasonable that you pay your share of the cost of all those people’s skills.  One look at the credits list of even a low-budget film will give an idea of how many people it takes, and who all has to make a living.

 

Within Guiding, there are some skilled amateur writers who produce resources for their own units.  Some of them are very generous, and offer to share their work with other Leaders and units, often entirely free.  All they ask in return is that they are given the credit for that hard creative work – so if someone has a copyright symbol © on a resource they have created, you should be careful to ensure that the symbol is never removed, and that you respect their right to claim the credit for their work.  And if someone hasn’t put a copyright symbol on, but you know them to definitely be the originator, you could add it, to ensure that credit goes where it’s due and isn’t mis-attributed.  (And of course, if you get have a gift of that sort, you wouldn’t pass it on to anyone else, or make extra copies beyond the number originally agreed, without getting fresh permission from the originator that she is happy for it to be shared further than she originally authorised.)

 

Others produce packs of ideas which come along with a badge to be bought, in which case their plan is that the money charged for the badges will help to cover the production costs of both pack and badges combined, often leaving a little over to be put towards a stated good cause.  Sadly, there are actually some people who will obtain and use several ideas from a resource pack but not buy even a token badge in return, with the result that instead of the originator covering their costs and raising some money for the good cause as planned, they actually raise far less than they ought have, and could even make a loss – which doesn’t seem very fair or Guide-like.  Other Leaders, who find themselves with spare badges left over after using the activity pack with their unit, will put the spares up for auction, make a profit on the leftover badges thus sold – but do they donate those profits to the cause the badge was being sold in aid of? Or do they pocket them?  I do hope they go to the cause which was intended, but I suspect the answer would be ‘only some do, most don’t’.

 

Yes, sometimes copyright can ‘get in the way’ of what I do in Guiding.  There are some songs which I don’t use for unit performances because I feel the fee is too high to justify for a small charity like mine.  I can’t always get hold of the copyright-free clipart I want, and I don’t currently have the time or skill to create my own.  And it can be tempting to take the easy option rather than do the right thing over copyright.  But by the same token, it means that some of the resources I’ve worked hard to produce have been protected, and it means I get fair acknowledgement for my time and effort in creating them.  Wouldn’t it be great if everyone in Guiding played fair over copyright, and respecting creative work?

Tuesday 8 September 2015

Guiding History Myths


There are quite a few stories about the history of Guiding which have been published in the official Girl Guide Association history books, especially those written and published before 1978.  Problem is, if you do a little research and fact-checking, then you find that the history books contain quite a lot of what is quite clearly myth.  And a lot of people’s knowledge of Guiding history is based on what they were told when they were Guides, by Leaders who retold the stories from the official books, naturally assuming them to be accurate.  We can’t criticise them for telling us what was in the official books, but if we know the facts then we can work to get the truth out there – in many ways it’s a far more exciting story that the myth is! 

 

So, here are 6 common Guiding history myths, and the true answers . . . apologies in advance to anyone I upset . . .

 

Olave Baden-Powell founded Guiding, or, Robert and Olave Baden-Powell are ‘the founders’.

Two commonly-repeated myths, but both clearly wrong.  You can either say that Robert Baden-Powell founded Guiding, or you can say that Robert Baden-Powell and Agnes Baden-Powell together founded Guiding, depending on your interpretation.  But either way, what is 100% clear is that Olave did not have any role whatsoever in the founding of Guiding.  Robert had the original idea for Boy Scouts, Agnes used the idea as a basis to set up Girl Guides as a separate movement.  Olave had no connection or involvement with Scouting before 1912, or Guiding before 1915, as she states herself in her autobiography  – so that’s the whole of the Girl Scout era plus the first 5 years of Girl Guides, during which time both the Guide and Brownie sections were created and established, and many of the structures and programmes both created and refined.  So anything which happened in Guiding prior to Olave becoming a County Commissioner in 1916 was clearly done on Agnes’s watch, and under Agnes’s leadership.  And anyone who joins something five years after it started, no matter how large or lengthy their contribution thereafter, cannot be termed a founder.

 

There were a dozen girls at the Crystal Palace rally.

Well, yes. . . you could say there were a dozen girls at the Crystal Palace rally, given that there were actually over 1000 Girl Scouts there, most of which were there quite legitimately having applied for tickets in the approved way.  Oh yes, those who held tickets were welcomed in the gates regardless of gender, and at that early date over 1000 Girl Scouts made it to the Crystal Palace Rally on that Saturday and were amongst the 10,000 Scouts present – given that only those in London and the surrounding Counties could realistically have got there given public transport in those days, how many thousands of Girl Scouts must there have been spread around the UK and potentially beyond, by that time?  Especially given that a goodly number of Girl Scouts also attended the Scottish Rally at Scotstoun Stadium, earlier that year?

 

Robert Baden-Powell’s first encounter with Girl Scouts was at the Crystal Palace Rally, and he was surprised to discover that they existed.

Clearly not true on either count.  The Rally was held in September 1909, whereas Robert wrote about Girl Scouts in his personal column in “The Scout” magazine in January 1909 acknowledging the many Christmas Cards he had received from Girl Scouts – so there is no question that he knew they existed in significant numbers – and in that column he also praised their skills, so it would seem strange that people claim either he did not know they existed, or was in some way disapproving of them.  (Also, the column referred to Girl Scouts in initial capitals with no quote marks or other caveats.)  During the period 1907-1909 Robert Baden-Powell travelled around the UK speaking at public meetings about Scouting, and there are numerous accounts of both boys and girls approaching him after his speeches to enquire about how to start Scout troops, getting a positive reception, and being inspired to found both Boy and Girl Scout troops immediately thereafter.  That would suggest that he gave a positive reception to all who approached him as potential leaders in Scouting, regardless of gender of the Leader, or of the youngsters they proposed to recruit.

 

It was the girls who gate-crashed the rally demanding “Something for the girls” who forced the start of Guiding.

Perhaps they were one of the factors, but they were by no means the only factor.  It is likely that Miss Violet Markham was at least as significant.  Fact is that in that era, mixed activities (other than for nursery-age children) were considered totally inappropriate for boys and girls who were not siblings.  State schools still had separate entrances for boys and girls to go in, and where mixed classrooms existed, the class was segregated - private schools were invariably single-sex.  Although boys had a fair bit of freedom, the behaviour rules for girls were very strict, especially among the middle and upper classes.  Yet when “Scouting for Boys” was published, girls as well as boys were able to obtain copies, and some girls took up the ideas with enthusiasm and formed their own Patrols, whether with parental approval or not.  These Girl Scout Patrols were sometimes accepted into existing Scout Troops, with the Scoutmasters happy to assess tests and award badges, others met separately from the boys but were attached to a Scout Troop, with the Scoutmaster visiting the Patrol meeting to do badge testing, some again were independent.  In the autumn of 1909 a heated correspondence started up in “The Spectator” magazine, initiated by Violet Markham, who wrote of a local Scout troop where allegedly both boys and girls attended and took part in drill until a late hour of the evening.  She objected both to the mixed group and to the late hour the meetings ended.  Responses to this initial letter (and an editorial) deplored this and pleaded with Baden-Powell to confirm that he wholly disapproved of such mixed activities.  This negative publicity against mixed troops in Scouting is as likely to have been at least as strong a factor as was the misbehaviour of a small group of Girl Scouts who, having turned up at an all-ticket event both late and without tickets, chose to march through the gates in a literal gate-crashing ploy, all in clear breach of the Scout Law.

 

Girl Guiding was initially fairly unsuccessful, and it was only when Olave took over that it got going.

Well, once Agnes took the helm in 1910 and started both to organise the existing Girl Scouts and rapidly adapt Scouting into a group parents might approve, it grew more rapidly than Scouting was growing at that point, and in spite of the difficulties brought by the outbreak of the 1st World War, it continued to grow rapidly throughout the 1910-1916 period.  Olave did do a lot of work from 1916 onward to develop the County structure which Agnes had started, but it is difficult to say how much of the growth post-1916 can be attributed to Olave’s input and how much would have been on-going from the work which Agnes had already done in travelling the country visiting units and making speeches at public meetings.  So it wouldn’t be fair to say that everything was hopeless before 1916 and wonderful after, or that everything positive was clearly Olave’s work . . .

 

Agnes was old-fashioned, and Olave brought in the energy that was needed to transform Guiding.

Certainly there was a significant age difference between them – when Olave became Chief in 1916 she was 27, and Agnes was 58 – but although Agnes might appear a product of her generation, even a brief look at the list of her hobbies would create a rather different impression from the prim Victorian lady the old photos might imply – metalwork, bicycle stunt riding, aviation with both balloons and aeroplanes, astronomy, first aid, radio communication, camping, nature study would all suggest that Agnes was clearly an up-to-date lady in tune with modern times, who did not lack for energy or range of experience and ideas, and Agnes did put a good bit of her time (and money) into Guiding . . . the difference between them lay more in their personalities, not their ages or attitudes.  Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that Agnes was a year younger than Robert, and no-one seems to have questioned whether he was too old-fashioned, or lacking in the drive to get the Scout movement going on a sound footing . . .

 

Tuesday 18 August 2015

How do you tell her you think it's time . . .

There are still Leaders who will tell the girls that old fib that they have to wear uniform otherwise they won’t be covered by insurance, whilst knowing fine well it’s not true.  Because sometimes it is easier to deliberately lie, and to deflect arguments through untruth, rather than grasp the bull by the horns and be honest.  For as we know, grasping bulls by the horns (or anywhere else on their anatomy for that matter!) does risk upsetting the bull somewhat . . .


Until recently, Guiding has had an upper age limit for it’s Leadership roles.  At one time it was 81, for many years 65.  And all Leaders, regardless of what role they happened to hold when the big day came round, had to hang up their uniforms for the last time on their 65th birthday.  They could become Advisers, and/or join Trefoil Guild, but they could no longer wear uniform or be members of Guiding, even if they had been members for about as long as they could remember.  It was harsh, it can’t be denied, and caused some people a great deal of upset.  But – it applied across the board, and whatever each individual felt about it, all knew the day was coming when they must step aside from active Guiding and leave it to the next generations to take the movement forward.


Then a few years ago the rule was altered, so that although they could no longer be Leader in Charge at a unit, if the Commissioner felt the particular individual was capable they could be allowed to remain as Assistant Leader for a few more years – provided the individual was still contributing to the running of an up-to-date programme, still fit enough, still relating well to the girls etc.  Although it was positive for the individuals who benefitted and did mean some units continuing which would otherwise have closed, it did mean that instead of a straightforward blanket rule, the Commissioner was now landed with the difficult task of having to decide whether or not each individual in her area should have their appointment renewed for an extra period – and if the Commissioner had any doubts about the wisdom of appointing an individual who fully expected to have her paperwork rubber-stamped, she was placed in a horribly difficult position – how to break it to an experienced adult that the expected automatic renewal might not be automatic?  Of course, on paper Commissioners had the safety-net that appointment was only as an Assistant Leader, so the buck would still stop with the younger Leader in Charge of the unit, who would be the direct ‘line manager’ of the other Leaders in her team.  Sadly, in reality, there were cases where Leaders in Charge who reached 65 simply ‘changed the name over the door’ but carried on business as usual, with the person listed as being Leader in Charge having a nominal role, whilst the older Assistant retained the authority and autonomy which should have come with the job.  Now, that last Assistant-only restriction is being removed, and there is apparently to be no upper age limit on Leaders in charge of units.  It is assumed that the individual Leader will judge for herself when the time is right for her to retire from unit Guiding, either as Leader in Charge, or Assistant Leader, and will entirely lay aside her personal feelings in order to do what is best for the unit and act on that judgement.


For many Leaders approaching or in their sixties, the announcement has come as a cause for celebration.  And I can well understand that – I don’t doubt that when my time came, if I were still in active Guiding, it would be hard to accept that ‘yesterday I was considered perfectly capable but tomorrow I won’t be, for the date on my birth certificate and no other reason’.  After all, nowadays many people live far longer ‘active lives’ than they used to do, such that many Leaders in their mid-60s are still perfectly capable of running unit meetings and residential events - and an ageing population means that there are automatically many fewer under 65s who can take on the Leadership roles in Guiding than there were in past decades, something which will only increase as all the 1960s baby boomers collect their pensions . . .


For some older Leaders, however, it’s not such good news.  Surprising thought?  Well, for some people the fixed retirement age was actually a relief.  It gave them a guilt-free excuse for stepping back from the unit, regardless of whether others were available to keep that unit going or whether it would fold, leaving them time to take up other hobbies that had been sitting on the back burner for longer than they would have liked.  These Leaders had served their time, and the age limit meant they could walk away without any need to make excuses, give explanations, or be pressured to keep going ‘just a little bit longer’.  For no matter how keen you are on Guiding, there’s no doubt that the constant pressure to come up with new and exciting programme ideas, to plan the outings, residentials and other extras which the girls want, to take on a share of organising local events, and attending committee meetings, and tackling jobs such as Commissioner, or Adviser, or local representative – can become wearing to even the most dedicated of volunteers, and it is all too easy for the Guiding hobby to crowd out other much-loved hobbies and activities.  The chance to say ‘sorry no, I’m 65 next year’ at an age and stage where those other neglected hobbies could still be taken up again, was something that some people really valued.


Now, it is up to the individual to judge when the time is right for her to retire.  For some, that will be before reaching 65, for some it will be after, by whatever margin.  But the new ruling presupposes that the individual not only knows within herself just when the time is right to step aside – but will also act on that knowledge and make the arrangements to leave when that time comes, ignoring any pressures or personal feelings.  And I daresay a fair number, perhaps a majority, will know when the inspiration is running out, or energy levels are no longer what they were, or programme ideas are no longer appealing to the girls as they used to, or they are no longer as in touch with the girls’ personalities, tastes and lifestyles - and will act on it by either altering their role, or moving on – perhaps to take on another role in Guiding, perhaps not.  And, of course, it also presupposes that there won’t be undue pressure from other Leaders or Commissioners to stay on.  There is a fine line between encouragement and pressure . . .


What I fear is – that there will be a proportion of long-serving Leaders who either won’t realise that the time to make a move is fast approaching (or already arrived a while ago) – or who will sense it but not act upon it.  Who will turn a blind eye to the signs that their unit needs to enhance it’s programmes, to signs that they aren’t as fit as they used to be, to signs that the girls don’t seem to care as much for the activities that used to be so popular, to signs that they can no longer give the unit the time it ideally needs, or whatever indicators apply.  And there doesn’t seem to have been any information issued on what the procedure will be if the Leader who ‘probably could do with stepping aside’ doesn’t see it?  Are they going to replace the age limit with ‘something else’, such as a regular review (whether specifically for older Leaders, or for all Leaders)?  Will they introduce performance targets to meet, such as having to do a certain number of hours’ training, or will there be a need to update qualifications?  (after all, you can already have a situation where someone gained their camp or holiday licence 20 or 30 years ago, and as long as they continue to attend camps/holidays as a member of staff every few years, no-one questions whether they have modernised or are still carrying out the same programmes and following the same rules they learned at training in the 1970s).  Or is the idea that the DC will just be landed with the nasty task of having to approach ‘pillar of the community’ Ms A to say that perhaps the time has come to step aside from the village unit she has been running for over 40 years?  Unless something occurs to bring matters to a head, then there will be the temptation for Commissioner just to let things lie a little longer, even if it means landing her successor with the nasty task instead, rather than risk upsetting Ms A and finding herself the talk of the village shop and splashed across the front page of the local paper.  Sure, the same situation of ‘unsatisfactory performance’ can apply with younger Leaders, but there isn’t so much public pressure in those cases as there is when big local personalities are concerned . . .

Tuesday 14 July 2015

'Poaching' girls


Sometimes, you can get a clearer view of a situation by looking ‘from the far side of the fence’.  So let’s consider the oft-raised question of Scouting ‘poaching girls’ from Guiding.

 

From shared original roots, over the following 80 or so years Scouting and Guiding grew into two entirely separate clubs.  Each followed it’s own path under their own leadership.  They existed happily alongside all the other clubs and hobbies for young people (including each other) some of which continued to thrive through the decades, and some of which died out, or amalgamated, or were reduced to a few scattered local clubs.  Although Guiding continued to maintain it’s general popularity right through to the present day, there came a point when Scouting could no longer claim it was doing likewise.  Their numbers were consistently dropping, in some areas to the extent that their viability was called into question.  And they were not attracting as wide a cross-section of boys as before.  Assorted recruitment efforts having failed to significantly alter this, they opted instead to take a much more radical step.  If they couldn’t attract enough boys to ensure on-going viability - then why only boys?  If they were to allow girls to become members of all sections, it would automatically more than double the pool of potential recruits!  Of course, it would do nothing to resolve the question of the un-reached boys, indeed it would likely significantly worsen it, but it would potentially shore up the numbers overall).  The announcement was made without warning, and caused surprise in many circles, including within Guiding (they had been in regular discussion with the Scouts about all sorts of common topics, yet had no inkling such an announcement was coming).

 

Once it became an option, some girls opted to leave Guiding in order to join the newly-‘open’ Scouts.  Some who hadn’t been Guides joined the Scouts.  Some chose to belong to both Guides and Scouts.  And some girls continued to join neither.  Whichever, there was sadness but limited acrimony from the Guides at the Scouts’ sudden decision to ‘go open’ once the initial shock had died down – sadness at the loss of some enthusiastic girl members, yes, but a determination to continue offering what still appeared to be attracting a consistently viable number of girls across a fair cross-section of communities around the country.  The view was taken that if Guiding could continue to keep it’s programmes attractive, then it could continue to attract a viable number of girls, in which case the losses need not make a critical dent in membership.  Actually, at the time, the change of policy seemed to cause more upset among Scouting than to anyone else.  But Scout headquarters made it clear that whatever individual members might feel about it, it was a done deal, and all parts of Scouting would soon have to welcome any girl applicants they received, and start to transition their units towards being fully-open, with a deadline set for achieving that status.

 

For some years, things then bumped along more or less amicably between the clubs, at least in public.  The Guides continued to recruit a similar proportion of the girls across the country as they had before.  The Scouts now had enough members to be viable.  Below the surface, however, in some localities there were claims of the Scouts ‘poaching girls’ from the Guides, and claims that in some Scout units the boys were ‘being swamped’ by the number of girls seeking to join.  It’s hard to judge how widespread or accurate either claim was, but each has been repeated at intervals since.

 

Some have asked the question of whether the two clubs should merge – after all, despite the many differences which exist, they still have some things in common, in pursuing an active outdoor programme of activities, similar customs and traditions, similar ways of working (although in the detail there are some significant differences which could be major barriers).  I would say not.  Each time I consider it, I come back to the fact that mergers only work if there is popular support for merger from the membership of both groups, and to date the Guides’ members have made it very clear that they continue to want a girl-only space – and membership numbers show that the girl-only group remains far more popular with girls than an open group like Scouts.  And now that Scouting is open, most Leaders don’t seem to feel the need to seek a merger.

 

From some of the Scouting forums it appears that, although the gender balance of the club membership changed a bit when they ‘went open’, real transition in attitudes, programmes and membership numbers from a boys club to a genuinely mixed group is, naturally, still some way from final fruition – many unit programmes are still much as they were before the change, with the only real concession to the fact that it is now meant to be a mixed club being the compulsory arrangements around changing areas/sleeping arrangements for girl members, not any significant change in the programme focus or ethos.  It appears that in many units girls are welcome provided they are comfortable in joining a club where the focus will be on the boys’ activity tastes and preferences - which some girls are, and some aren’t.  After all, what they were doing was enabling the girls to join a boy-focussed club, where the activities were designed to appeal to boys, and if they happened to appeal to girls too it was by accident not design.  So a gender split approaching 50/50 (or a girl majority) is still comparatively rare in Scouting units.  The extent to which they are a ‘mixed’ group (or whether their programmes should be altered to cater for a wider range of tastes and make them ‘more mixed’) is an interesting topic in itself, and is probably the next dilemma Scouting faces.

 

So is Guiding in competition with Scouting?  Yes, of course it is.  But neither more nor less so than with ballet class, swimming club, highland dancing, music lessons, drama club, Girls’ Brigade, mini rugby, tae kwon do, football, choir, and every other hobby or pastime available which the girls might choose to take up in their free time.  And I don’t see much sign of any of these clubs claiming ‘poaching’ from each other as an issue.  So I could equally ask, is the ballet class poaching girls from athletics club?  Do the Tuesday Brownies poach girls from the Friday Brownies?  Does the mini rugby team poach from the piano teacher?  It is rare for any club or class to actively target the members of another club or class – and rarely very successful.  Each hobby or club will and does attract a different selection of the children from the community, depending on each child’s tastes and talents - and each has to choose and agree with their folks which hobbies they would like to take up, how they can schedule them into their free time alongside homework and family commitments, and how the membership fees and other expenses will be afforded.  No-one could do them all even if they wanted to, there aren’t enough hours in the day, so some options must be rejected.  Do I try to poach girls from other clubs?  No.  My units offer the programme they offer, either that programme and the way it is delivered appeals to a particular girl or it doesn’t.  Any advertising I do simply states what my unit has to offer, it makes no comment on what other clubs there are in the locality, or what they might offer. 

 

So, the question is often asked, are Scouts ‘poaching girls’ from Guiding?  And if we’re asking that question, in order to be fair, shouldn’t we simultaneously ask ourselves the reverse question - is Guiding poaching girls from Scouts?