Beavah

Yah, tesnjohn1, welcome! It sounds like you're a small start-up pack, eh? Generally speaking, a new pack gets started because one person or a small group led by one person "make it happen". My guess from what you are saying is that this was the Cubmaster (and his wife). Those startup leaders often feel a LOT of ownership, eh? Yeh have to feel a real commitment to invest da time to start a unit. They often have a vision for where they want to go. That, too, is necessary. One of da consequences of that, though, is that they have a hard time letting go and making the transition from startup to "regular". Sharing the vision and responsibility with others. That can be a hard transition for 'em, and it takes some time. Your pack right now is too small, eh? It won't survive an adult fight. That means yeh can't afford right now to loose either the Bear Den Leader or the Cubmaster. It's very, very unfortunate that the CM went solo and public on his announcement, but that's the nature of startup people, eh? They're used to just acting when they see an issue. That's why they start new units. So I think as CC you have da hardest job here, but yeh also seem to have the right personality for it. Yeh need to sit with da CM and the BDL and pour water on the fire. I'd meet separately with each, and then together. The CM needs to understand that the pack is slowly transitioning from statup to normal operations, and that means more of a role for the committee and other parents so the CM can focus on program. That's goin' to be the hardest. He needs to understand that's a good thing, not a bad one. It shows he has been successful, even if things aren't always done perfectly. It takes a deft touch. He also needs to appreciate that just solo-firing the BDL means the death of the pack. Your goal is to get 'em both to shake hands and move forward. Anything else, including intervention by the Chartered Organization to resolve the petty adult dispute, will mean the death of the pack. In your efforts to make this happen, yeh have a few allies. Yeh have someone assigned to your pack as Unit Commissioner, as well as a District Commissioner. These are BSA volunteers who are "outside" advisors who can help provide some neutral, objective advice. Call your council office to get their contact information. You might consider meeting with them and the COR (whose contact information you can also get from the council office) as a first step to get the lay of the land. After yeh get through the current crisis, yeh have to gradually move the pack toward more "regular" operations, eh? Some you can just do as CC. Add volunteers, hold committee meetings. Don't override da CM, support the CM. Some time in the next year, I'd try to gently separate the Treasurer job from anyone related to the CM or CC. That's just good practice for any pack of any size. Practically speaking, as CC yeh have to agree to replacing the BDL, or be removed as CC by the COR. So yeh have that as an initial lever. But your goal is to get the adults to calm down and behave like adults, working together for the kids. Yeh can't afford to have an adult shoot-out in a pack your size. Beavah

Yah, comparin' a children's program to civil law is just foolish, eh? They are two different things. If anything, if yeh want to compare the BSA program to civil law, the American response would be "no obedience without representation!". That was why we fought our revolution, after all. . Blind obedience to a remote authority is not consistent with traditional American values. BSA mandates all kinds of skills that the youth have to learn. This is just one more. Will they use it later in life? Will they judge their entire scouting career by it? Probably not. And who really cares? I really care. I don't know about other folks, but I do this work to help kids learn and grow. I believe in doin' the best I can by them. That means if I'm goin' to teach 'em first aid, I'm goin' to make sure they learn proper and effective first aid. If I'm goin' to teach 'em to cook, they're goin' to learn how to cook well. If I'm goin' to teach 'em shooting sports, they're goin' to learn the best practices for safely handling firearms. Even if they never pick up a gun or a spatula or a bandage again in their life, I've at least done my job of teaching 'em well and properly in case they do, and given 'em example of how to learn other things that they might use da rest of their life. Can't see why teaching should be any different. We should do the best we can for the lads, and that means helping 'em learn proper and effective teaching and the current best practices. No different than for first aid or handling a firearm. Beavah

Yah, that's unusual perdidochas. The dioceses in our part of the country are all still paying for da volunteer background checks and for the training. Sounds like somethin' that should be approached through your Catholic Committee on Scouting. Alternately, yeh might get da local parish to pay for the fees. Yeh might also check on da Catholic Scouting email list to see what they say. Beavah

Well, rjscout, did they use EDGE to teach MBs at da camporee? I think your instincts are exactly right, eh? The best instructors and counselors go into teaching with goals in mind for the learners, rather than goals for themselves or the event. So what yeh saw was that the boys weren't reaching the goals for the badge and for personal growth. And that's what we're all about, eh? That's why a lot of us don't care for these MB Fairs and the like. Not because they can't be done well, but because 90% of the time the boys are shortchanged. As an introduction to the topic and the badge, a group setting can be just fine. But yeh have to follow it up with individual mentoring and attention and evaluation, and that can't happen in a large group setting. Real learning doesn't happen in a few hours on one weekend. It takes time and effort and focus. That's why it causes da sort of personal growth we want boys to get in Scouting. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Be honest with us Beavah. Are you saying that a person can NOT use EDGE and have it result in the learning of a skill? Yes, of course. Qwazse's "read the book" would be a fine example of someone learning a skill without EDGE. I have never used EDGE yet I think I've taught lots of folks of all ages many different skills. I'm asking if you really, honestly believe it to be "snake oil" used to deceive an innocent person and rob them of the opportunity to learn a skill? Snake oil isn't poison, eh? It's just fake. It costs people time or money without producin' the desired result consistently. But it doesn't harm 'em beyond that. But to answer da question clearly, yes, I really believe EDGE is snake oil. It's missing many if not most of da ingredients that are necessary to good, effective teaching and learning. Both in my own experience and apparently in da best research on da subject. So yep, just tellin' boys (or adults) "EDGE" shorts 'em on what they need to really be effective instructors. If yeh think about it for a minute, I'd bet yeh recognize that we often see this in young summer camp staffers, eh? Good scouts, well-meaning, trained in EDGE, but not very effective as instructors. Some adults, too. Where it seems to "work" as you report, there's a lot of other stuff goin' on. The trainer is drawing from his own experience and modeling some or many of da other skills like those from the research. They're really adjusting to the material and the learner and doin' Question-Coach-Relate-Explain-Discuss-Evaluate-Coach-Evaluate-Redesign-Feedback-Challenge-Explain-Rest-Review-Build. Or somesuch. They're just callin' it EDGE because that's the only thing they know the name for, but they're really doin' somethin' a lot more sophisticated. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Again, is it the best model, no, but it's not the worst either. Again, that's a claim. And your evidence for it is.... what? There's no basis for evaluating whether or not it's the worst model. There's no basis for claiming that "good trainers" do these four things (let alone only these four things, and in this order). Even our own BSA training doesn't follow da model, eh? So like clemlaw and KC9DDI state, I don't think there's any problem if yeh choose to use EDGE yourself because it resonates with you for some reason. Teachers should teach from their own strengths and philosophies. But I just don't see any basis for it being required, especially since there are other more broadly accepted and sound methods out there. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I like acco's notion of returning the conversation to basic premises we agree on as Americans, and basic common-sense directions in terms of what's best for the nation. I long for that kind of statesmanship. Acco40 for President!

Nah, clemlaw, EDGE is not a real-world term. In fact, as jksoloman points out, it's apparently not a teaching/learning technique at all, and bears no resemblance to any modern, researched technique for teaching/learning. It appears to come from da old Blanchard & Hersey situational leadership model as jksoloman and others have suggested. That's a leadership model, not a teaching model... in theory how yeh get teams to perform given different levels of team functioning and different levels of tasks da team needs to do. Has nothing to do with teaching/learning. In fact it's just one of a plethora of leadership models/theories, and a not particularly modern one at that. Beavah

Don't know how I can be overthinking something cavemen naturally did to pass on skills to their clan. Yah, again, that is a claim. One for which you have no evidence. That's da issue qwazse raised in da first post of this thread, eh? Is there any evidence anywhere, at all, to support da claims that you and others make about EDGE? The answer is a resounding NO!. Like all snake oil, it's all claims with no evidence. And every time yeh push back on such a claim, it morphs into somethin' else. If da snake oil didn't cure my warts, then it's not because snake oil doesn't work, it's because I must not have used it correctly! I must be overthinking it or misrepresenting it. It's not EDGE, it'd GDEDGEDG or "it's all part of 'E'" or some other such thing. After all, everyone has been using snake oil or leeches or whatnot since prehistoric times! That means it must be good! Cavemen always know best. Personally, I think our obligation is to be trustworthy to the children in our care, eh? And that means givin' them more than snake oil. Doin' the harder work of helping 'em learn how to teach well, with no quick fixes or jingoistic nonsense. Even if it's part of a "program" put together by some very well-meaning, very fallible people in a relatively small office in Texas. Our ethical obligations are to God and to people, eh? Never to things. Beavah

Nah, I'm not overthinkin' it, SR540. You're overthinkin' it. . That is to say, you're using your decades of experience to modify and interpret EDGE on the fly to make it work. Cut short an explanation here, shift something there, illustrate with da simplest of tasks without considering others. It's your experience which is makin' you successful, not EDGE. Ds question is whether a beginner can get brief training on EDGE and succeed without having all your experience. I say "no". Beginners following EDGE quite naturally do it literally, step by step, because that's what the method actually is and says. It's like me followin' G2SS on a paddling trip, eh? It says have life jackets and proper equipment and swim tests and do three hours of instruction. So I fill in how to properly fit PFDs and what proper equipment is for da river and time of year and I might do more than three hours of instruction or less depending on the skills of the people as I see 'em. In short, my experience with kids and paddling fills in everything that's needed to make G2SS work. So I can claim that G2SS is great, it's da way everyone has been doin' paddling since e dawn of time or whatever. But give that to a novice, and they fail. They go out not known' how to size PFDs or thinking that 3 hours of instruction is always enough or not knowing to check river levels because that's not one of da 9 points. They'll take 10 novices to 1 instructor and think it's safe because they've followed da book. That's EDGE. It's got no basis. Nobody else uses it. It hasn't been demonstrated to be successful. Even with da simplest of tasks like broom-pushing it's a stretch. It's just vague enough that experienced folks can imagine it works by filling in all kinds of details that aren't really there. B

Yah, I confess I'm relatively depressed by the state of things, eh? The notion of throwing all of the bums out seems a good one. I sometimes think that selecting a legislature by lot like jury duty would be better than the current system. Now I'm an old-school conservative, eh? A bit of a dying breed I suppose. I just can't see the merit in cutting taxes going into two (now 3) wars. Now, with da new budget "compromise", we're moving taxes on da highest wage earners to the level they haven't seen since 1931, and we seem to want to go further, so that the fellows who made millions by having the taxpayer bail out their bad decisions will pay less. No historians in da mix, I guess. What we were doin' going into 1931 almost wrecked the country and the world. Why would we want to repeat that experiment? I'm sorry, I don't mind paying for roads and bridges. I don't mind paying for national parks and the Smithsonian. I don't mind paying for da education of young people, because I know the long term health of the nation depends on it. I don't mind paying for law enforcement, including enforcement of environmental regulations and financial regulations, because that's the duty of a citizen to protect da common lands and the future from those who would profit by stealing those common resources. I don't think our ethic in America should be "I got mine and nobody should take it from me!". I think it should be "my hard work prospered because I had freedom and protection and education and resources, and I have an obligation to see to it that as much or more of those things are passed on to da next generation."

Yah, KC9, I agree those are separate issues. And you raise a third, whether we should specify any methods or only outcomes. I'm sorta with evmori, eh? I like da notion of just specifying that you successfully help another scout learn a skill. That means that you both adapt to the needs of the learner and yeh teach using your own strengths, rather than followin' a cookbook designed by someone else. At da same time, I think once yeh get beyond da snake oil, there's no merit to EDGE. It's not da way people learn, it's not supported by research, and in what I've seen it tends to lead to poor practice as often as not. I don't think that's a straw man, I think that perdidochas' knot tying example is overly simplistic, and once again fudges EDGE and ignores alternatives. Just give the boy the handbook and let him practice. Just tie the knot with him in workin' a task. The third question you raise is interesting, eh? Should there be a national specification of a teaching method. I'm an old conservative fellow, eh? I don't care for such things. I think when teaching yeh are providing a service to the learner, and that should be your focus. That's inherently local, eh? Yeh can't specify a national method that will really meet the needs of each child in every troop, nor can yeh specify a method that uses da strengths of each potential instructor. Nationalizing things at best only gets yeh low level mediocrity. And that's what we get often enough in da BSA. I think beginners like da seeming comfort of following a national document. Makes it seem simple, makes 'em feel knowledgable. But it's a cheat. To really do what's right for kids, there's no simple snake oil, eh? Yeh have to do the hard work to really learn stuff, including really learn how to teach or help kids teach. Just like to really be safe on outings yeh have to learn about risks and safety systems and how to exercise good judgment in various situations, not blindly follow a national document. If yeh care about outcomes, then there aren't any shortcuts. Beavah

Yah, so SR540, what's a lad to do if he tries EDGE but it doesn't work to help a kid learn? Maybe the learner is ADHD and won't sit still for Explain or Demonstrate. Maybe the teacher is kind of shy and would rather just go direct to Guiding rather than get up and do an Explain-Demo in front of da group. As a SM, if the boy does his best at EDGE but the learner doesn't learn, do yeh sign off? As a SM, if the boy does NOT use EDGE but the learner picks up the skill, do yeh refuse to sign off? Beavah

Yah, I think sherm's point is that using EDGE is now part of the advancement requirements for several ranks, eh? That's new. And as we all know, no one is permitted to subtract from da requirements. . So, for da fastidious, EDGE is mandated, and kids must be proficient at EDGE. Why not just make helpin' a younger fellow learn the requirement, without specifying how? They can use EDGE or whatever other technique they like. Their PL or TG or SM can help 'em learn to teach using whatever method da troop uses. Especially since EDGE has no particular basis in da real world, it seems like mandating it is a bit silly. Beavah

Describe the cognitive and physical skills you would use to introduce training/learning techniques to a 13 year old who in turn will train a physical skill to an 11 year old, please. Yah, I don't think there's a generic, eh? Yeh teach different kids and different subjects in different ways. But I put some thoughts over on da other thread Beavah

Yah, what EMB said! Let's see about some others to add to the list. WRMC - Wilderness Risk Managers Committee/conference. For folks who are into da risk management stuff. There are a number of activity-specific groups. American Canoe Association (ACA) & American Whitewater for canoeing and paddling. Great instructional program and resources. American Sailing Association (ASA) and da Power Squadrons for boating. Again, good instructional programs and some available for free. AMGA - American Mountain Guides Association is of course da big kahuna for professional mountain guiding, but the Mountaineers offers some excellent resources as well. There are also some industry groups like the climbing gymns association. I've had good luck working with da Professional Ski Instructors of America (PSIA) and they have some nice resources for helpin' scouts learn how to teach skiing. In addition to da NRA, the smaller shotgun associations I've found to be excellent to work with, even somewhat more approachable than the NRA with better instructors on average. I'm forgetting the acronyms...one for skeet, one for sporting clays. Gotta run now, Mrs. Beavah's gettin' impatient. I'll try to add some more later. Beavah

Yah, "bad" is such a loaded term, eh? I think EDGE is just poppycock. There's a difference. . Bad yeh oppose. Poppycock yeh just smile and make fun of so people don't buy da snake oil without thinkin'. I think yeh help lads learn how to teach usin' an apprenticeship model, not some cockamamie learning theory. But if I were to distill a few things as food for thought, they'd probably include these sorts of things: 1) Know your subject. Yeh can't teach what yeh don't understand. So first, be confident that you can do what yeh need to at least 3 different ways, or from three different starting points, or backwards. Can yeh answer deep questions about da topic? Can yeh pose 'em? If not, practice and play because yeh aren't ready to teach. 2) Know your learner. Timid and shy? Bold as brass? Reads well? Hates reading but listens well? Watches well? Group of first year lads with short attention spans and no vocabulary? Group of older scouts? If yeh don't know your learner yeh can't teach. So if you're comin' in cold, start with your best guess and then do like da research says and start with questions and tasks to figure out where da learner is at. Remember: it's not possible to teach. All that's possible is to make it easier for someone to learn. It's a about them, not you (that's my biggest problem with EDGE, BTW ) 3) Know your goals and make 'em realistic. Yeh aren't goin' to get someone to really learn fire building on one outing. Split things up into what's reasonable and plan to repeat things down the road. So follow da research and be content with learning takin' time and comin' back around on things. 4) Plan some stuff that yeh think will take da learner(s) yeh have to the next step. If yeh are stuck for ideas, talk to someone else for ideas. There's no real "generic" here, eh? What yeh do to coax a kid down a rappel is just different then what yeh do to help a lad learn to splint an arm. Different for each topic, different for each kid. Borrow ideas from others liberally. 5) Try everything yourself first, and practice at least once runnin' through things to catch problems. Yeh won't catch 'em all, but that's what makes this fun. But yeh need to catch some so yeh don't get in trouble.Get there early to set up and get settled. 7). Assess often. Don't be afraid to slow down or back up or go faster or change to different approach if that's what the learner needs. Followin' a script is all about you (or the script), but real teaching is all about them. 8) Be ready with hard challenges for the fast learners to tackle while you work with da lads who need more help. If yeh have a bigger group, set up stuff so fast learners can help yeh help lads who are stuck. Always remember it's not what you do that matters. It's what the learner does. So always be thinkin' about what the learner is doin', not what you're doin'. That sort of stuff, eh? Of course the same applies to us helpin' kids learn how to teach. Make sure they know the topic they're goin' to teach well, none of this "teach it to learn it" nonsense. Make sure they're apprenticed to someone good at teaching that topic. Figure out where the lad is at, and what the next good goal is for him in terms of teaching. Come up with some exercises and challenges that match him and the goal. And so on. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I've used da Presidential Fitness Test stuff, which covers a lot of it, plus gives yeh some ability to compare kids to the percentiles for their age group to give 'em some goals. But I also like to chat with kids about what they want out of fitness, eh? Strength for a cross-country runner is goin' to look different than strength for a kayaker. Accuracy for a baseball player might be different than accuracy for a soccer player. So while da generic tests are good to fall back on, it's better to tailor things to each boy as more of a coach/mentor. B

Yah, hmmmm.... Interestin' that they're sending emails to youth members. Not sure I would have recommended that without first letting adults and parents know. I can see that causin' some negative feedback. B

It sounds like you're using an awful lot of absolutes in your last post. Yah, we're all writin' opinion pieces here, eh? If yeh want me to put all kinds of legalistic qualifiers on statements I reckon I can, but I figure most folks think I'm longwinded enough as it is. . I will stand by da second, though. If the treasurer offs with the money in that way, not being able to show that the treasurer didn't have the authority to do so by pointing to a document will severly hamper your ability to recover da funds through legal action. I think that's da difference in my perspective, eh? Commissioners tend to be around a lot of different units, not just ones that are functionin' well. You're entirely right, in a unit where a large majority of da folks are on the same page, things mostly work out. But a large group of new scout families or a leadership turnover, and all of a sudden things aren't as stable. Documents and procedures provide a bit of stability when da people don't. Let's see now... 1) Yeh don't make bylaws or policies for situations. That's a common error. Yeh make 'em generic to apply broadly to many situations. Yeh never write a policy after "something bad happens" because that's just foolish reaction to a specific case. Policies need to be general. As for da rest, yeh go some of what I'd suggest above, eh? How are different decisions made? Who gets to make 'em? Who is on da group that makes decisions and who determines who's on that group? What are da procedures for handling "hard" cases? 2) Depends on your CO how you develop 'em. The CO might just impose them, as some do. Or da CO may be hands-off, leavin' it up to you. In that case, I'm fond of consensus for da first set. Otherwise an informal Roberts Rules style process, just because most folks are familiar with that. But if you're a self-chartered "Parents of Troop XXX" kind of unit, I really recommend yeh talk to an attorney familiar with association law in your state. 3) First, da BSA doesn't give guidance on all kinds of essential things, eh? Like how to handle difficult parents or how to work with kids on da Autism Spectrum or how to handle misbehavior on a campout. We expect yeh to come with some knowledge and abilities, and to make use of outside resources like ARC and LNT and NRA and PADI. Second, as I mentioned, da BSA does not interfere in unit governance. That is solely the province of the Chartered Organization that owns and operates the unit. That's an important part of da BSA's risk management. I'm not pushin' bylaws on everyone, eh? Even though the BSA does recommend them for Venturing crews at da youth program level. . I think it's fine for some units to run without 'em, particularly small units that serve in areas where there's not a lot of diversity of opinion over how things should be done. . Bigger units or units with more diversity need to get a bit more formal and pro-active about communication. I think bylaws and procedures is just one important method of communication. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

My point was, and I think that you missed, was that a Google search on "see one, do one, teach one" (which arguably is just a simpler view of EDGE) popped up the link on experiential education Yah, sorry GKlose. My messages get too long already without addin' a whole 'nuther bit explainin' what I meant. My fault. Yeh were quotin' Wikipedia, eh? That "source" can occasionally be useful pointin' yeh to a few things elsewhere that might be useful, but yeh can't read it without filters. There were what, somethin' like a dozen or more groups listed on that page? All of 'em with very different approaches. And of course, See One Do One Teach One is not EDGE. It might be Demonstrate, Enable, Teach? DET? I know some of the folks in da Experiential Education Association and one or two of da other groups there, I do work with local folks who are deeply involved in service learning, and I've done some work on da side for a couple other of the groups listed. I don't think they consider the med school trope of "See one do one teach one" to be experiential education. At best a distant and somewhat disreputable cousin. So I think Wikipedia failed yeh on that score. I also don't think they'd buy into EDGE. I've seen their training materials and they don't resemble Trainer's EDGE at all. And I've read John Dewey and many of the progressive education classics. Very much part of da Scouting tradition, and comin' from the same soil. As useful for background on scoutin' as ol' Green Bar is on foreground. Dewey would be appalled by EDGE and its typical implementation, IMHO. As an aside, I think da med school "See One Do One Teach One" trope is worse balderdash than EDGE, eh? Do yeh want a fellow doin' open heart surgery on you after only seeing one done? Teaching open heart surgery after only doing one? It's nonsense. Either that, or it's a great way of keepin' malpractice attorneys in clover. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, FScouter, yeh continue to be da most cynical fellow I've ever met when it comes to fellow scouters. I think yeh hit the nail on the head, though, but not in da way you intended. If yeh don't have bylaws/policies of some sort, then every decision when there's a disagreement feels to the "losers" like someone "forced something down the group's throat." Because a decision has to be made, eh? Yeh either purchase da trailer or the opportunity goes away. That feelin' that fellow adults are shoving an agenda down your throat comes from not havin' bylaws and procedures. Because when bylaws and procedures aren't in place, then the group is always stormin' about the process of how to make a decision and the loudest frequently win. If yeh do have procedures in place, then a subgroup might "lose" the vote, but they feel like the process respected them. They had their say, same as everyone else. They might win the vote next time. That's why constitutional democracies work, eh? Yeh can have disagreements, resolve them through the process, and move on. People who can't stand each other can still respect da process. And that's why, in teaching citizenship, we expect Venturing crews to establish bylaws. There's an additional piece, of course, in that society expects people to have such things in place to be fair. So if you're dealin' with somethin' like a treasurer who purchased an old $100 trailer from himself for $2000, having a process in place that wasn't followed is da only way you're likely to recover those monies. Or, if instead the question was whether to remove a boy from the unit, showin' that you followed a reasonable process that was in place might be important. I think yeh are assuming that things in units are either perfect, with full consensus, or totally dysfunctional, with people who won't agree on the grass being green. But there's a lot of space between those, eh? Bylaws and policies aren't needed for da first. Bylaws and policies are useless for the latter, as yeh suggest. But for everything in between, they are valuable. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Sorry Beavah, that isn't a "club", and you couldn't find www.religiousstudies.umn.edu?? Yah, that's intellectually shallow even for you, Merlyn. It's not a student club, it's not an academic department doin' research and teaching on LGBT issues, it's direct, government-funded program support. Find me the direct, government-funded program support for the Methodists. Yeh can't. Fact is, under the law, schools can sponsor LGBT groups directly. They can assign faculty who directly lead or participate in such groups. But not religious ones, even if da faculty in question are members of that religion. So da status quo is untenable, and leads to all da ugliness and incivility we've seen. If you "win" then groups that are offensive to you are banned from public support and the public schools and the public square. If da Christian Right "wins" then LGBT programs are defunded and banned from public schools and the public square. You just want to "win." I think that's just uncivil and foolish. Let Catholic kids choose Catholic schools paid for by tax dollars from Catholic citizens. Let Buddhist high school faculty lead Buddhist high school extracurricular activities funded by the school activities budget which comes in part from Buddhists. As long as there's equal access, eh? As long as the atheist club gets da same dollars per pupil as the Buddhist club. As long as the Lutheran school kid gets the same dollars per pupil as the charter school kid or public school kid. Let individual families and citizens choose their services. Yah, you won't like what some families choose, and they won't like what you choose. Get over it. That way yeh don't set up winners and losers, a competition between citizens for resources. Da state stays neutral. Less lobbying. Less litigation. More civility. Just like what the rest of the free world does. Beavah

The thing is, unit committees don't need bylaws. This is because they are not a standalone group, and what is covered by bylaws is covered by BSA documents. I keep hearin' this, and I just don't see it. So let's take a simple case. The Troop Committee is thinkin' of putting a substantial amount of money out to buy a new trailer. Some folks agree, others think the money should be spent differently. Now, tell me, since everything is "covered by BSA documents" how to proceed. Who runs the discussion? What if she can't be there? How many people are required to participate? Just the signatories on the checking account? Does everything have to go to the IH every time you spend money? Who can cut off the one parent who wants all the money to go to Jamboree expenses since her kid is going to Jamboree? How do they decide? Who gets to vote? Who decides who is part of the group that gets to vote? What sort of vote is required? Does it matter if da fellow selling the trailer only wants $10 for it? If yeh can find me BSA documents that "cover" all of those things, I'll eat my campaign hat. Fact is, BSA documents can never cover these things, because they're properly da purview of the CO and the unit, not the BSA. The BSA does not meddle in unit governance; it has no authority to do so. With the exception of da self-chartering groups, the distinction between articles and bylaws and policies isn't worth worryin' about at the unit level, even though those distinctions have meaning in da broader world. But units really should have some things in place and agreed to that address governance, or the CO should. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

It doesn't fit the textbook EDGE, but the text of EDGE says that there is no real problem with doing DEDGE or DEDEDGEG, the important thing is that all four steps are done. Yah, again, if an experienced instructor has to always be fiddlin' with it then it's not a very good model, is it? Probably why this model isn't given any credence in the real world. The Experiential Education folks GKlose mentions wouldn't buy into EDGE, and as diverse as they are I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find anything like it in their materials. And how is a fellow supposed to know which step to choose in this non-linear dance, eh? When that young PL steps up to the plate, should he start explaining? Or go direct to coaching? Under what conditions, like SR540 implies? Indoors with lights? Outdoors in the dark? For a timid boy? For a bold lad who can't sit still? For a boy who has camped with his family a lot? For a boy who has never been outdoors? Which step in da EDGE model teaches yeh to evaluate the conditions and where your learner is at before you choose? How do yeh decide when to switch between steps? How much time should each step take, on average? It's just balderdash and snake oil. It relies on the instructor fillin' in all these missing pieces, rearranging the order, and adding a half-dozen or more different concepts to each step. What makes for a good explanation? How does one guide different learners effectively? And then there's the ever-expanding "catch all" of "Enable." Like I said, go set up a tent with a kid and do it in mime, without a word of explanation. Or do like qwazse suggests and just have a lad who learns well that way read da tent instructions or the Handbook and try it out on his own or with a buddy. Either way, I'll bet in the end the boy will know more about setting up a tent than if yeh wasted his time with an explanation and a demo. CLASSROOMS can't do this of course. Not enough time. Too many kids. So in schools yeh have to make compromises. Put 500 students in an intro course and you're goin' to see explanations and demonstrations. Can't be avoided. Same if yeh run your troop like a classroom. But this is Scouting. Scouting is a game. Think more Mario Brother and less Biology 101. Beavah