Managing Change

There are a couple of ways to manage the introduction of a major change to an established group.

 

Option 1

Step 1: Spring the idea of change on them suddenly.  And have only partial/patchy answers available for the foreseeable questions those affected will ask.

Step 2: Launch surveys on some aspects, at times of year when most of the group won’t be around to take part in the surveys.  Close those surveys down quickly.  Offer limited options, with no scope for further suggestions/text answers.  Do not copy these surveys to parties with a relevant interest.

Step 3: Issue a standard response to all enquiries regardless of their content, advising that their comments will be noted. 

Step 4: ?

 

Option 2

Step 1: Advise all parties that the topic is due to be considered shortly, and invite views on the current set-up, and suggestions from all those involved on aspects they may wish to retain/those which could be improved upon.

Step 2: Feed back on the information thus received, and set up groups to investigate potential changes based on the suggested areas for improvement.  Where relevant, hold discussion groups or issue questionnaires to all relevant parties, in order to collect a wide range of opinions and ensure all decisions are informed ones.

Step 3: Issue draft proposals, inviting detailed feedback on each aspect of them.  Review same.

Step 4: Publish feedback results, and final evaluated proposal.  Discuss launch procedure whilst providing detailed transitional arrangements.

 

Problems with Option 1: people feel railroaded, and as if they are being asked to nod through a done deal.  All changes likely to be tarred with negativity regardless of whether some are actually positive ones which might in other circumstances have got a fair hearing.  Key people feel excluded from the process, and alienated.  Risk that important considerations from the grassroots which the team may not have been aware of or thought of will not emerge at a stage where they can be incorporated/resolved (e.g., logistics for Lones units, or specialist units for those with particular special needs).  May produce a result which is not durable, and needs major alteration shortly after introduction.

 

Problems with Option 2: Timescales and finance.  Getting people on board means investing time in genuine consultation, and in listening to views.  Responses with text take longer to analyse than tick boxes.  All this thoroughness takes time and money.

 

Positives with Option 1: Timescale.  You get a decision quicker.  And it’s the one management wanted, undiluted.    

 

Positives with Option 2: Acceptance.  By getting key people on board with the changes, adoption is smoother, and more likely to succeed long term.  All relevant factors are considered in producing the outcome.

 

Basic Principle:

There are three types of job – cheap, quick and good.  A good quick job isn’t cheap.  A good cheap job isn’t quick.  And a quick cheap job isn’t good.   

Either of the first two is a reasonable investment for a reasonable result – it’s down to circumstances as to whether speed or cost is the more important factor.  But the last of these?  I fear that the last of these is exactly what Guiding is proposing with it’s Senior Section changes.  And I’d love to be proved wrong . . .

 

 

Broken Promises

No, not the Guide Promise.  Well, not specifically.  Mainly other promises and commitments made by Leaders.

 

You see, I follow quite a few of the Leader forums on facebook.  And I am tired of seeing the same query coming up several times a week, every week.

 

“I said to the girls we’d do X topic next week/tomorrow/tonight/in 30 minutes – any ideas what we could do for it?”

 

And I can’t help but ask, why?  No, not why are you doing that topic, it might be a perfectly reasonable one to be doing, absolutely.  But why on earth did you say to the girls, and make a commitment to them, while there was at the very least, significant doubt over your being able to keep your word?  What happened to “an Englishman’s word is his bond”? After all, these panic questions crop up far too often for them to always be the “best-laid plans” being derailed by the entirely unforeseeable. 

 

Yes, I know we dropped the “Be Prepared” motto in the UK years back.  But that was only because the girls didn’t understand or know that particular meaning of the word ‘motto’, not because the “Be Prepared” message itself wasn’t still an extremely relevant Guiding principle which we should all aim to stick to at all times.  Because it most certainly is.  Plus, there’s that first Guide Law to face, “A Guide is honest and can be trusted”.  Given we are all bound by that Law, why are so many Leaders making commitments which they are knowingly at high risk of not keeping?  There’s no need to make any commitments to the girls about ‘next week’s programme’ at all, unless you need them to bring special kit for it.

 

As Leaders we accept solemn and binding Promises from the girls in our units.  We stand and listen as children of very young ages make sincere commitments to think about their beliefs, be loyal to their country, help other people and all the rest of it, every day for the rest of their lives, regardless of whatever else may happen to them along life’s path, positive or negative.  And with the authority vested in us as Leaders, we welcome them to full membership of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, and expect them to take seriously the lifelong commitment they have just made to that organisation.  In return for us accepting their solemn lifelong personal commitment, the girls look to us to give them a living example of that same Promise which we share in common.  To demonstrate to them how it can be kept, how it can be made a part of one’s life, in all that’s said and done.  Because whether we like it or not, the girls in our units do look up to us, and they do aspire to be like us.  So when we give a commitment to them that “next week we’ll be doing gardening” – then it should be as near to binding upon us as we can manage to make it.  And that means that before we say a word to them on what next week’s programme might be (if we say anything at all), we should have the plans for most if not all of the activities for that theme thought out, and the equipment either obtained or sourced and scheduled to arrive in plenty of time.  And that if there is any foreseeable factor which would prevent, we make it clear from the start – for instance, mentioning “weather permitting” or “if the parcel arrives”, or giving it as “we’re hoping to . . .”.

 

Of course, it’s fine to just leave it all as a surprise, and it matters not a jot if, at the distance of a week beforehand, it’s still destined to be a bit of a surprise for you too!  It also avoids the risk of committing yourself to things which you just can’t be certain of – a stargazing session can be great fun on a crisp clear autumn night when the constellations are easy to see – but at a distance of week ahead, even meteorological experts can’t accurately predict weather and cloud cover, and the wrong conditions would mean a bit of a dull session discussing what might have been visible but isn’t!  Equally, it’s a total waste to be sitting doing activities indoors when there is warm summer weather, fresh air and outdoor space such as an empty playground or car park, or a local park you could be utilising - even if that wasn’t what the forecast predicted!  And sometimes life happens – you may have known which shop had the key item in stock, you may have expected to have at least two or three opportunities to go and collect the reserved goods – but if life gets in the way and you don’t get to the shop before closing time, the best laid plans can have to be scrapped and replaced.

 

So I would urge, before you go making promises to the girls about exactly what you will be doing next week, next month, next term, next year – stop.  Are you absolutely certain you can deliver?  Regardless of what might happen between now and then?  If there is any doubt, is it worth saying “we might do X next week”.  Or “if the weather is dry we might go out, so please bring coats in case”.  Or - would it be wiser to say nothing at all of what is planned, and let whatever you actually do on the night be judged as fun or not on it’s own merits, not compared with what-might-have-been or what-was-scheduled - and not leaving you breaking your word to them? 

Yes, let’s eliminate those broken Leader promises.

Transitions in Guiding

Many surveys done within various youth organisations in many countries have all reached the exact same conclusion.  Keeping existing youth members is far easier than recruiting new youth members into the group, especially for teenagers.  If we accept that premise, it becomes logical that after all the effort we put into recruiting girls into Guiding in the younger age groups, we should be seeking to do all we realistically can to encourage these girls to stay in Guiding for as long as possible.  Right through to Senior Section certainly, and if possible on to adult roles of whichever kind best suits – Unit Helper, Leader, Commissioner, Adviser, Trefoil Guild etc.

 

But – only a small proportion of the girls who join Guiding at 5 or 7 are still in it at 14, far less beyond that.  And although a certain amount of loss is inevitable – in the UK our losses are far higher than can be explained by that alone.  And these losses tend not to happen equally across the age ranges, but peak at certain key points in a girl’s Guiding career – the transitions.  For in the UK, we don’t have girls bridging whilst remaining members of the same unit.  Changing section in the UK means changing unit, and almost always means a new Leader team, a different day and/or a different time – and sometimes a different venue too.

 

At 7 – the move from Rainbows to Brownies.  We don’t notice this one so much, because a lot of girls join Brownies direct who were not Rainbows.  Nevertheless, it isn’t every Rainbow that joins Brownies, though it ought to be close to.  Perhaps we are losing more girls than we realise, at this early stage?

 

At 10 – this is a big gap – girls who stick right through Brownies and seem to enjoy it - but don’t even give Guides a try.  In a few cases it’s lack of an available unit (regular or Lone) due to geography or schedule clashes, but in the majority of cases that just doesn’t apply.  How many of the Brownies approaching 10 know all about what Guides in general do, and also about what the local unit has been doing recently?  And how many know little or nothing about Guides, and that little mainly rumour or hearsay?

 

At 12 – in my area they start high school at around 12.  A lot of members are lost then.  It’s understandable – homework ramps up, there are lots of new clubs to choose from, meaning some existing hobbies have to be dropped to make room.  Whether Guiding is dropped will depend on how exciting it still is, how much adventure and fun it still offers – or whether it has become a bit repetitive and dull.

 

At 14 – transition from Guides to Senior Section isn’t always straightforward – options locally may be limited as there are far fewer Senior Section units than there are Guide units - and support structures for Young Leaders can vary too.  Plus, homework is increasing again as the key exams approach – can Guiding offer an attractive programme for the limited free time?  Can we make it feasible to fit it in alongside the other hobbies and commitments?  How much support is there for those finishing BP, so that they can get to both complete BP and move on to Senior Section with their pals at 14 - not have to choose between them?

 

At 16+ - by now the numbers still left in Guiding have shrunk – but for those who’ve stuck it thus far, we need to add on more pressures – key exams, job hunting or university choices, and transitioning to adult life (with all the challenges that brings).  While some will be setting out onto working life immediately, others will still be schoolgirls for another couple of years yet.  Can Guiding hold those who, though the same age, are going through some major life stages at different times and rates, and as a result may have widely differing maturity levels and outlook?

 

So, 5 clear stages at which large numbers of girls are lost from Guiding.  What can we do to minimise our leaks at these points?

 

The first thing to focus on - is the actual transitions themselves.  Ensuring that each girl does some preparation prior to the move, so she knows what the next section does, has met at least one of the Leaders (however briefly), has a proper leaving ceremony where she receives her leavers badge and a fond farewell from her pals, and then has a smooth process of transfer from one unit to the next - and even if there is a gap between leaving one unit and getting start at the next, as sometimes must be, no individuals are lost in the interim for want of keeping in touch with them.  It also means that each unit should be working to prepare their girls for the coming move, almost from the minute they join the unit.  There can regularly be conversations about the next unit(s) they might join to get them starting to look forward to the day their turn comes.  Although we should automatically be using the transition resources which have already been provided for us (Pot of Gold, GFI Guides, Move on Up, YLQ/ALQ) in every unit in the UK anyway, that should be the last stage in an ongoing process.  ‘The next section and what they’ve been doing recently’ should be regularly mentioned at your unit meetings, and occasional joint events held where your girls are actually mixing with those from the next section up (how many so-called joint events actually just involve everyone moving around in their strictly segregated unit groups, with the sections doing different activity sessions – so that they aren’t really joint at all, there just happen some other units onsite doing activities that day, whom you might bump into at the toilets or in the lunch queue if you’re lucky?).  But also, we should be applying the personal touch - is the Leader of the next section someone who visits occasionally, or who helps at outings, or who is pointed out at joint events so girls know her by sight if not better than that?  Do you regularly talk about the next section as a natural progression?  (It should always be “When you’re a Brownie you’ll get the chance to do X”, not “if you join Brownies you might get to” as if there is some element of doubt about it).  Of course, to do that, you actually need to know what the other units in your District are up to, both their section programme in general (can you chat comfortably about Roundabouts, or Adventures, or Challenge Badges or Octants - or do you need to do your homework?), and also specifically about what the units in your locality have done at meetings in the last month or two – so could you talk of the Brownie sponsored walk for charity, the Guide international camp, the Senior Section car maintenance session, the Leaders training day . . . or might you need a slot at each District meeting for unit updates, so everyone has up-to-date stories about the next section to share?  And as they approach 7, or 10, or 14 – there should be communication with the girl and her folks, to advise on what units there are in the area, what the process for moving up is, and to discuss timing - when the girl wishes to move up, and how it will be arranged, so everyone knows what will happen and is comfortable with the plan.

 

The next thing is in-unit retention.  Is your unit’s programme varied enough, that at each meeting the girls do at least one thing they haven’t done there before?  Do they regularly do things that give them a sense of achievement?  Is each meeting in some way unpredictable, surprising, fun?  Or do the girls know fine well that the same things have happened every year or every third year since Eve was a lass, and will continue to do so for the next decade come what may?  As a movement, we need to keep moving, keep changing, keep evolving what we do.  That doesn’t mean throwing out all the old stuff merely for being old, but it does mean each activity we do, new or old, has to be regularly evaluated and ‘earn it’s keep’.  So, do the modern girls still find it fun?  Exciting?  Challenging?  Useful or educational?  Relevant?  ‘Because we’ve always done it’ is no reason to justify anything.  A girl will only choose Guiding over all the other clubs available locally if Guiding is at least as exciting (and hopefully more exciting) than the alternatives.  That’s what happened in the 1910s and 1920s when Guiding first grew, and is what happens still.  If the members reach 7, or 10, or 12, or 14, and feel they’ve ‘done it all’ - then deciding which hobbies to drop when the new club comes along is an easy choice.  So, how many of the girls who join your unit stick it for the duration?  Is it ‘most of them’ – or not?  And if not – why, and what are you doing to alter that?

 

Next up is challenge and progression.  Are the girls in the unit getting to do stuff and achieve things, and work out stuff for themselves, without adults always telling them what to do and how to do it (or worse still, doing it for them)?  And do the challenges continue to develop each year as their capabilities increase?  Do the Rainbows get to draw round templates and cut shapes out, do they get to make some genuine either/or choices, do they get to take some genuine responsibilities within the unit, do they get to go on outings, or on sleepovers, are they expected to clear up after themselves?  Do the Brownies get to do activities in their Sixes organised and led by their Sixer, do the Sixers get to run some of the unit activities each term, do the Brownies get to go on weekends, or even weeks away, do the Brownies get to do most things for themselves unaided?  How much time do the Guides spend outdoors in summer term, do they work in Patrols regularly, do the Patrol Leaders have worthwhile responsibilities and meaningful perks or status, are there Guides working on BP, Commonwealth, Camp Permit or Community Action badge, are there opportunities for experiences like Gang Show cast, International Selection or attending major camps or events, do the Patrols do everything unaided with only the occasional pebble being dropped by adults which is just sufficient to get them working out ideas or solutions for themselves?  Is there a Senior Section unit or a support group for local Young Leaders, how does it run and to what extent is that done by Senior Section members not adults, are there Senior Section events in your County, and do the girls know about them and whether transport is available for getting to them, are they encouraged to work on Commonwealth Award, DofE, Queen’s Guide, or YLQ/ALQ, and Chief Guide Award, do you highlight opportunities and options which are open to them, do they organise most of their meetings, is there support and flexible programming during exam time?  Or – is any of that lacking?

 

And the final thing to remember – Lones.  Although it’s assumed by many that Lone units are just for geographically isolated girls – that is only one of several functions.  They can also provide Guiding to those girls who cannot attend local units due to other commitments clashing with unit meetings.  And they can plug a gap for girls where local units are too full to accept more girls temporarily.  But – Lone units need Leaders too, and there are some Regions in the UK who do not have any Lone units, not for want of girls, but for want of Leaders.  It would be an ideal role for someone who couldn’t commit to weekly meetings but who had some free time to give to Guiding . . .

 

Bemoaning the loss of numbers from Guiding is waste of breath.  Waste of breath and energy we could be using to actually do something to solve the problem.  But - it needs every Leader to be actively working to plug the gaps in her patch, making sure her unit’s programme is so fresh, lively, and exciting that it retains the interest of almost all of the girls that join, and the girls are so keen on what they’ve heard of the next section that they’re equally well looking forward to their turn at moving on and being part of the adventures to come.  We are all part of one friendly Guiding family, and local units should all be supportive cousins, not rivals . . .

Guiding and Politics

Guiding has always been a strictly non party-political organisation. But, there is more to politics than just the politicians in parliaments or council chambers and their decisions and pronouncements.  Every issue under the sun is, in it’s own way, political.  Starting an educational charity for girls was political.  Encouraging girls to learn new skills and try new activities – was and is political.  So in that sense, Guiding has always done ‘small p’ politics, consciously or otherwise.

 

What we’ve long avoided, however, is the so-called “big-‘P’” politics.  Party politics, issues which the individual Political Parties find contentious, topics which are liable to be divisive amongst Girlguiding UK’s members, or amongst the public at large.  Or at least, we have avoided them until the past three or four years.  Sure, the Junior Council over several decades looked at a range of controversial topics from within Guiding – but that was mainly closed-doors stuff with limited publicity outside Guiding.  Whereas in the last few years strenuous efforts have been made to get such discussions publicised in the mass media.  Now, our 14-26-year-old members are receiving a seemingly constant stream of questionnaires, regularly seeking their opinions on one controversial topic after another, with the results then rapidly published in mass media, backed by press releases and TV appearances (strictly from those within that age group, natch).  The older adults who actually organise the questionnaires and coach those who will appear in the media - stay away from the cameras.

 

The first problem – is one of misrepresentation.  These surveys are invariably presented as what ‘Girlguiding UK’, as an organisation, thinks.  As in the whole organisation.  In spite of the fact that only a narrow age range within the membership of the organisation is ever given the opportunity to participate in the surveys, and only a small number of members within that age range receive the surveys, and an even smaller number yet within that group respond to them.  And - it assumes that all those who do choose to answer the surveys do so seriously, representing their own personal thoroughly considered and sincerely held beliefs and experiences, with no ‘joke’ responses, no influence from peers or others, and no ‘what I think I ought to say rather than what I actually think’ responses submitted.  Typically, there are fewer than 2000 responses in total, and often significantly fewer than that - making it hard to judge whether the views of this small number of responders are representative across the whole membership of the organisation from age 5 to 115 – or are just those of a small group within a very narrow age range.  It’s also not clear whether there is a representative spread of geography, age range, ethnic background, social background, disability or other relevant categorisation among those surveyed or those who respond - or not.  Maybe if the survey covered a wider span of the membership, the results would be much the same anyway, maybe they would be different, we just don’t know. And I fully accept that misleading headlines are potentially down to how media choose to publish the information which is provided rather than necessarily a lack of clarity on the part of the original author – nevertheless it isn’t made clear, and anyway it’s naïve to think the journalists will differentiate even if they are aware of the limited consultation - the headlines on Guiding’s own website don’t make it clear to the initiated who exactly was and wasn’t consulted, far less lay people who are understandably unaware of Guiding jargon.  Nevertheless, accidental or not, it’s still misrepresentation - anything published by “Girlguiding UK” should either be representative of the views of the majority of all the members of that organisation or a representative cross-section of it - or it should be made explicitly clear exactly which parts of the membership it is representative of, and which it is not.  Otherwise, it just presents the critics with a stick to beat us with which can discredit the whole thing and put all the work to waste.

 

The second problem – is the want of a ‘devil’s advocate’ in the drafting of these questionnaires, and especially in drafting the related press releases when the results are launched.  The authors are so keen to present every possible positive argument they can muster to support their findings, that they are not in the least selective about which ones are good arguments to field which will strongly support the message - and which arguments are weak and better avoided as having too much potential to backfire and damage the message.  As a result, instead of one clear, straightforward and easily-defended point being made by a report and a press release backed up by one or two clear and easily-defended arguments, which the press can easily tweak and publish with little effort - the potentially powerful key supporting points are diminished by the weaknesses in the umpteen other points fielded to try and back up, weaknesses which are all too easy for any competent journalist or critic to discredit or counter without a second’s pause.  To take a recent example, what they wanted to say was that girls should be free to wear the clothes of their choice, and even if those choices happen to be comparatively revealing garments, such clothing choices are no excuse for the girls receiving unwanted attention, particularly sexually-related attention.  It remains a current issue certainly, it’s a point many of us could easily agree with and happily support - and it’s one which is already the focus of well-known and respected campaigns such as “Everyday Sexism”.  But – they didn’t stick to that one clear point, and that main readily-defendable argument in it’s favour.  No, in their rush to try and back up with every available argument regardless of the strength, they foolishly raised the almost-impossible-to-defend issue of school uniform rules.  Now as we know, most schools in the UK have a clear and strict dress code, and take active steps to ensure that all their pupils conform to that code up to and including suspension from class.  And we also know that most schools have strong parental and local authority support for this.  So the examples that were fielded - ‘it should be okay to wear coloured bras under white shirts even if in specific breach of my school’s uniform code’, or ‘it should be okay to wear skirts just as short as the individual might wish as school uniform even if in specific breach of school uniform code’ – were the very arguments which were least likely to be supported by parents and the public at large, who would be far more likely to support the school’s position than the child’s in such cases.  By getting sidetracked into the dead-end of school uniform rules, instead of focussing on the strongest arguments only, the point about clothing and sexism was weakened, possibly fatally.  They simply became perceived as a bunch of school uniform rebels.

 

The third problem I perceive – and possibly the largest of all – is that as a charity we only have a limited number of headquarters staff to spread around all the work which our headquarters ideally has to do in order to run a proactive UK-wide viable educational charity for girls based on the principles which are set forth in it’s constitution, and play it’s part in the World Association as the founder member.  And only a certain amount of funding available for all the work that is to be done too, hence the comparatively poor salaries paid to it’s staff considering their responsibilities and the office’s central London location.  As we know, staff who are focussed on political campaigning cannot also be focussed on fundraising for the organisation and managing it’s financial resources.  Or on managing it’s training centres and developing the training facilities for Trainers and unit Leaders.  Or on supporting Guiding in the further flung parts of the UK and world that it has responsibility for – Branch Associations, BGIFC, Lones, remote communities in the UK – as well as supporting Guiding abroad.  Or on the work we might ideally do as founding members of WAGGGS and hosts to both the World Bureau and a World Centre.  Or on working to modernise and develop the programme for each section in light of advances in educational theory, in order to ensure each section’s programme is as effective as possible (for the youth sections and the Adult Leadership section alike) in the modern era and in the future.  Or on tracking new developments in policy which affect Guiding – both UK government developments and legal changes, and those which affect the law in the differing devolved UK countries – to ensure Guiding continues to comply with legal requirements and the individual Leaders and Commissioners are kept up to date with what they need to do in order to comply with the law, and take advantage of new initiatives and opportunities arising.  Or on working to look after Guiding’s heritage and history for current and future generations, maintaining holdings and acquiring new material, and developing ways in which it can be utilised as an educational resource for it’s members and the public at large.  Or on working to create new resources for Leaders on the range of key topics for which the Leaders are constantly asking.  Or on working to cater for the needs of those whose first language is not English, and for those who need resources in other formats than printed books in English.   Or on working to plan, organise and run UK-wide Guiding events.  Hence, both they and we have to ask the big question.  What, amongst all of this potential work for headquarters to do, should the priorities of our headquarters staff be?  Which of these activities should they fully focus their energies upon?  Which should they devote a lesser part of their time on?  Which should get only a limited amount of attention and effort?  Which should get very little attention?  Which should get none at all?  We won’t all agree on the priorities and their relative importance – but given that everything can’t be top priority, given that all these things need to be done to some extent and we can’t afford enough staff to do it all from the current budgets - might some of us might consider that political campaigning might not deserve it’s current status as the number 1 priority – perhaps might not be one of the major priorities – perhaps not be a priority at all? 

Ex-Guide Fibs

Common fibs adult former members tell about their youthful Guiding experiences . . .

 

“I was thrown out of Guides . . .”

Well, if I’d a pound for every person I’d heard tell that one, I could retire tomorrow.  Sadly, I can assure you that my ‘retirement do’ is not imminent.

 

Guiding’s rules in this regard haven’t changed much for decades, and the fact is, then as now, people could only ever be thrown out of a unit and barred from attending meetings if the Leaders had sought and received the Commissioner’s permission to do so (even as a short-term suspension, far less as a permanent one).  And even on the few occasions when such permission was granted, it was normally reserved only for illegal/morally inappropriate actions, or for an ongoing catalogue of bullying or inappropriate disruptive or abusive behaviour to both the Leaders and to other unit members.  So if you actually were ‘thrown out’ of the unit, or if they did insist upon you leaving, with no alternative offered you, then you must have done something pretty major - and were probably lucky if there wasn’t police involvement.

 

Of course, what’s far more likely is that one of the Leaders asked you to consider whether Guiding was still the hobby for you, given you didn’t seem to be enjoying it any more - and you agreed her suspicions were correct, you were no longer keen and were now bored – and having reached that conclusion you chose to leave.  Or, you simply stopped turning up without anything amiss being said or done by anyone.  It’s a fair bet that the scene you want people to imagine when you claim to have been thrown out - the vision of teenage you stomping out of the hall throwing your Promise badge back over your shoulder as the hall door slammed behind you, leaving a shocked-but-admiring crowd of open-mouthed young Guides to stare at your display of bravery - or your bold resignation letter telling the Leaders precisely where they could stick their unit – never actually happened.  I know, it doesn’t sound half so rebellious to admit you ‘just stopped going’, or ‘resigned’, does it – and the fibs about ‘being thrown out’ you now choose to tell would seem to suggest that you’re still a bit insecure about it all . . .

 

“All we ever did was play games/do craft/ . . . “

Yes, the quality of unit programmes does vary from unit to unit, I’d be the first to agree that.  I could vouch as much myself, as the Guide unit I belonged to in my youth wasn’t great by any measure – no residential events, one outing per year, no outdoor skills taught at all.  But - some units have more resources – they have enough staff to run all the activities they would like to be running both at unit meetings and at other times.  Unit finance is sufficient to provide the equipment to allow a range of opportunities without constant economising.  The Leaders have enough experience, ideas and knowledge to run a varied and interesting programme of activities, indoor and outdoor, active and sedentary, using both brain and brawn.  The staff have the time to spend planning larger events and are able to take the units to events outwith the unit meeting time.  The unit is located within travelling distance of a wide range of locations which can be used for indoor and outdoor opportunities.  And many more factors.  Some units don’t have all those advantages, or even any of those advantages, in which case they have to do their best with what they can do in an hour or so, indoors, on limited budget and with minimal staff.  But even the least fortunate units don’t literally do craft, or games, or whatever it happens to be perceived to be, all night and every night, 36 weeks a year.  And even where there is a varied and interesting programme of activities being provided, as there may well be, if you ask any child what they did at school or at their hobby they will tend not to give a full list of everything in the schedule, but will just mention what first springs to mind, usually a one-word answer, or the same answer as given on previous weeks. Be it “craft”, “games” or something else.  I’m willing to bet there were some meetings where you spent at least part of the time doing something else, perhaps even most of the time doing something else.  It’s just not the answer that comes uppermost when viewed at this distance . . . 

 

“It was babyish . . . “

It may seem so now, but if it was babyish then – were you?  The Leaders do work hard to tailor their programmes to the age group they are working with.  When you were young, you enjoyed the things young children enjoy, which are different from the things older children or adults enjoy.  So dressing-up and pretending was really fun at the time.  Running races and joining in silly action songs were great fun.  Playing in the sandpit or paddling pool could happily occupy you for hours – even if it seems dull now.  As you get older, your tastes change – you want something more adventurous, more challenging, more advanced.  It is natural, and is exactly what should happen as you mature - and it can’t be helped or prevented.  The activities you loved most when you were three or four will be a little different by the time you are 5, 9, 13, 17 – of course they will be.  Some may be similar on-going interests that develop with you as you grow, and may even last you a lifetime.  Some hobbies you will drop, and perhaps you will take up related ones or entirely new ones instead.  Just because it may seem a bit twee when looking back, just because it was starting to feel a little babyish to you when you started to outgrow it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t right up your street for much of the time you were doing it – just as, in time, you will likely outgrow some of the things you really enjoy doing today.  I look back at my instrument tutor book and wonder how the early tunes seemed so difficult to me then – and have real gratitude for the patience of my teacher who suffered my mangled versions of such simple tunes with so much patience.  Of course, it’s possible that sometimes the Leaders did misjudge what stage of maturity you and your pals had reached – or perhaps they were catering for the majority at a time when you liked to think yourself more mature than those just a year or two younger than you were.  But, taken overall, it probably wasn’t so very far off the mark.  In past decades, young people did choose to carry on playing ‘children’s games’ to an older age than they do nowadays, there’s plenty of photographic and film evidence to confirm that in the 1940s and 1950s – and sometimes later - children up to 13 or 14 were still playing skipping games and ball games in the street, and were usually playing with them in mixed-age groups alongside the primary-age children.

 

“Our Leader was ancient . . . “

It’s like the old saw about policemen getting younger every year.  When you are young, everyone over 20 seems ancient - regardless of how far past 20 they may happen to be!  What happened 10 years ago is ancient history on a par with that which happened 100 or 1000 years ago so far as children are concerned.  So the Leader you thought was ancient may have been in her early sixties – but could just as easily have been in her fifties, forties, thirties or twenties, and you wouldn’t necessarily have been aware of it – when you are young, ‘old is old’!  The upper age limit of 65 for Leaders was around for many decades, so no matter how old you imagined your Leader to be, she had to have been under 65 at the time you were in the unit – perhaps by quite a margin?

 

“I felt excluded/overlooked/wasn’t the Leader’s pet . . .”

It can’t be denied, that personality does affect all relationships.  It’s natural that there will be some personalities which each adult finds appealing, some they get on okay with, and some which really rub them up the wrong way.  But, being adults, they try hard to hide their feelings, and to treat each individual fairly regardless of whether it comes easily or not.  I still remember when I was a young YL, one older Brownie who was leaving the unit was trying to push me to comment on the topic of my favourite Brownies amongst the pack – I wouldn’t answer.  She was sure I must have a favourite amongst those in the batch who were leaving (and in truth, I did) – in the end she said she didn’t need me to answer her question, because she knew all along she was my favourite – still I said nothing to confirm or deny.  To this day, she doesn’t know that actually, she couldn’t have been more wrong.  I hated all sorts of aspects of her personality very strongly indeed - I just tried not to let it show, and aimed to give her fair turns regardless.  Equally it’s a two-way street - sometimes the girls are quick to imagine slights from Leaders where none was intended, or perhaps even existed.  And no matter how hard we as Leaders try to treat everyone equally, sometimes limited places mean we have to choose some to get opportunities and thus automatically, some to not get those same opportunities.  We try to use reasonable and transparent criteria to choose – oldest first, or names out of a hat, or first come-first served, or using relevant reasons such as the girls who have the specific skills being sought - in order to choose representatives as fairly as possible.  But whichever way choosing’s done, it’s fact that some will get chosen, some will not, and those who miss out may be upset about it.  It’s something that will continue on through every other area of life too.  Maybe your Leaders weren’t as skilled as they might have been about making things both fair and seen-to-be-fair.  Maybe you were unlucky over your name coming out of hats, or maybe your parents weren’t quick enough at replying to first come-first served opportunities?  Or – or maybe you are forgetting the times when you were one of the ones who was chosen?  I recall one unit which had two large jam jars, and a set of straws, each straw bearing the name of a girl in the unit.  Each time someone had to be chosen for an opportunity, the Leaders would choose a straw from the ‘picking’ jar, and that person would get the chance.  Their straw would then be placed in the ‘chosen’ jar, alongside everyone else who had had an opportunity of some sort.  Only when the ‘picking’ jar was empty, would all the straws be transferred back across and everyone given the chance of another turn at being chosen – yet in spite of the care that was taken in this way to both be entirely fair and transparent, there were still complaints from parents that their girl had missed out and was never picked for anything . . .

 

The Guider’s daughter was always got to go to everything . . .

Invariably, the Guider’s daughter is in a no-win situation.  I know – I am one.  Sure, some Leaders may have struggled with handling favouritism, and perhaps ended up being over-generous.  But most ‘go the other way’ and in their desire to be seen not to show favouritism to their own child, end up actively discriminating against.  Fact is, at many events, for childcare reasons alone, the Guider would have had to bring her daughter along whether daughter was a unit member or not, otherwise none of the unit members would have got the chance to attend the event at all.  And yes, this did mean the daughter getting to go to a lot of events.  Or, one could equally say, it meant her having to go to a lot of events.  Whether she wanted to or not, and perhaps at the cost of missing other clashing events she would have preferred to attend instead.  You got the choice or whether you wanted to go or have your name put in the hat, she had no choice but go.  You could tell your folks fibs about whether uniform was needed, she had to wear it every time, and correctly too else her mother would be judged.  Anything which you achieved in Guiding, you got the praise and glory for achieving it all by yourself.  Anything she achieved in Guiding, there would always be folks claiming she must have got loads of help from mum (whether that was true or not), it could never have been all her own work (even if it was).  So, looking at it in the round – yes, she may have got some opportunities that worked to her advantage - but she had to put up with plenty too.  It’s not all jam.

Programme Change

“We cannot always create the future for our youth, but we can build the youth for our future.”  It’s a quote which has been attributed to Franklin D Roosevelt.  And there’s a lot of truth in it. 

 

We’ve had word that Guiding programmes in the UK, for all sections, are going to change.  So far, the first big announcement has been made, a change in age groupings for Senior Section.  For quite a few years now, it has tried to encompass the full age range from 14 to 26.  And although a few units did make this work, and did have active membership from across the range, by far the majority of units served either 14-18, or 18-26 - but not both.  We have, of course, already started going through all the stages which feature in every ‘change management’ diagram ever drawn.  We’ve had the upset, and the anger.  We’ve had people complaining that the information provided to date is far too limited to be of any use, and simultaneously others complaining about the age change as if it was a done deal and totally non-negotiable.  We’ve had people pleading to have this or that part of their section programmes preserved in formaldehyde, and others begging them to scrap the existing programmes entirely and start building from scratch.  Some saying that a 2-year process is far too rushed, others saying that it’s ridiculously dragged out, they want change tomorrow (if not sooner).

 

Fact is, since the last universal change in 1966-1968 (yes, fully 50 years ago), there have been rolling and piecemeal changes to each section’s programmes.  Tweaks and more significant changes have been made to each one in turn, but at no point has Guiding actually sat down to look at the youth programme as a united whole, and considered changes to apply across all the sections simultaneously.

 

Over those 50 years, a lot has changed in society.  Back in 1968 there weren’t any of the equality acts we take for granted – no guarantee of equality for gender, race or disability.  The role of girls and women in society has totally changed – back then most women only worked until they were married and then were housewives, the minority who stayed single had a full career but few of those earned a full pension.  Education has changed – now girls and boys alike do both technical and home economics subjects, but that wasn’t the norm in the 1960s.  Back then not everyone was ‘on the phone’, television was in black and white, and career options for girls were limited.  Now we’re not just on the phone, but on the smartphone.  Computers and televisions are widespread, and in theory every career is equally open to girls and boys.

 

In Guiding, too, uniforms and programmes have changed – cotton blouses and polished shoes have given way to soft shell hoodies and trainers.  Typed newsletters and landline phone calls have been replaced by emails, texts and facebook.  We spend less time on domestic skills and more on science, and adventure.

 

The changes in 1966 were introduced because the world had changed a lot in the 50 years since Guiding was first created.  Guiding’s leadership felt that the old system of fixed tests for Tenderfoot, Golden Bar/Second Class, and Golden Hand/First Class had served well in it’s time, but in spite of piecemeal updating, was obsolete.  So they were replaced by annual badges in each section which offered choices.  Now, another 50 years have passed and once again piecemeal updating has been done over that time, but the programmes were once again becoming obsolete.  So time for another 2-year period of review and change.  Once every 50 years doesn’t seem too often, does it?

 

Things did not go entirely smoothly in 1966-68, despite a lot of preparation work being done.  The biggest objections were to the ending of Sea Rangers, and in the end a breakaway Sea Ranger Association formed, which still exists albeit on a very small scale.  And undoubtedly, whatever changes end up being introduced this time round, there will be a lot of anguish once again, and perhaps even breakaways once again.  But, viewed from a distance, the 1968 changes did turn out to be positive, and did succeed in updating the programme whilst retaining the key elements of it.  And it may be that the coming changes, however painful the process of deciding and implementing them may be, and however much initial upset is caused by change, will end up as positive ones too.

 

As the quote says, we can’t create the future for our youth.  We can try to help shape it, but we can’t create it, nor can we choose exactly how it will develop.  We can’t control the outside factors, and the future is going to be theirs, not ours.  But building the youth for it?  We can certainly make a significant contribution to that.  Provided we accept that Guiding is, and has to be, a movement.  It is constantly changing with us or in spite of us, and will continue to be constantly changing regardless of us.  The world will still spin around every 24 hours, standing still isn’t possible.  So it needs us to embrace change, to work to make change, to constantly be working to update what we do to ensure we are serving the needs of the future, not just the needs of the past or of the present.  We are merely the current custodians, but just as we received it from the generation before us, in time it will pass from our hands onto future generations of members.  We are training the girls of today to be ready to replace us tomorrow.

 

The changes in 1966 were the result of a review of programmes – and a report was published summarising the results of the review and the reasoning behind the proposed changes which were then implemented.  I think we would do well to bear in mind the title of that report, for it described the person they were planning for – who is equally well the person we too should be planning for.

 

It’s name?  “Tomorrow’s Guide”.

Age-Appropriate Activities

Yes, I know what you think I’m going to say.  No effing and blinding from the Rainbows, and don’t let the Brownies smoke until they are outside the hall.  Or something of that ilk.

 

But actually, you’re wrong.  I’m not thinking about activities which are too old or too mature for the girls.  But actually, about activities which are too young, too immature, too twee.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve no problem with the Guides or Senior Section occasionally having a ‘silly night’ where they do finger painting, play in sandpits, blow bubbles, and do all the things they loved doing in their nursery days.  It’s great fun as a one-off.  And of course Rainbows should enjoy singing games, and the younger Brownies enjoy dressing up and imaginative play, for such things are age-appropriate to them.  And there will always be a small proportion of girls whose developmental age is less than their biological.  But actually, what I’m referring to is pitching the regular unit programme at the right age group and the right level of maturity for the girls in the units nowadays.  And as far as Guides and Senior Section are concerned, ‘Silly night’ should be an occasional treat once a year or so, not what happens at most meetings.  As an educational charity we’re meant to be focussed on developing the skills of the unit members, and that means maintaining a level of challenge, seeking to have an element of educational value in all of the activities we do, ensuring the girls are progressing and developing their skills and knowledge.  That needn’t preclude fun, indeed fun is often the best way to sugar the educational pills, the whole idea behind Guiding (and Scouting) is “learning through games”.

 

I guess the thought behind this blog post was prompted by a post I saw on a forum the other week.  This Leader was looking for Remembrance ideas for her Guide unit, to do at her meeting nearest to 11^th November.  She had one idea, which was a painted handprint wreath, and she wanted some more ideas to fill the meeting.  And my immediate thought was ‘handprint wreath?   but it’s a Guide forum – so this is meant to be a remembrance-themed programme for 10-14 year olds, not for 5-6 year olds.’    I recalled what my Guide unit had done to mark remembrance over the last few years – last year we researched the one woman on our local war memorial, a war nurse who had worked in a military hospital in central Scotland during WW1, only to die of flu in 1919.  And we made large laminated poppies and then origami peace cranes to stick onto them, these were then laid on each of the war graves in our village’s cemetery.  The year before we used the education pack from the Royal British Legion to investigate the different roles women had in both world wars – working on farms and in forestry, working in factories, working in hospitals and rest centres, working as first aiders and fire watchers, serving in the ATC, WRNS and WAAF, working in factories, etc.  The year before that, the Guides had made a collage with a background of green fields and blue sky, and each Guide had made a paper poppy and written on it the people they especially chose to remember, before placing it onto the landscape.  One year, we told the Guides of how, in 1939 with war imminent, many adults had been ‘called up’ so the PLs should be ready to run the unit meeting the following week.  Although my Assistant Leader and I turned up on the night for insurance’ sake, we made it clear that other than in the case of genuine emergency, we were “not there” – the PLs had to run the meeting as they thought best, while we sat on chairs in the corner of the room.  I left a bag on a table which contained the attendance register, a G-File and a few other relevant forms/reference books – the sort of thing I might have dropped off at a PL’s house before heading off for ‘somewhere in the country’ – it gave them a feel for the situation that genuinely happened at a lot of Guide units in the first week of September 1939, and though surprised, they carried out the meeting in full, including opening and closing ceremonies.

 

And I found myself wondering – were we going too ‘deep’?  In asking them to think about what some aspect or another of war might have been like, in asking them to take an interest in someone else’s real-life experience, in drawing their attention to quite how many war graves there were for the size our village was in 1914 or 1939 and letting them see what age the people were when they died, of making it clear that if war had broken out in our country both their Leaders were liable to be called up and they would have had to carry the unit on not just for one night but for the foreseeable?  Or, perhaps, were others going too shallow, and expecting too little of their unit members?  So I again considered the age group we deal with.  And I concluded that as the older Guides in the unit are only two years off being able to sign up for the forces themselves, given that Guides during WWII served in after-the-raid squads helping people to recover property from  bomb-damaged houses despite the danger and served hot drinks to injured survivors of bombing many of whom would have been traumatised if not slightly injured, given that Guides during WW1 were involved in both making and also laundering used hospital dressings, and worked as confidential messengers for the predecessors of MI5 at the Ministry of Defence and at the Versailles Peace Conference, given that the Guides in the Channel Islands continued meeting in secret throughout WW2 in spite of the occupation of their islands and the threat of execution if they were caught in uniform or gathering – that actually, remembrance is something we can take fairly seriously at Guide age, and we can seek to enlighten the Guides and Senior Section members, to an appropriate extent for their age group, to the sort of real experiences which girls and young women just like them had when war came to the UK.  It’s up to us to pitch it at a level which enlightens without unduly upsetting the more sensitive individuals, and to tailor what we do to the age group we are working with whether it be Rainbow, Brownie, Guide or Senior Section – but nevertheless, to fulfil our role as an educational charity, we should seek to educate and enlighten the girls, on this topic as much as on others, and to try to make it as relevant and meaningful as we can.

 

Thing is, though, it’s not just remembrance that this applies to.  We should constantly be seeking to challenge, and stretch, and encourage achievement from the girls in our units in all the activities we do, all year round.  And to do that, we have to keep tailoring and tweaking our activities so that they remain at that ideal challenging-but-just-attainable level, so that the girls will get a personal sense of achievement from a tough challenge met, a worthwhile task completed, a genuinely useful skill attained.   That can only happen if the tasks we set are at just the right level for them.  If too much of the work is too easy or half of it has been done for them, there is neither challenge nor the reward of achievement, and they become hard work of the wrong sort – a chore.  Something to get through in hopes of the next thing being something worth doing or something fun.  Equally, too difficult can be demoralising.  But – as the girls change, so what is challenging changes, we need to keep revising what we do and which activities we use with which age group.

 

I reckon that if you took any unit’s programme for the term, and stripped out all the obvious giveaways like badgework, you should still be able to tell at a glance what section the unit is in.  Literally at a glance.  Because the activities themselves should smack loud and clear of the age group they are aimed at, and there should be clear distinctions between the sort of activities which would be done by 5-7 year olds, 7-10 year olds, 10-14 year olds, and 14-26 year olds.  There can be a few things in common between the age groups, absolutely, and some things are good fun for any age - but the majority of activities should differ in what type they are, in how they are run, or in both.

 

So, although I’d agree that Rainbows shouldn’t be effing and blinding, and Brownies shouldn’t be smoking in the hall – I’d also suggest that other than as a one-off ‘nursery night’ theme, Guides shouldn’t be doing finger painting, and Senior Section shouldn’t be playing singing games (unless they are serving as Young Leaders at the time).  Because there is plenty of age-appropriate fun out there which they could be enjoying . . .