Gone

Remember, the intent of the thread is for us to design what training *WE* think leaders should have, not what is currently required. You have all the training you "need" you say, but do you have all the skills you would need to call upon if you were on an outdoor trek? If someone is just a committee member, then there is probably other training they need that is not being offered (financial mgmt, operations mgmt, fundraising, etc.). In other words, what training should leaders have? What training should adults attending events have? What training gaps are there (see the OP)? I agree that there are outdoor and indoor components to what training adults need. We can surely explore what non-outdoor training is needed (special needs mgmt, patrol method, TC mgmt, etc.).

If an SM's unit wants to do white water (or some other high adventure for which he is not fully trained or has experience) I would expect he do the following: Make sure the BSA Sweet 16 is being applied. Tour Plans and other paperwork and basic training requirements of adults is accounted for. Make sure advanced training requirements (WRFA) are accounted for. Ensure that any special training required by BSA (e.g., canoeing, kayaking, etc.) for the boys and leaders is also accounted for. Works with the PLC to engage an "expert" either within the troop, district or council. If need be, get an outside expert (e.g. REI, Sierra Club, etc.). This expert would help in the planning and perhaps even the execution of the trek/trip.

This is the crux of the argument about better adult training. I would add "How can we keep them safe?" to the list of arguments.

@@DuctTape, but BSA holds the unit lead accountable for the safety of the unit, just like a guide or tour operator. So the argument that the SM (or unit as a whole) are unpaid guides is correct. The onus for planning and executing intelligent activities based on an expected level of competant expertise is on the unit and the SM specifically. That may not be ideal, but it's reality.

@@SSScout brings up a good point, double check the dimensions of your neckerchief. One year we ordered a replacement batch and they were WAY too small. Same supplier just a different lot of cloth. Confirm before you order.

Depends. There are events to which he should NOT wear his uniform. Check with your unit leader.

So @@Stosh and others bring up a good point: When is the expectation of being trained too much? To stay on the OP as much as possible I will offer this: - To avoid issue as outlined in the OP, BSA needs to update their basic training to ensure all leaders have the skill set to avoid such problems. - High adventure would be an ADVANCED training. Ice climbing, 50 milers, kayaking, advanced portaging, etc., require different training. In this case BSA should offer this training to help leaders make good decisions. Experience, while preferred, can't always be a pre-requisite. Remember, most HA camps have rangers embedded in the crew. It's a great point parents don't want untrained leaders. I want someone who know the difference between Class 1 and Class 5 rapids, or someone who knows a 5.10 finger hold is for advanced climbers. More focused BSA training can help that.

Yes. And I think that's why folks are recommending using it as a template of sorts for a revised BSA training for leaders. Might avoid some of the problems noted in the OP.

@@fred johnson interesting comments. The point of the thread was to find out how we would redesign training to make sure adults avoid situations noted in the original post. Any input there?

Good response. I suspect we have different types of learners. What you describe above to me would a) bore me to tears, b) make me feel like I was being talked down to, c) be a waste of my time as nothing substantive is learned, d) if anything got my interest it begs still another step as to how I would implement it. I am more of the type that likes hands-on, real-world, EDGE-style learning. Show me the skill, let me learn the skill, give me ideas on how to apply the skill and to teach it further. Playing with Popsicle sticks and dental floss is not the same as working with logs and rope, IMHO.

Professional head hunters will tell you keep anything off your resume that is in any way controversial. With the number of levels you need to clear in the typical hiring process, leave off the controversial stuff BUT hold it in reserve in case you feel you can work it in verbally. As someone who hires 100+ people a year I can tell you I could not give a rat's tuckus if you volunteer for BSA or not. I want someone who can do the job when I need them. Adding in BSA volunteering might put people off politically OR it might put them off wondering "Is this guy going to want two weeks off for Philmont and one weekend a month for camping?" Rule of thumb: Get in the door. NEVER give them a reason to exclude you....that is, if you really WANT the job.

The report I read was that he was 15 when he completed his Eagle requirements. Three years to get an EBOR and the paperwork straightened out is enough. What was he doing for three years? What were his parents doing? I know a guy who quit scouts at 16 having done everything but his EBOR (silly, right?). Should HE be allowed to petition for his Eagle? National is not one for drawing lines and keeping them drawn.

Currently controversial. Leave it off. If you have Eagle you could mention that.

Good idea. Problem is using that model the SM must attend all camp outs as he's the guy with the first aid/AED training. Making first first aid/AED mandatory for ASMs. That way the SM could get a break.

A few comments for conversation's sake...

If we look at this from the top down, the mission and vision of the BSA is a bit broader than than just the outdoor program. I suspect, BSA's intent -- indeed B-P's intent -- was to accomplish the mission and vision using the outdoor program. As we've discussed in other threads, BSA is getting away from the outdoor program (think STEM) and attempting to broaden out their reach in an effort to stem the decrease in membership and, I am guessing, to evolve a bit with the times. For purposes of this thread, I'd like to keep the discussion focused on how we would re-build all aspects of adult training. My assumption going in is that most training should be around the core skills needed to implement the outdoor program. If others feel we need to broaden that scope let's discuss. To get us back on track here is the most recent syllabus for IOLS for adults.

I don't think you'd get any argument. I see cooking as part of "the program". It would be one of the core skills both scouts and adults learn, otherwise how can one lead a simple camp out or trail hike?

To catch those folks up who have not read the whole thread, here's another update to the running list offered by everyone: Teach planning and execution of program activities. Keep the costs low and reasonable. Make initial training (i.e., first aid) rigorous but the "re-cert" training less so. Establish a means to get updated changes to techniques, curriculum and content to those who have passed the training (e.g., changes in first aid application, safety rules, etc.). Validate exactly when re-certification is necessary (e.g., Why every two years? Did content change or is the reason legal/regulatory?) All leaders should re-cert on important training, not just direct contact leaders. Eliminate "useless" training (Need examples here) Use an evaluation criteria to test the people taking the training to see if they pass a minimum threshold.Have a test out option for those who can demonstrate the minimum proficiency. Develop ways to ensure that training attendees are participating, learning and able to apply what is being taught. Hands-on training, no PPTs. Use EDGE. Follow-up mechanism to make sure training is being implemented within the unit. Standardizing the curricula for the various training courses so that they can be implemented consistently. Make sure courses are well-developed and of professional quality. Have a course similar to TFC for all adult leaders. Just like TFC, must demonstrate you can pass this course to lead. Cover basic core skills of camping, cooking, first aid, pioneering, etc. Planning, execution, BSA policies, etc. Evaluation of the trainers, course and content. Cannot be boring, must be hands-on. Training should be accessible and given often. Tiered training: Basic, Intermediate, Advanced. Make certain levels mandatory for certain activities (e.g., high adventure requires advanced training). Basic courses only should be online, the rest should be face to face. Articulate the need for training to leaders. Make training curriculum widely available and communicate it WELL in advance. Make sure it does not conflict with historical busy times for scouters. More practice and drills (competitions/demos/meets) should be available for applying learned skills. For example, an RT drill: bring some NWS forecasts and evaluate go/no-go decisions for the next day, next two days. Or circulate maps with hike plans A, B, and C for boys of different levels. Afterwards you are scored on your decision. Make something like Powder Horn available more frequently. Evaluate the leaders being trained. Learn their skill level in various areas (pre-course survey to better target content for those attending). For example, do they know basic cooking, equipment, map reading, etc? Extended (advanced) training (e.g., adult merit badge concept of in-depth training). This sort of training would net an interested audience rather than a captive one. Detailed training on the Patrol Method and how to build, manage and nurture the boy-led program.

These case studies ALL broke basic rules of being Scout leaders, most if not all,of which IS covered in basic training and documentation. Heck, nearly all of these could have been solved by basic trek planning and following the ten essentials. Parents expect us to know these things. These leaders screwed up by not following basic training using established BSA guidelines for leaders. They screwed up, full stop. The parents of those units expected the leaders to avoid situations like this, and rightfully so.

@@Eagle94-A1 I remember when we treated snake bites with these.... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Snakebite_kit.jpg

Here, here! They'd be out the door in my unit faster than they could text the district contacts.

Update to the ongoing list: Teach planning and execution of program activities. Keep the costs low and reasonable. Make initial training (i.e., first aid) rigorous but the "re-cert" training less so. Use an evaluation criteria to test the people taking the training to see if they pass a minimum threshold. Develop ways to ensure that training attendees are participating, learning and able to apply what is being taught. Hands-on training, no PPTs. Use EDGE. Follow-up mechanism to make sure training is being implemented within the unit. Standardizing the curricula for the various training courses so that they can be implemented consistently. Make sure courses are well-developed and of professional quality. More practice and drills (competitions/demos/meets) should be available for applying learned skills. For example, an RT drill: bring some NWS forecasts and evaluate go/no-go decisions for the next day, next two days. Or circulate maps with hike plans A, B, and C for boys of different levels. Afterwards you are scored on your decision. Make something like Powder Horn available more frequently.

It is, but it is more high adventure focused. These units were, for the most part, just out for "normal" events. Given that most of what we do as part of "normal" scout events, leaders need a better basic training for being outdoors. For example, one group had 20-40 oz of water per person for an 8 mile all day hike. Far too little. No wonder they feared dehydration.

You made my argument: Many of these leaders lacked basic implementational knowledge to AVOID these situations. Not having enough water, not having a map, leaving the trail, running out of food, not notifying people of your travel plans, not looking at the hydrology tables PRIOR to setting out on a canoe trip, under-estimating the abilities of the people on your trek....these are ALL avoidable things had these leaders taken all the basic training above AND some of the additional training mentioned.

Good feedback so far. If I can summarize the advice to date: Teach planning and execution of program activities. Keep the costs low and reasonable. Make initial training (i.e., first aid) rigorous but the "re-cert" training less so. Use an evaluation criteria to test the people taking the training to see if they pass a minimum threshold. Hands-on training, no PPTs. Use EDGE. Follow-up mechanism to make sure training is being implemented within the unit. Standardizing the curricula for the various training courses so that they can be implemented consistently. Make sure courses are well-developed and of professional quality. EDIT: I would add that for weather training the course be upgraded to advanced storm spotter training and how to use the weather tools from the Storm Prediction Center and hydrology/tide tables.