Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Training requirements for Wood Badge


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#21 Eagledad

Eagledad

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5688 posts

Posted 13 July 2016 - 11:16 AM

WB is now for "'all 'qualified' Scouters."  The objective is said to be to have every Scouter who has completed basic training for his/her primary position also take WB.  

Patrol Method is not the WB objective, building a working adult team that understands the BSA objectives is. Whether the adult takes WB a week before or a week after their specific training really doesn't matter much because they are still working in the dark. Ideally we would like the participant to have some experience in the position they use for planning their ticket. But when adults of all scout ages are invited, we just have to hope they stay in for the long haul. Some adults do change their minds about their future positions in the program after they are counseled in their ticket, but I still don't think specific training would have much effect with that choice.

 

Barry


  • 0

"Experience is the hardest teacher. It gives the test first, then the lesson."


#22 TAHAWK

TAHAWK

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2541 posts

Posted 13 July 2016 - 11:45 AM

I have no idea what the rationale is.


  • 0

#23 RMcKenzie

RMcKenzie

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 14 July 2016 - 06:52 PM

The idea is to have everyone "Trained" for their role. I understand the BSA's desire for that but honestly, WB is so much more past the role at home. If the course provides the right experience, it will inspire the leader, including more training for all the various roles.

 

It is unfair in a way when you figure a Committee member could attend with nothing more than fast start, YPT and being registered while a Scoutmaster is required to have OLT and several other courses.

 

As a WB Course Director, it is a challenge to recruit for a course and get everyone trained.

 

It is worth it, WB is a special program.


  • 0

#24 NJCubScouter

NJCubScouter

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 5473 posts

Posted 14 July 2016 - 08:04 PM

Welcome to the forum RMcKenzie!
  • 0

#25 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 11368 posts

Posted 14 July 2016 - 08:39 PM

Ditto on the welcome @RMcKenzie


Edited by Stosh, 14 July 2016 - 08:39 PM.

  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#26 DuctTape

DuctTape

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 476 posts

Posted 15 July 2016 - 06:42 AM

IMO, if WB is an intro program (all are invited/recruited) then it fails to be an upper echelon program. One cannot have a 101 class also be a Masters level at the same time. If the goal is now to have it be an all-comers training, ie Scouting 101, then what is the advanced program now? To use scouting terms, WB is now a tenderfoot (maybe 1st class at best) training regimen. What is the Eagle level?

 

I understand the rationale for recruiting and training more scouters, but I do not think WB is the proper place. Other trainings, especially the Patrol Method (which doesn't exist as a BSA program, iirc) are more appropriate for entry level training. BSA should focus more on providing the real basics for scouters and not pretend that WB is the pinnacle of training when it isn't (anymore). Especially when the basics are sorely lacking. I suppose this isn't a surprise as it mirrors the boys advancement push by hq, no real basic expectations (ie one and done). 


  • 0

#27 Eagledad

Eagledad

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5688 posts

Posted 15 July 2016 - 08:36 AM

Well I don't know how WB should be classified, but I think the curriculum is one of the more important adult curriculums for providing a successful program. Its realistic to assume that at least 75% of adults joining today don't have any scouting experience. As a result the adults don't understand the goals of program, nor do they understand how the many parts play together for the big picture goal. I know this because I used to counsel struggling units. And typically the problems started with not understanding how each adults roll fit in their team, and not having any goals to point them in a general direction. I was teaching those WB basics years before they were introduced in the new WB syllabus.

I Understand the importance of knowing the scout skills so that we can teach them. But, the BSA learned that even when units know the skills, the program can still go off in the weeds if the adults don't work well as a team or know how all the parts in their program work together toward a bigger purpose. In fact, WB was changed because the old course was found tobe contributing to units going off in the weeds.

Maybe the problem is that this course shouldn't be called WB. WB originated for showing "experienced" Scoutmasters advanced teaching skills. It was never intended to teach basic scout skills or even the patrol method. Maybe what needs to be done is rename the course and retire the Woodbadge title all together.

Barry

Edited by Eagledad, 15 July 2016 - 08:38 AM.

  • 1

"Experience is the hardest teacher. It gives the test first, then the lesson."


#28 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 11368 posts

Posted 15 July 2016 - 10:09 AM

IMO, if WB is an intro program (all are invited/recruited) then it fails to be an upper echelon program. One cannot have a 101 class also be a Masters level at the same time. If the goal is now to have it be an all-comers training, ie Scouting 101, then what is the advanced program now? To use scouting terms, WB is now a tenderfoot (maybe 1st class at best) training regimen. What is the Eagle level?

 

I understand the rationale for recruiting and training more scouters, but I do not think WB is the proper place. Other trainings, especially the Patrol Method (which doesn't exist as a BSA program, iirc) are more appropriate for entry level training. BSA should focus more on providing the real basics for scouters and not pretend that WB is the pinnacle of training when it isn't (anymore). Especially when the basics are sorely lacking. I suppose this isn't a surprise as it mirrors the boys advancement push by hq, no real basic expectations (ie one and done). 

 

Instead of putting all their energy into a generic WB program, why not prop up the position specific positions and take them to a higher level.  WB for a Lion DL is not going to be the same as for a SM/ASM.  To design a program to deal with something as far fetched as that is really dumb.

 

You are correct.  The push for WB has dumbed it down to the point where it is more of a status symbol than an actual learning event,.


  • 1

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#29 TAHAWK

TAHAWK

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2541 posts

Posted 15 July 2016 - 10:15 AM

The WB syllabus devotes only a few minutes to explaining Aims and Methods.  (Course Director is staring fixedly at you and tapping the face of his watch.)

 

Currently, no BSA training syllabus has as a goal that the "participant" learn what constitutes the Patrol Method. (Although there is a goal that the participant learn how to apply what is not explained.) This weakness is recognized by some employees of National Council and efforts will continue to improve training adults in 'Scouting's most important method."  

 

If you have somehow picked up what the Patrol Method is, you will see it demonstrated at WB,.  So the participant who knows more than the bare minimum will get far more out of WB.  It is unfair, rather, to the participant who knows only the minimum or, as is being discussed, even less than the required minimum.  (How about a suggested reading program for participants?)

 

Inspiration is useful as the Scouter is only introduced to the program methods and other tools he or she will need to deliver the program to youth. 

 

Compare and contrast (from the syllabus for Scoutmaster Position

 

How effectively the Boy Scouts of America influences the lives of youth depends on its leaders and their ability to apply the aims and methods of Scouting—these are the keys,

 

When Scoutmaster Position-Specific training and Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills (IOLS) have both been completed, new Scoutmasters will have the tools needed to begin an effective Boy
Scouting program.
 

Scoutmaster Position-Specific training cannot provide adult leaders everything they need to know to be successful Scoutmasters.
 
I have had several Scouters convey that they see no reason to attend "other" training (e.g. University of Scouting) as they have achieved the pinnacle of Scouting training by earning their beads.  They were emphatically not taught that at WB.  Perhaps the message of the need for continuous learning needs to be strengthened.  It is not strengthened, I think,  by allowing the untrained to attended WB.

  • 0

#30 Eagledad

Eagledad

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5688 posts

Posted 15 July 2016 - 12:21 PM

Instead of putting all their energy into a generic WB program, why not prop up the position specific positions and take them to a higher level.  WB for a Lion DL is not going to be the same as for a SM/ASM.  To design a program to deal with something as far fetched as that is really dumb.

 

You are correct.  The push for WB has dumbed it down to the point where it is more of a status symbol than an actual learning event,.

One who has not participated in a course should not make comments in ignorance.

 

The objective of building a functional team and program around goals are skills all adults leaders need to learn and practice. The course gets more specific to each participant responsibilities by directing them to design their Ticket Items to their individuals leadership responsibilities.

 

The course curriculum and the objectives of the course were completely change from the old course, so how is that dumbing down? WB is not a scouts skills development course, it never has been. But course directors who didn't understand the purpose of the course tried to make it a skills course and forced National to start all over again.

 

As for the patrol method part of the discussion, I would not use WB as a platform to teach patrol method. At best it's just a hint of patrol method.

 

Barry 


  • 0

"Experience is the hardest teacher. It gives the test first, then the lesson."


#31 TAHAWK

TAHAWK

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2541 posts

Posted 15 July 2016 - 01:59 PM

I see the value in a leadership course.  I personally have seen adults wise in the ways of the rope, axe, and dutch oven who chase boys away from lack of leadership skill.

 

I still regret the lack of any BSA course that goes beyond the bare introduction of IOLS  - which now does not include first aid. I believe that more competence in Scoutcraft, given an adult who can lead and understands his role, should lead to better program and, thus, better retention of Scouts.

 

I can hope that the effort in the third version of WB to motivate and inspire may lead Scouters to learn more on their own.  The information is certainly available.

 

As for "it never was," the first version of WB was expressly designed to teach the Scouter how to teach "Scoutcraft" through First Class.  I witnessed that version as "Junior Staff" (an experiment that did not result in permanent change until the third version of WB) and have the course syllabus.  As a result, the course was about 90% Scoutcraft.  As the "learners" were mostly quite experienced and Scouting was still "Bill Scouting," they needed little teaching about the Patrol Method and the Outdoor Method."

 

The second version of WB (circa 1972), which I took as a "learner," in 1984, was built around eleven "Leadership Skills" but still used perhaps 1/3 of it's time for advanced Scoutcraft skills. (Helicopter Chicken anyone?)

 

WB COULD be used to teach the Patrol Method, but it ought to be taught at the "basic" level since it is fundamental.  As it is, WB assumes the participants know about the Patrol method when few actually do.  Certainty, some at National Council  could use the training: " Patrols are one component of what we call youth-run, or youth-led, troop."  Others at National Council are Patrol Method champions and are fighting the good fight for Boy Scouting.


  • 0

#32 Eagledad

Eagledad

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5688 posts

Posted 15 July 2016 - 04:16 PM

WB COULD be used to teach the Patrol Method, but it ought to be taught at the "basic" level since it is fundamental. As it is, WB assumes the participants know about the Patrol method when few actually do. Certainty, some at National Council could use the training: " Patrols are one component of what we call youth-run, or youth-led, troop." [/size]Others at National Council are Patrol Method champions and are fighting the good fight for Boy Scouting.[/size]

I agree there should be more than IOLS for teaching the fundamentals, but when a focus is put on adults mimicking aspects of the program like patrol method, history has proven those adults go back to their units and force the boys to mimic their experience. Their personal ambitions get in the way of understanding scouts learning from THEIR choices. You wouldn't think that would be the way, but the adults use their one experience to run their troop everyday. But boys do patrol method different because there is a world of difference in their maturity from the adults. The adults get frustrated because the scouts aren't doing it like their WB experience, so they intervene to set the boys strait. This is why National killed the old course.

From my experience of creating and directing a council level patrol method youth leadership course, I found teaching the ideals of patrol method was challenging for both the boys and adults. In my opinion, the best way to teach patrol method to the adults is have them observe a youth leadership patrol method course. Then they can see the dynamics of the boys in action without their personal biases or ambitions getting in the way. If they don't have any investment in the boys performance, they are more likely to see the bigger picture.

Barry

Edited by Eagledad, 15 July 2016 - 05:11 PM.

  • 0

"Experience is the hardest teacher. It gives the test first, then the lesson."


#33 DuctTape

DuctTape

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 476 posts

Posted 16 July 2016 - 04:36 AM

Killing an ineffective course without replacement is the wrong decision IMO. An ineffective course is a result of curriculum design and/or implementation. Simply choosing to not do it anymore ignores the problem and send the message that the knowledge and understanding that should have been transmitted in the course are not necessary. Based on the description given it is easy to see (as a professional educator) why it failed. perhaps the BSA needs to spend more on developing effective educational tools for scouters and less resources on other things. I have noticed over the years the tools provided and being used are poorly designed and/or implemented as a whole. This is not necessarily the fault of the volunteer training instructors. Few if any have a real background in education (except as a student) so it is understandable they will not be experts in curriculum, lesson design or instruction. 


  • 0

#34 TAHAWK

TAHAWK

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2541 posts

Posted 16 July 2016 - 11:21 AM

Duct, given that the staff are told they must follow every tit and jot of the syllabus, defects in a course syllabus are anything but their responsibility.  

 

Most staffers refuse to teach what is patently erroneous or directly inconsistent with other, more authoritative B.S.A. statements, and they also do their best to compensate for weaknesses in the syllabi.  


  • 0

#35 DuctTape

DuctTape

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 476 posts

Posted 16 July 2016 - 01:10 PM

Taw, I agree which is why I said it is not necessarily their fault. I have witnessed enough poor instruction to know there is a wee bit of fault, but only in delivery and implementation. Regardless, even an instructor with imprccable skills in pedagogy will do little to overcome deficits in curriculum as written.
  • 0

#36 Eagle94-A1

Eagle94-A1

    Been there. Done that.

  • Members
  • 1644 posts

Posted 16 July 2016 - 02:05 PM

I admit, I've not taken the 1990a WB course or the new WB21C one. Back in my time, there was a specific Boy Scout leader WB, designed for adults who had completed training and had 2 years tenure in Scouting as an adult ( 2 years tenure could be waived on a case by case basis, but it was rare.) There was also a Cub Scout Leader WB designed more for CS trainers. Before my time there was an Exploring Leader version of WB.

 

Having one size fits all training does a great disservice to the Scouts in my opinion. For one thing, because you have different training requirements, when they are enforced, you have adults with different levels of experience and knowledge. I think it would be hard for a Cub Scout leader from an LDS pack which is not allowed to go camping, to have an understanding of Boy Scout patrol camping. Terminology gets watered down or changed into something that can make it intimidating or confusing for some, i.e. Course Director = SM, Also because all three programs, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, and Venturing, need to be incorporated, real life, applicable situations are shortened. Instead of an entire week as a Boy Scout, Cub Scout, etc, you only get a few days to get ti together.

 

Again you needed to have completed basic training and have tenure unless waived. First course I was approached to attend would have waived the tenure requirement because a) I had 20+ months in as an adult and b) I was staffing JLT. That tenure allowed  me to grow and get mentored in my role as an adult. Yes I was "trained" taking the old Scoutmaster Fundamental's course as an 18 year old ASM, but the tenure allowed my fellow adults to mold and counsel me when I reverted back to Scout mode, specifically SPL. I needed experience as an adult.

 

Which is why i like the tenure rule when it was around.


  • 0

"Train 'em. Trust 'em. LET THEM LEAD!" William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt


#37 TAHAWK

TAHAWK

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2541 posts

Posted 16 July 2016 - 02:07 PM

... unless he adds to it.

 

E.g.:

 

B.S.A. now wants the third step of dish-washing to be a "hot" rinse (presumably to remove non-existent "chlorine residue") 

 

State health laws require that a hot rinse to replace a final chemical rinse needs to be 170 F for thirty seconds.  Water at that temperature burns exposed skin in .25 second.  

 

The Handbook does not warn about this burn hazard and shows the third pot being used barehanded.  

 

So one adds in IOLS that there is a burn hazard and that gloves, tongs, or net bags should be used.  

 

One might also point out that state law approves of the former B.S.A. method of three tubs: wash, warm rinse; tepid chemical rinse.


  • 0

#38 TAHAWK

TAHAWK

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2541 posts

Posted 16 July 2016 - 02:19 PM

WB is not intended to  strengthen program skills or ability to apply Scouting Methods as such but focuses solely on leadership skills.  Having served both in Cubbing and in Scouting, I found that "Leading ChangeProblem SolvingValuing People and Leveraging DiversityManaging Conflict, and Coaching and Mentoring"   are as applicable in Cubbing as in Scouting.

 

But where is the training in program that is only "introduced" in "basic training"?  As I suggested above, one can self-educate and there is "other" training, such as universities of Scouting. But the "advanced" program skills training incorporated in the first WB and, to a leser extent in the second version, has not been replaced.

 

So far, I cannot find out what the plan is for first aid training now that it has been eliminated from IOLS.


Edited by TAHAWK, 16 July 2016 - 02:33 PM.

  • 0

#39 JoeBob

JoeBob

    Ashes

  • Members
  • 1274 posts

Posted 25 July 2016 - 11:20 AM

Training requirements for WouldBadger elevate the perceived prestige of the course.

 

Beads are your admission into the 'Old Boys' club, so being a Wouldbadger is helpful if you want other scouters to talk to you as an equal.


  • 1

A sharp knife is never empty.


#40 TAHAWK

TAHAWK

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2541 posts

Posted 25 July 2016 - 12:31 PM

Three of the last five Course Directors here have been of the female persuasion.   Are they admissible to the Old Joes Club?


  • 0




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users


IPB Skin By Virteq