In my county, Network is not very big, we have one group for the whole county, if its still running.

Whats the situation where you are?

We have one Network that I know off. They seem to be going strong. They were one of the Venture Units we had who just rebranded and carried on. The other Ventures closed down.

My old group had a venture unit. It closed years before explorers and networkers started. They now have an explorer group in its place now.

network. whats that??? my county as far as im aware dont have one or if they do i havent heard of it!!

Great system huh. You have lots of healthy venture units, you mess everything up and you get a couple of struggling network units and loads of people out of scouting. It's a familiar story round these parts.

I don't think the Explorer/Network change was very successful to be honest. I wasn't around at the time to know what they were trying to achieve so I don't know what the problems they wanted to solve were.

I think the only way forward is to encourage Groups that want to set up Explorers to do so. This at least might get a few more set up. Leaving it to be run by District just means the Groups disown them.

I biased because our perfectly good venture unit got screwed by the system because of the changover, but to be honest I don't see many people saying it's better now than it was.

As for the problems they were trying to solve I don't think the Scout Association were ever honest about it. We speculate that reasons might have included the fact that the 16-20 Venture Age was not perfect in view of the fact that some could drink and drive (obviously not together :D) and some couldn't, or that there was a huge drop out rate between scouts and ventures at 16 which maybe they thought they could get rid of.

Of course introducing two potential dropout points (between scouts and explorers, and explorers and network) instead of just one doesn't seem a very clever idea to me. But anyway the SA didn't even use these reasons, they just waffled on in vague terms about taking scouting into the future. It never made any sense and they didn't seem to think about things at local level, the fact that more sections means more leaders, or what a ridiculous idea it is to have Network based at county level (what are we supposed to do, drive all over the county every week for meetings!).

As a result of the latter point most Networks that have been sucessful have ended up as group or district based. If the powers that be had accepted that letting venture units stay in the group and turn into network units was sensible in the first place then many more units would still exist. It was the fact they tried to change everything so dramatically and for no apparent reason that let everybody down.

I agree that a lot of Gilwell's ideas are more idealistic than practical. There is a great gulf between the ideal of Scouting and what actually goes on on the ground.

Explorer Scouting is working in Districts where people have said "oh so that's what we're doing now" and got on with it...

I've talked to Scout Leaders and ESLs from a number of counties/districts, and can say that the only two things that are holding up Explorer Scouting and Network are inadequate provision of adult leaders/management and the heel-digging that many Groups have been doing since the change.

We've pretty much gotten over both in my district, but still having to fight against some diehards who'd rather have their older Scouts quit the movement entirely at 15 than have them move on at 14 to new challenges.

That's funny - because the strongest districts in my county have district-run Explorers - they are better integrated with groups because they are not limited to one group - less leaders are needed because you don't need at least 2 more adults per Group - and it's just better having a small number of strong units than a large number of ESUs with only 4 or 5 members.

I don't know what the SA ever said about it because I was out of the movement for a few years and returned to find Explorers just starting.

My own reasons, gathered after spending time with leaders at all levels are:

1) Scouts were leaving at 13/14 because they were not challenged and felt left out of a program designed for 10/11 year olds - the difference between those ages is much grater than that between 14/15 and 17/18.

2) Ventures were not working - they became self-serving and did not contribute greatly to Scouting across the district.

3) More people leave home at 18 to go to university and lose contact with Scouting - I did but, while I returned 5 years later, most never come back in.


The aims of Explorers (at least my aims for Explorers) are to challenge those 14 year olds who were leaving long before they joined Ventures, provide Young Leaders for all Groups within the district - not just the lucky ones with their own VSU, and to have some of them progress into leaders when they turn 18.

The aims of Network is to keep them in Scouting for that tricky period where they are difting off.

I agree that National HQ have not fully thought out some decisions (my biggest bug is the training scheme we have with not enough training advisors being ready for it) - but I see Explorers as a very positive thing for young people in my area, and looking at the numbers across the County, I'm not the only one.

Instead of complaining about it, why not make it work, like we have?

All our explorer groups are run by an individual group but are open to all in the district. Two of my old scout leaders are now explorer leaders.

The change was not the best move. I would have started explorers for 14-16 year old scouts and closed ventures for accepting new members for two years, untill the youngest was 18, and then you re-name ventures as network and let members stay until 25. It simple, but the SA did not think about it properly.

Instead of complaining about it, why not make it work, like we have?

I always get this :rolleyes: , but the simple answer is that I'm 21 and if there's no ventures left in the district to make network work then it can't happen. I'm just lucky I was involved in scouts because otherwise I'd be out of scouting like so many of my friends.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it's working in your area. but that's just not true everywhere. Our group was very quick to try to act to avoid problems as soon as we were told that it was going to change whether we liked it or not. We tried to set up a explorer unit and a network unit at group level, both of which were stronly opposed by the county officials who despite insisting we couldn't do that offered no support or assistance in doing anything else.

After much pushing and shoving, our explorer group was finally set up amid much annoyance from the district who tried to stop it. It is now sucessful, although our scout section has suffered because of the reduced age range. Meanwhile, well you can't say "stop complaining and make it work" if there is nothing and nobody to make work, so now we have no Network in our area and nothing for scouts to do once they reach 18.

It's easy to say stop compaining when you and I assume your group have done alright out of the deal, others have not been so lucky. :) And besides all that, since I'm in a moaning mood, why shouldn't we object if we think it was better before? Regardless of how hard we tried to make the new system work we still might think the old system was better!!!

Here, here!

If you're 21 you wouldn't have been a Venture anyway.

i can't talk about what happened in your district/county - i don't know the situation between the group and district/county.

For us, we have dissuaded Groups from setting up their own ESUs, but in some cases agreements have been made - for example, the Sea Scout Group in my district wanted their own Sea Explorer Unit, and this was allowed after discussion between the Group and District.

A neighbouring district has had the opposite situation - initially three ESUs were started, two of them right next to each other. Together they would have been a strong unit, but because of the politics between the three Groups, they had three weak ones - which have all pretty much collapsed now.


Network in my District is coming from those who are in the Network - I guess we have the advantage that we have a strong University based SSAGO unit, and they welcome non-student members.


I did not mean to belittle the hardships that you may be experiencing in Scouting - but it seems that I hear a lot of people saying "it isn't working" and not many people saying "let's make it work".
Sure there are problems - I have many problems to deal with week to week - training, resources, communications between Groups and the ESUs - but myself and the leadership we've had have made it work.

For the record, I'm only 26 and only been a leader for three years - so I'm not in too dissimilar a situation to most Networkers (in fact, I'd say that I'm in a little more of a void than Networkers, as I don't really have access to that resource).

I think I've already answered most of your points. At 21 I would have been involved with the ventures as many of our past members still were as a fellowship member or whatever.

Once again I'm glad it's working in your area but despite the best efforts of me and many others it was never going to work in ours. It's not like I'm the only one, hell I'm evidently not even the only one on this forum!

As for explorers, it is now up and running in our district. Network is non-existant. There are very few people (in fact strangely limited to DESC's and detached county people) who I've spoken to who prefer the new system. All of these people are making the best of what we've got. They (we) simply think it was better before. It is our right to have that opinion and it is based on experience!

I don't want an argument but I'm sorry I just can't let it go when people who don't know how much effort I personally put into trying to get Network to work in my area tell me I'm not being entusiastic enough and I have to wrong viewpoint. Been there, done that, got the (if it ain't broke don't fix it) T-shirt!! :D

Cheers,

Dr_Pepper

darn.. i wrote up a long reasoned response, but the proxy timed out my session and it is lost forever...


anyway - Dr P - I was in no way trying to attack you or your efforts... in fact, I would agree that you were probably doomed before you started because of factors outside your control...


When I compare Scouting between when I left 8 years ago and when I returned 3 years ago, it was very different.
Scouting was on the decline when I left, and seemed to have gotten much worse by the time I came back.
the ESUs seem to have re-invigorated the movement in many districts - but not in all...
The big question is, why?

From what I have seen and gathered in conversation with GSLs, SLs, District Leaders and County Leaders from around the nation, the main problem has been heel-digging and inadequate support structures - at County and District levels.

In fact, inadequate support structure is probably the root of most problems, full stop.

Our district was without a DC for 2 years, and that severely affected the Groups.


And without a strong support structure, we have seen situations where Groups tried to get their own ESUs going - which promptly collapsed because three seperate ESUs with 5-6 Explorers and only 1 leader apiece just isn't going to work - but the bloody mindedness of those groups would not let them pool together in an effort - and there was no-one there in a DESC or DC role to step in and manage the situation.


I guess my district has been lucky - we have had some good leaders in the past three years, and our new DC is having a positive effect on groups now that we have a DC.


I think what I'm trying to say - it isn't a failure of the new system, and it isn't the failure of people like you and me - it is a failure of those who dig heels in....

It's hard to pin the blame on anybody in our area. The groups blame the district, the district blames the county, the county blames the SA. Personally I can don't think the SA put enough thought into it. In fact they don't seem to put enough thought into anything - don't get me started on campsite closures!

The problem was not just the new system they wanted to introduce (seemingly without much in the way of consultation or warning that I could see) but the way in which they implemented it, or rather didn't implement it. i don't think they prepared the counties for what was to come or gave them the room to manoever to do anything about it.

Our district finally took the bull by the horns and did it's best to make the changeover pending any news from higher up. What they suggested (and what has now been implemented) was vigorously, as I explained before, opposed by the county who thought they were doing the right thing in trying to follow the exact path the SA suggested.

The whole thing was a shambles, and maybe if they had made it clear that we could do what suited each group in the first place (ie set up their own ESU and NSU if they wanted one, which they were subsequently forced to agree to) it would have turned out much better. As it was the networkers were effectively told they had to form a county group or nothing and by the time that rediculous desicion was reversed it was too late and too many members had lost interest. The result was that the whole thing was undeniably working much better before then than it is now.

I think the important point here is that maybe the new system is better (although we'd still have the problem of lack of scouts to contend with) but we shall never know because of the appauling way in which it was (or in fact wasn't) implemented. :unsure:

Sorry for another essay!

well, all i can say is i'm sorry you feel it isn't working...

and you're right - no single group of people are to blame...


but the fact is, across my county at least, and many others (although, i'd agree that not everywhere), there has been a substantial resurge in numbers since Explorer Scouting kicked off.

Has anyone seen the 2005/2006 Scout Association annual report yet? This includes the figures for membership and it would be interesting to see where we're going with the different sections.

There's been a steady decline in all sections over the period 1997-2003. It gets a bit difficult to tell in 2004 with the changeover to Explorers etc so it will be interesting to get the current figures and see whether its had the positive effect that was hoped for.

No not yet, but I agree it will be interesting to see the numbers in sections.

I heard a rumour that for 18-25 year old leaders, membership to the Network would not be compulsory.

I don't think it is, at least not round here. We've got 18 year old Leaders who are not in any Network unit.

I'm 19 and I'm not a member of a network. As far as I'm aware you dont have to be part of a network

Well I certainly never put myself down for being a member of the network and yet I get all their stuff. Not interested in being a member anyway. Maybe my area is just persistent.
Although since I refused to return the form for registration this year they have sent me nothing.

Maybe they are just trying to drum up some members.

The Network round me is almost none existant so probably could do with a bit of persistance themselves.

Membership to Network is not compulsory for 18-25s, but your Network wouldn't be doing its job properly if it didn't send that information to ALL 18-25 year old Scouters in their area of responsibility...

I take a similar attitude to Explorers - I get the contact details at 14, and will send them programme information and newsletters until they are 18, or they ask me to stop... this strategy does work after a fashion, because eventually we will do something that they want to do, and join in...

Personally, I would rather get the information about activities and events and make my own choice to not go than not have the choice at all.

My understanding was that if you are a member of the assn. (ie a warranted leader etc) and in the Network age range you are a member of the network, active or not!

Yup that's the current situation, though this is looking likely to change shortly to an opt-in system as with all other sections.

eh? when was the last time you were dragged against your will to a Network event?

You are a member....active or not

Why are Network and Fellowship lumped together in the same discussion and forum? They're completely different; Network is a progressive youth training section, Fellowship is a support structure.

The fact that they're both open to over 18s isn't good enough; grouping them together devalues them and is an important perception issue.

Here Here Pete!

Network isn't a service section!

Network is a self development section! :D

Its things like grouping us together which confuse districts/leaders/networkers!
We need to show that Ntwk is a natural progression from Explorer scouts - we are part of the 18-25 programme. :)

Network is now an 'Opt In' section - which means people have to choose to be a member - nothing wrong with that - if network is working effectively. <_<

In my County Network is indeed a success - we have a 'young at heart' network team - its not an age thing, its a state of mind!

We have a range of different activities to take part in. We have the 'Bigger Picture' - Network isn't a weekly meeting in a dark scout hut somewhere - its national and international camps, its dinner and dances, its acheiving goals and aspirations - its County based! Its UK based - and its time we made use of this!

If you start up a new network - show them events like MAD UK, Intense, SnowJam, EVO, Monopoly Run, National Network Gathering, Pubscouts, Intense and the World Scout Jamboree.

Mention Explorer Belt expeditions - Roverway Italy! Go climbing, Gorge Walking and have adventure - show them what network offers them.

Come together as a County - make use of the skills you have, get networks to run events for their county - Go do joint activities with other counties around you (especially if you have low numbers)

In Network - there is always a way to get involved!

Speaking as a 27 year old Adult Leader - why isn't Fellowship considered to be a self-development section, too?

I know that there are a number of skills that an Adult Leader (or any Scouter) can obtain through the experience of other older Scouters... pioneering, campcraft, bushcraft, yada-yada-yada...


Fellowships can serve two purposes here - provide support to the younger sections, and provide an organisation of leader development... sound familiar? It's just like Network and Young Leaders...


Although, I agree with Pete's point - they are two discrete sections within Scouting...

Fellowship is self-development, but for adults. The 6-25 programme deals with youth members; fellowship (with or without leadership) is for 18+ but not in a youth programme capacity.

As for providing "an organisation of leader development", I point you to something known as the "adult training scheme." This isn't just getting your wood beads and doing courses, it's ongoing learning.

Fellowship should concern itself with "providing active support", and then the social networking and development are secondary benefits.

I was mostly responding to Mary's post...

but hey, I see what you're saying...

So to clarify, are all 18-25's officially in Network or not? Sounds like a good wheeze so they can say there is lots of networkers, even though they are actually leaders/helpers who dont go to Network at all! Or has this changed. I dont see why technicality matters anyway, unless someone somewhere is trying to fiddle the figures. If you want to go to network you can go, if you don't you don't, simple. Nobody's stopping anyone from either being a leader or from being in Network.

I'm 22 but I'm not in Network. I've been a leader since I was 18.

Network is now an "opt-in" system since the review this year (though I can't tell the difference from before - i mean, its one thing to be involved or not, and another to be kept on a mailing list), so no, you are not automatically a member.

Before the review, it was an "opt-out" system - but as far as I can tell, most counties/areas were not naive enough to report all 18-25s in Scouting as Network... just those who were actively involved in whatever Network programme might have been taking place...

At least you all sound like youve got a network up and running and your county. We dont even have that yet in mine.

I wouldn't quite go that far...

We had a very determined Local Network Commissioner in Slough who got a Network setup there some time ago...

We've also had a change in County Network leadership this year, which is helping greatly...

When I realised that I was starting to get a good number of 17 year old Explorers in Reading, I got together with Pete (Jeffreys) and got County to help us get things going in our neck of the woods, and they're also sorting things out in Maidenhead right now, and plans for coverage in the rest of the County are all slotting into place...
Pretty much most of what is Network in Berkshire started this year, really (oddly enough, we all agreed on a basic plan that the National Network review put forward just the other month).


It's only happened because people at the local level have made County aware of demand... we've also been particularly fortunate in that we have identified and recruited some potential Local Network Leaders/Coordinators just at the time we needed them.

I hope that the new Network structure brings as much development in your area (not Area or County) as it is starting to provide for us.

Sorry if my comment caused offence - I was trying to get across what Peter followed up with - basically network is part of the 18-25 programme

I wasn't trying to say you don't get benefits from being in a fellowship, but Network - isn't a service section, its termed a Self Development section.

In fact we've just started a network fellowship - for those who have turned 25. It keeps them involved in scouting and helps support our network.

The way we have been 'taught' is that network is the last section in scouting where you do things to benefit you and not others. As a network you don't have to help out - but we do as its the scouting way.

Sorry :rolleyes:

I meant 6-25 programme :)