I have
been watching on various Leader forums, and that certainly does seem to be the
most popular viewpoint amongst those commenting. None of that “wait and see how it pans out”
nonsense.
So
far, the only clear information we have had on what activities the new
programme will actually contain - comes from the activities which some units
tested (mainly in the early days when these were very much ‘what if’ options
being tried out, some of which were popular and some very far from it) and from
the taster pack of a dozen activity cards per section which were sent out in
the autumn. (These seem to have had a
slightly more positive reception from the girls, perhaps more so than from the
leaders – a lot of leaders found the activities familiar, which was inevitable
given they were ideas submitted by other leaders – for there are no new ideas
under the sun, just old ideas in a new guise).
I did
make sure my units volunteered to take part in the testing. Partly because I tend to the view that if you
get the opportunity to participate in the decision making and choose not to,
you shouldn’t then criticise the results which emerge from those who do, given you
opted to let that ship sail. But also,
for these ideas to be tested in as wide a range of real situations as possible,
headquarters need to have a lot of volunteers from across the country providing
a wide range of different unit and leader circumstances for each activity,
without overloading any one unit. After
all, we want the new programme’s activities to work for all possible
circumstances – including (perhaps especially) our own peculiar ones. Of the activities my own units tested, some
we gave reasonably positive feedback to, and some, very negative feedback
indeed. But such is inevitable with
testing early prototypes. They were
drafted with the intention that they would be altered at least a bit, perhaps
radically, dependent on the feedback received . . .
We’ve
also been given an idea of the programme’s overall structure – the 6 main
themes, the structure of ‘Skills Builders’ which will be done on these topics
to earn badges (which are effectively ‘staged’ across the age groups), and the
Unit Meeting Activities (which we’ve had 12 samples of) to be slotted in to our
schedules to give balance to our programmes and enhance the girls’ and leaders’
own activity ideas. The awards the girls
will get for completing one of the 6 topics (these awards still to be named),
and the Gold Award they will get for completing all 6 plus an extra challenge
whilst in a particular section (Rainbow Gold Award, Brownie Gold Award, Guide
Gold Award, Ranger Gold Award). Annual
membership badges are coming back, though a name for them is yet to be
confirmed, as is their format – so we will wait to see how they will run. And there will be interest badges for the
girls to work on at home, each with three clauses – again probably different in
design from the existing ones, but the format and subjects covered are yet to
be confirmed other than that each will have three clauses, and there will be
different numbers of interest badge topics for each section – and they will be
part of Gold Award, ensuring that those who gain Gold Awards will have put in
some of their own time, it won’t just be a ‘turn up and join in’ badge which
regular attenders collect might collect ‘on the way past’ just by regularly
attending and taking part in whatever activities the Leaders arrange at weekly
meetings. We know how many interest badges each section will have – but we
don’t know quite what topics they will be on, or what the three clauses will be
like.
And
we’ve been told that one of the aims is to have continuity and progression
across the sections, thus developing the girls’ skills and experience in an
ongoing, structured way as they move up through the age groups, with the idea
that moving from one section to another should be the natural, perhaps near-automatic
step for most members, and consequently see fewer girls drop out between
sections.
Certainly,
there are still quite a lot of details we have yet to find out about. What will actually be in the Skills Builders
for each section? What topics the
interest badges will cover and how much work they will require? How much work a Gold Award will take, and
what sort of thing the extra challenge at the end might be? What badges and books will look like, and how
comprehensive the books will be – will there be lots of sections to fill in, or
will there be scope for them to be handed down?
How big will the Skills Builder badges be, and how will they be done –
will it be one topic at a time for a few weeks or months, or will the girls be
doing bits and pieces across all of them, then tying up the loose ends of them
all just before they move section? And
where there are unknowns there is, automatically, negativity.
We
will receive instructions in due course on how to transition the girls who are
currently in our units from current programme to new, so they can get credit
for the stage they have reached when the new programme begins. Naturally it will take time for each of us to
work out how best to manage that transition for the differing stages each of
our girls is at. But the guidelines will
detail how we are to proceed, and we can try to ensure that each girl carries
through on the current programme to a natural break point over the next term or
so – to help Rainbows, Brownies and Guides to finish off the
Roundabout/Adventure/Challenge badge they are currently working on, for
instance.
And
yet, for all the criticism – from what we’ve been told of the programme so far,
many of those who have criticised the current programme - are to get what they
have been asking for, from the new programme.
Handbooks for each section.
Interest Badges for Rainbows and for Rangers. A structured programme for all the sections
which follows through from one section to the next. A ‘highest award’ to aim for in each section,
not just for the older girls. All of
these are things people have been asking for, and all of them are being
delivered.
So
what do I reckon about it? Well, I
reckon that at worst, I just don’t yet know enough to judge. But ‘not enough to judge’ doesn’t just mean I
can’t yet praise it - it also means I can’t yet criticise it. It could be brilliant for me and for my
units, it could be dire, but it’s far more likely to be somewhere
in-between. Where in-between, we can
wait and see. There are bound to be some
negatives for my units, yes, but also bound to be positives too, which may outweigh,
possibly by quite a margin.
But,
in the meantime, nervous about it as I naturally am, I have been through
programme changes before. And I can
honestly say that I expect there will at least be positives amongst it at worst
– so no, I don’t think it will all be absolute rubbish.
No comments:
Post a Comment