Craft Kits

Craft is included as a small part of the overall Guiding programme, in order to develop two specific skills.

 

The first is ‘fine motor skills’.  In using scissors to cut out shapes accurately, or using glue spreaders to paste just up to the edge and not over, in manipulating pencil or paint brush to sketch images, the girls are learning to minutely control their arms and fingers, and develop their hand-eye coordination.  So any good craft activity will give them the opportunity to do things like draw or paint freehand, sculpt or mould, or practice using tools like needles, saws, scissors or planes accurately and dextrously.

 

And the second is ‘artistic taste’.  Learning about design, colour, shape and form, and developing personal ideas and opinions on them.  To bring it down to brass tacks examples, say you were making simple calendars.  Flossie chose a piece of green card to attach her picture and calendar tab onto, and now has to choose which colour of ribbon she wants for the hanging loop – a choice of dark green, navy, red or gold.  So Flossie is looking at the coloured card and at the ribbon choices available, and is judging for herself which combination of colours she thinks will look best together – considering colour and design in relation to her personal taste, and making her own decisions, expressing herself and her personal tastes.  Or say she is given a piece of black cardboard and some wax crayons, and asked to draw a ‘firework picture’ – so she has to think about what sort of firework shapes to have and in what position – perhaps single rockets, perhaps spinning wheels, perhaps clusters or cloudburst fireworks – maybe she might have a bonfire, or figures holding sparklers - or perhaps not, it’s up to her to imagine the scene, consider what colours she wants to use to portray it, and think about how to combine them in order to produce an effect she will find pleasing.  Or say she is given a bar of soap and a penknife in order to whittle and produce a carving, she has to think about what 3-d shape she wants to portray, and then work out what needs to be pared away from the bar in order to gradually reveal the shape which she is mentally picturing.  In all these examples, every girl in the group will have a slightly different vision of what she wants the outcome of her work to be, and each will achieve a different result – but one she has chosen for herself, and one which reflects her tastes and preferences.  And those may be conventional tastes, or may be quite original.

 

There are a limited number of products available from the ‘craft kit companies’ which do support these educational aims.  Most will indeed supply bulk stocks of paper and card, paint and chalks, coloured pens and crayons, and other basic/generic resources to stock your craft box.  And a few of their kits also take some slight steps towards supporting the aim – those where they supply a pre-selected object to decorate, but give the individual some freedom to decide on a decoration scheme, using the 4 or 6 colours of paint provided.  There is heavy restriction in that the object for decorating is in a predetermined form, and the choice of colours limited to only 4-6 which can’t necessarily be mixed in order to offer some variety of shade - but there is a little freedom. 

 

Far too many, however, advertise large numbers of craft kits which offer no choice or scope for taste at all, they are just a form of ‘painting by numbers’.  In such packs the colour scheme for every component and aspect has already been pre-chosen, and every piece has already been cut out, allowing little or no scope to deviate from the designer’s choices, and certainly no encouragement to do so.  If you choose to make the blue rabbit, then you are supplied with a green bow, if you choose the pink rabbit it’s a white bow.  The decision has already been made for you, you weren’t consulted.  All you get to do is assemble the pieces the designer chose and cut out, in the colour scheme they chose.  And as a result, almost all the potential educational benefits the craft activity could have had, are lost.  The girls aren’t getting to be creative, they just assemble other people’s work.  Worst of all – we invariably pay a premium for these pre-pack kits, compared to the cost of buying the component materials, despite the reduced benefits!

 

Of course it takes longer to make the craft if each child gets to choose options, and cut out her own components.  Of course it can mean using more stuff if we buy enough to offer a choice rather than dish out a pre-selected set of parts in the colour scheme we choose.  Of course it means more work and mess if we make templates and supervise the girls drawing round and cutting out, before they start assembly.  And if we give the girls freedom to paint a picture of their choice, or invent and create an object from a selection of scrap - then we also have to allow time for them to think up ideas and design their creation as well as construct it.  So yes, naturally that will restrict what can be achieved in an hour’s meeting.  Yes, we could make it far quicker on the night if the adults did all the cutting out beforehand – the adults are quicker because we got the very practice we’re now denying the girls.  Units should only do craft a couple of times a term anyway, as craft is only one among several of ‘The Arts’ and the arts but a small part of the overall programme alongside outdoors, relationships, self-development and all the rest of the topics we cover.  So no reason why we couldn’t spread the activity over 2 weeks, or aim for something simpler which can be fitted into the unit’s meeting time, but which the child can honestly say is “all my own work” not “someone else’s work really, I just stuck it together for them”.

 

As an educational charity, shouldn’t we be focussing on drawing out the maximum educational benefits from the activities we do, and on making the time to let the girls get full advantage, rather than give in to temptation and just take that expensive, easy-way-out, the pre-packaged craft kit?  

 

Does Guiding Discriminate?

A charge regularly levelled at us by some, is that Guiding discriminates. And of course it does. Always has.

It discriminates blatantly on gender, almost 100%. And on the grounds of age, given no under 4's are permitted to join, and there was until recently a bar on membership, and major restrictions on the roles which available to those over 65 – and there is still a strict minimum age for joining each section. So clear age discrimination too. And a lot of Guiding’s opportunities are restricted to members aged 14-26 only, sometimes for no obvious reason – more age discrimination. So no question about it, Guiding discriminates. Extensively, regularly, and across more than one category. It always has done, and it still does, perhaps more than ever. And it makes no apology either.

How serious a problem you consider that discrimination to be, however - depends on what your attitude to discrimination is. Dear me, have I shocked you by even suggesting that? Well, before you rush to reply, let’s pause for a moment – is all discrimination automatically and absolutely wrong in every possible case?

Of course, most people in a democratic country like ours would consider themselves 100% opposed to discrimination. But dig around a little, start asking a few awkward questions, and those who were once so certain start to find some niggly wee exceptions. For instance, should a belief in individual freedom and liberty really include the freedom to carry out activities that are illegal, or which may involve causing unwanted harm to others, or which will cause major damage to the environment, or which will cause damage to other people’s property? If you were a strict ‘100% believer’ then your answer to all of those would have to be an automatic yes, in every case and regardless. It would mean that you couldn’t choose to exclude those who commit acts of any type that, on consideration, you might feel shouldn’t be permitted – not if you’re 100% opposed to all discrimination, you can’t. Yes, immediately you consider discrimination and civil liberties, you can find yourself wandering into some awfully grey areas, and starting to make exceptions. Perhaps even the most liberal of us is more likely to be opposed to discrimination in 95%, or 98% of cases, than quite the full 100%?

And after that comes the question ‘Can there be such a thing as positive discrimination?’ Or must encouraging/favouring one group automatically mean discriminating against those who are not receiving the encouragement/favouring?

There was a time when society demanded that almost all clubs and societies be single-gender. Mixing between the genders was considered inappropriate other than in the most carefully-managed of circumstances, so it was easier to have separate clubs than tangle with the complex proprieties. Whether that was unfair discrimination to either gender - would depend on whether there was equal access to similar/equivalent facilities for each gender, and whether the members and potential members all wished to have their separate clubs. After all, for there to be unfair discrimination, there first has to be someone who believes they are being discriminated against. If everyone is entirely happy about separate clubs, then there is no unfairness, and thus no unfair discrimination. There is only discrimination the moment one person feels they are being discriminated against . . .

Over time, some of the single-gender clubs opted to become mixed, some didn’t. Of those that didn’t, reasons tended to be either that the majority of members wanted to retain single-gender membership, or there was a lack of demand from those affected by the single-gender status – if no-one of the opposite gender had ever sought membership, the question had never arisen. And a club ‘going open’ wouldn’t automatically result in a significant change in the membership balance unless the activities the particular club carried out were ones which in themselves attracted a mixed membership. Of those clubs that did go from single-gender to open, it tended to either be a case of viability (if there weren’t enough members to keep two single-gender clubs open, then merger could create one viable club for all, rather than both clubs closing leaving no club for anyone), or sharing of facilities (does it make sense to have the expense of 2 clubs each with separate premises, stocks of equipment, training facilities/sessions and administration)? And if the aim is to open a single-gender club to being mixed, it’s not enough just to say ‘the other lot can join now’ or to stick some new toilets and changing rooms in the clubhouse building – it means revisiting every aspect of the club to make sure it is not just grudgingly accepting, but is fully welcoming, and that all opportunities are genuinely and equally open to all members, not just theoretically so.

In these modern times, with the increasing numbers of mixed clubs, some of the few remaining single-gender clubs of various sorts have come under pressure to open their membership. Usually, the reason given for pressuring change is lack of equal access to facilities. In golf and bowls clubs we see arguments about restricted playing times for lady members, or lack of access to some parts of the playing facilities or clubhouse. So it isn’t objection to the fact that separate clubs exist, but an objection to any restrictions on access to facilities which disadvantage one group of members as compared to another. It’s not the principle of the clubs that’s objected to, it’s the details that decide whether there is unfair discrimination or not.

We live in an era when the phrase ‘positive discrimination’ is bandied about. We regularly hear in the media about efforts to try to increase representation in various areas where the membership does not reflect average diversity in the surrounding population. And these special efforts are always painted as a positive thing – as breaking glass ceilings, as making public bodies more representative, etc. Any voices that question whether discrimination can ever be universally ‘positive’ - are rarely heard, and anyone who dares ask the question risks being accused of trying to block change, and keep things in the ‘dark ages’. But if there are 12 jobs available, and a rule states that at least ¼ must go to a particular category of applicant, then that means that the firm cannot necessarily choose the best 12 applicants - and that some candidates who were in the top 12 on merit may not get a job, just because they don’t happen to be in the category with the guaranteed quota – while some of those 3 protected places may go to people who did not come anywhere near the top 12. So positive discrimination for some – may automatically mean negative discrimination for others?

Some have asked the question, can clubs such as Guiding continue to keep their single-gender status in the longer term?

The most commonly-used argument in Guiding is that it’s fine for Guiding to be single-gender - because that’s what the members want. Yet, if we look at countries which have had discrimination by gender, ethnicity/caste, class or other criteria, the most common reason they give/gave was that it's what the beneficiaries of the policy wanted. So by itself, I don’t see ‘because the girls want a girls-only space’ as a justifiable reason to give for barring boys and men from most roles in Guiding. It’s almost saying ‘we want to continue discriminating - because it means we get the better deal’.

I’d rather see factual reasons used – apart from anything else, because there are several! Educational studies have shown that although boys can achieve more in a mixed environment, girls achieve significantly more educationally in a single-gender environment. Studies of sport and activity show that girls are more likely to do exercise, more frequently and for longer, in a single-gender environment than in a mixed one. It’s proven that girls develop leadership skills more effectively in a single-gender environment where they are able to step into leadership roles without competing with boys to do so. So those are all areas where girls can benefit from a single-gender environment – without actively disadvantaging boys. Are those, perhaps, rare examples of discrimination not being negative? Or not? Either way, they are more valid and fact-based arguments to use than ‘because we want to’.

In theory, we are also better-able to attract girls from certain ethnic/religious backgrounds into Guiding because of our single-gender status, whereas their parents would not be as comfortable for them to join a mixed club. But, although that’s quite possibly true in theory – in practice, is Guiding’s record of reaching out to a wide cross-section of ethnic groups actually something to boast about? Do we really have thriving units in all parts of town? Are we really reaching all the girls in the community whatever their ethnicity or cultural background and ensuring all know what we have to offer? I’d suggest one glance at most units’ member lists in comparison to the local school rolls, would make it clear we’re not, and the fact that a wider range of girls could join (but don’t) is not something we can take any real pride yet. It needs a lot more work done both to reach out to all parts of the country and explain what we have to offer – and to educate the Leaders on what steps they could take to ensure their units were genuinely open, welcoming and inclusive of all cultural/faith needs, and avoid incorrect assumptions or faux pas. There’s a lot more to it than just offering a hijab among the uniform options . . .

So I asked the question “does Guiding discriminate?” And the answer is “of course it does.” There’s no doubt about it, it discriminates constantly. But the question we actually have to ask, is, “is the fact that Guiding actively discriminates a problem?”

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?