Beavah

Where's a public school that uses public dollars to support an LGBT club and doesn't offer the same degree of support of a Christian prayer group? Pick any major public university. Here's one near yeh, with a whole university-supported office with paid staff: http://www.glbta.umn.edu/. Can't find their Christian Programming Office anywhere. Similar support exists (well, funding but not a staff ) in a fair number of public schools I'm familiar with in suburban communities. I'm OK with first-come first-served, but I prefer What's Working Now. If yeh did first come first served, yeh could have the old established Christian Club with only 5 members left block out da room for the young, thriving Atheist Club with 100 members. . Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, SR540, it's not my usual topic, eh? But yeh have to remember, for Kudu, anything with an acronym is just another scale in the hide of da Management Theory Dragon. BTW, just a thought, do you think I mean one follows the EDGE model 1-2-3-4? As in you first Explain, then Demonstrate and then Guide and finally Enable? That I would never mix it up to DEGE? What you would do doesn't really matter, eh? I'm sure you'd operate from many years of experience with youth and would do somethin' that worked. So I'm sure you'd break the EDGE model in the way you describe and then some. Da question is, if you and I and other experienced folks are constantly breaking the EDGE model in order to help kids learn, how good is the model? Remember, we're teachin' this to beginners, eh? They're not goin' to have the experience to break it when they need to. They're not goin' to have the wisdom to add a half dozen additional concepts to "Enable" da way perdidochas did earlier. They're goin' to go right down the line E - D - G - E. Honestly, in my experience with beginners, both youth and adult, when they try to use EDGE they mostly get caught up in Explain and Demonstrate. Guiding and Enabling take longer and are much more ambiguous, eh? They don't "get" it. So they spend more time on E & D and nowhere near enough on G & E. That's what your example felt like to me, too. So I'd never teach a PL to do what perdidochas describes above, because I'd never do it myself. "Explaining" how to put up a tent is ridiculous, and "Demonstrating" is almost as bad. You grab a young fellow and you put up a tent together. He learns because he's engaged with a problem, not because he's listenin' to us jaw. It's fun. It's quick. It's hands-on. It's scouting, not school. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

More pressure from (former) COs might help the BSA come into the 21st century on this issue. Yah, that makes a lot of sense. Give up your membership and your vote and you will gain more influence? How's that workin' out? Sounds like da tactics of the Iraqi Sunni leadership at the beginning. Boycott the elections! Oh, wait, now we don't have any say? I think, had they pushed it, the schools, PTOs, and other groups who would have preferred changing the policy could have made significant inroads into the BSA's governance. But by giving up their charters, they ceded control to those organizations who are less likely to pursue that agenda. We are now less likely than ever to reverse the policy. I think it's important to acknowledge that there have been a lot of cases of hostility toward religion in public schools. I know of a case in a nearby school district that was pursued by one of da conservative legal foundations on behalf of a student where the district court's ruling compared the local school officials to Nazis their behavior toward religious students was so egregious. So the notion that there is an agenda to drive religion out of the public sphere and especially the schools has some real basis in fact. At the same time, in other communities, it's important to acknowledge that there have been a lot of cases of hostility toward non-Protestant-Christian practice or expression in the public schools or the public square. And yeh can certainly point toward equally egregious behavior by elected and school officials on that side. Which is why I'm such a proponent of public monies being used for personal public choice. It's da easiest, best way to end the squabbling and attempts to "win" through legal and policy manipulation. Schools support student groups that meet baseline guidance for good behavior, period. Charter and fund the boy scouts, the girl scouts, the American Heritage Girls, the Spiral Scouts, whoever. Fund 'em based on the number of kids choosing the activity. Let 'em participate in extracurricular recruitment day and assemblies. Let kids and families choose, rather than letting government choose. Maybe everyone will just join da robot club. Whenever we let government choose, it puts kids and families into competition against each other to secure da government's choice for what they want. It leads to lobbyists and political donations and litigation when yeh don't win the lobbyist game. It locks people into philosophical advocacy and viewing competing philosophies as enemies. It's ugly and uncivil and hurts society. A school can sponsor an LGBT club with public dollars, but a school can't sponsor a Christian prayer group. It's hard not to see that as government-sponsored discrimination against a particular viewpoint. Just sponsor everything and the arguments and competition for resources mostly go away. Funny, eh? That's what all da other countries in the free world do. Beavah

Whats really amazing is so farthere are 182 filings of one kind of another and they are not even through with the discovery phase. Just standard tactics for a firm pushing for a bigger settlement. Make continuing the litigation look more costly, eh? Beavah

One of the Troop Instructors has been tasked with teaching how to build a fire. And apparently for no particular reason, other than for this example. The first thing the instructor will do is explain what tinder, kindling, and fuel is, and why they are needed. He then demonstrates how to makes a fire demonstrating the differences in a Teepee, log cabin, or lean to fire. He then asks the youth to gather the needed materials and make a fire of their own. Each boy that is. The instructor watches, with help of other instructors and they guide the youth through aranging and lighting the fires The group is then tasked with building the troop Campfire for the evening where the patrols will lead songs, skits, cheers, etc. And odds are the group fails. Because it takes longer than that and more hands-on experience to develop that skill. Leastways, unless the wood is really, really dry . I think da reason it can be detrimental to da program is that it's school. Sit while I talk. Watch while I do. OK, now here's your assignment while I walk around the room. Now here's your homework. Perd might be an instructional designer (though he oddly seems unfamiliar with da research in his area that even an old furry critter can find ), but they work in schools with desks and 35+ kids in a classroom, and built-in rule and classroom management and detentions and grades. That's quite a bit different from what a patrol leader or troop instructor is workin' with in trying to teach the younger fellows in his patrol how to build a fire in the woods. Personally, I'd never teach firebuildin' the way OGE describes. I don't think it's natural for youth to either teach or learn that way. I'd get some fellows who were interested in building a fire and we'd gather some wood and we'd just play. Try this and that. Try this wood or that lay. Try wet or dry. Build together, see what works. Have fun, and in da process learn the fundamentals. Boys are curious, adventurous souls, not sit-still, listen-and-watch types. Then maybe to push it we'd compete to see who could be quickest or most efficient, if they needed more motivation beyond natural curiosity. And in the end, the kids I was playin' with would be able to build that fire, eh? Da knowledge that's real is the knowledge we engage with and acquire for ourselves, not the knowledge that is pushed in our direction by someone. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, da various legal eagles and those with less experience will go on about da various definitions of bylaws vs. policies and whatnot. As Calico says, if you're a "Friends of" charter you do need to pay attention to that sort of thing, because odds are in your state you're functioning as an unincorporated association and your bylaws or association governing documents have real legal effect with some important considerations on joint and several liability to be taken into account. In other units, you're really just a ministry or outreach program of the Chartered Organization, and what they say is the only real "law." However, lots of CO's believe in a governance structure that's created by bylaws and democratic along da Roberts Rules model. So it's perfectly natural in those organizations for a unit committee to have bylaws and decide things by votes. That might not be the same for a religious-based unit, which might follow canon law or da Young Men's Program rules or whatever. Personally, I recommend simple written bylaws and policies for units because they're a good communication device, eh? They help people see the structure and intent of the unit and make things "transparent" so it doesn't look like a couple of old guy buddies just do whatever they want. And, honestly, often when yeh see units without bylaws or votes it's because a couple of old guy buddies just do what they want . Bylaws and policies also help the keep the one or two complainers in every unit from "hijacking" meetings pushing an agenda for their own kid. They can say their piece, get voted down, and the group can move on in short order. Without 'em, it's left to da CC or SM to cut 'em off, and then yeh get complaints about "my way or the highway" Scoutmasters. And while we all love consensus and would prefer to operate that way, that isn't always possible. Sometimes, yeh have to make a decision when people disagree. Votes are better than making the CC into the King. Anyways, one thing that bylaws can help with is hard cases, like havin' a procedure in place for considering removal of a scout or an adult. Those things always involve a lot of emotion and usually aren't things yeh want a big all-parents type committee dealing with. Havin' thoughtful procedures in place can be a real blessing. Semperfiscouter, how you proceed with your "hard case" I think depends a lot on what you mean by "lay hands on" a scout, and what the parents of the boy feel, and what the expectations and rules of the Chartering Organization are. I can imagine lots of cases where some gentle physical restraint of an angry/upset/rambunctious/special needs young fellow would be perfectly appropriate. I can imagine a few cases where physical restraint of a rambunctious lad might feel a bit "too much", but the leader is good friends with the parents of the boy and knows the boy well, and so it's OK in that context. And I can imagine a leader who just doesn't have the knack of working with zany cub scouts and is responding inappropriately and therefore needs to move to a committee support role rather than a kid-contact role. Then of course there's the worst case - real nastiness or corporal punishment or somethin' that hits a "youth protection" threshold where the unit/CO might remove the leader entirely and ban them from the premises, and the BSA might revoke a registration. It sorta sounds like you're somewhere in the middle two cases with this fellow, leaning toward case three. Personally, I'd start with the serious sit-down talk with the fellow and the CC, CM, and COR. Sometimes folks don't know how they come off, and off-handed feedback doesn't register on 'em. Loyalty and Kindness demand that we first approach the person unambiguously with concerns and give 'em a chance to change. But if that doesn't work, or the concerns are more serious and immediate, then I think da committee and COR and IH simply drop his registration as a leader. It sounds like there's nothing here that the BSA itself would take action on independently, so it's a leadership decision that's up to the Chartered Organization. If the fellow isn't meeting your/their expectations, then just remove him from da position, gently but firmly. Beavah

Yah, that's sorta true and sorta not, eh? Generally speakin' the G2SS applies to BSA units. Presumably ScoutBox is in a BSA unit based in Switzerland (usually military bases or foreign service units; might also be a group of U.S. citizens workin' at a foreign site like CERN physicists ). However, local laws and insurance coverage may be quite different, eh? I'm not actually sure about how that stuff is structured for the foreign units. Certainly the litigation-crazed nature of U.S. citizens doesn't play well overseas; courts and juries tend to expect parents to be parents and kids to be kids and the world to have sharp edges that aren't bubble-wrapped with warning labels. So, for example, if ScoutBox's unit was to participate in any scouting at Swiss or other European camps, they would not be able to set up full Safe Swim Defense, eh? The camp would have its own rules and safety structure, and wouldn't take kindly to some U.S. unit setting up roped areas and a buddy board. As usual, common sense, good judgment, and courtesy toward local custom all apply more than a generic guidance document. Beavah

Nah, packsaddle, yeh read me wrong, eh? For the BSA, the customer is the Chartered Organization. The BSA sells charters and program materials to Chartered Organizations. That's its business. Aside from Scoutreach and perhaps uniform sales, it doesn't provide services for kids or families, just for Chartered Partners and units. For an individual unit, the kids/families are the customer, eh? So most unit scouters think of the kids as the customers. Rightly so, for them. They work for da CO and provide services for youth, using resources the BSA provides to the CO. For da BSA, the kids and families are just consumers. They don't get the same treatment, or the same voice, as da real CO customers. Beavah

Yah, Eamonn, I think that's a decision that's up to the PTA, eh? Wonderful thing, democracy. Yeh get to have different rules in different places because the circumstances and local mores are different. Da issue here, though, strikes me as being fundamentally different. While the discrimination issue may play a part, da real issue is not understanding the charter relationship. Now some of this may be just that PTA's have a much, much higher turnover of leadership than any other sponsors. So there's not usually much institutional memory in da average PTA. But da second thing is that the BSA tends to play coy about insurance and other issues, rather than being up-front and honest sharing the facts and contracts. To my mind, that's just wrong, eh? Poor business practice, poor treatment of customers, poor ethics. We all know that by and large DE's never really make the rounds to IH's every year, and when they do, they aren't always forthcoming. There are reasons why the BSA plays coy, a lot havin' to do with institutional culture and fears. They're all bunk and balderdash. We see on da forums how often even really active volunteers don't understand da charter relationship, respective responsibilities and legal/insurance issues. So it's no surprise that a CO with as high a turnover in leadership as a PTA doesn't understand. Beavah

Yah, Scoutbox, my question would be "Why exactly do yeh feel uncomfortable?" I think yeh need to think deeply on this. The patrol activity the lads are proposing is pretty lightweight, eh? Stay over at a friend's house and sleep out for the night. There are many troops I know where that would be considered a cub scout activity, far too easy for a Boy Scout patrol. Since the lads wouldn't consider such an easy thing worthy of a patrol activity, they'd never ask permission. They stay over at each other's houses all the time, eh? Yeh don't need the SM's permission for that! So this strikes me as a very easy "outing" for boys, with adequate adult presence. But more importantly, any self-respecting teenage boy that you tried to say "no" to would just organize it on his own, because he doesn't need your permission to sleep over with just his patrol mates and friends. And while yeh might get one parent in a dozen who worries about "liability" or some such inanity, the boys will immediately cut such a looney toon out of da equation and just go over to the house of a boy with normal parents. Which brings me back to my original question, eh? Why doesn't this sit well with the adult leadership? Is there somethin' else goin' on that you're not sharing? Yeh really don't trust the parents involved and think they are bad role models or worse? This is a patrol of really poorly behaved boys who need direct, hands-on supervision and yeh worry that they'll be smoking weed out in da backyard? If there's somethin' like that in the equation, then I think yeh need to address that more directly, eh? Not generically prohibit a pretty ordinary-sounding event. (Edited to add) I noticed that your location is in Switzerland, eh? The last thing yeh should be aware of is that generally speakin', European sensibilities on this sort of stuff don't match us Americans. They have yet to become the hyper-protective, legalistic, incredibly fearful people we have become, eh? So real patrol outings and kids playing all day without direct hands-on adult supervision are normal over there, much as they were in America when I was a lad. Is there a culture-clash issue goin' on here? In which case, I'd say it's healthier for you to adopt da local culture . Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Contrast these titles with "Wilderness EMT", "EMT-W", or "Wilderness First Responder." Persons holding these titles may also have official legal certification or license as an EMT or FR, and have completed additional training on performing their duties in the back country. But, these courses and "certifications" typically do not provide any additional legal authority to practice emergency medicine with an expanded scope of practice. Yah, I understand where both dScouter and rdclements are comin' from, and I agree with both of 'em. First Aid courses, including Wilderness First Aid, are layperson courses. Conventionally, they do not have performance standards in the same way that professional courses do. While they might have "tests" or "certifications" those aren't real in that sense. Kinda like Lifesaving MB or ARC Community CPR. WFA is a reasonable basic field first aid course for laymen, but it's not anything more than that. From a weak provider, it could be less than that. First Responder and EMT courses lead to professional licenses. So by definition they do have performance standards, and the certifications offered are "real." Of course providers do still vary in quality, and state licensing tests can be passed even by folks I'd consider pretty weak. Wilderness endorsements are typically an add-on to the respective professional course. So an EMT-W program typically meets the EMT licensing requirement plus an additional 30-50 hour training on wilderness protocols. Some providers offer "upgrade" courses to urban EMT-B's for the -W certification. Similarly, WFR uses the state's base MFR course with additional wilderness components. What gets tricky is that not all states offer an EMT-W license class. Some do, others do not. So if yeh live in a state that doesn't offer a -W licensure, takin' the wilderness stuff doesn't add to your license or protocols in an official way. Same with states that don't offer a WFR license class. As a WFR in such a state, you are considered a civilian first responder. Yeh might even be considered a civilian first responder with an EMT-W certification, if yeh did it with a provider in another state that wasn't recognized by your state of residence and never did National Registry. The outdoor industry, however, has by and large accepted the WFR as the base professional certification for professional guiding. So if yeh want to get employed in a guide service they will expect WFR (or EMT-W) even if they're located in a state that doesn't offer a WFR license class. So in some states, da Wilderness certifications are treated as professional licenses, in others not, but they are still recognized by da industry as professional certifications. For all of that, I think it's just grand for people to get as much training as they can, particularly in non-urban environments. It's a funny thing, eh? My experience is that many professional EMTs are not da sharpest knives in the drawer, as da pay is pretty low and da burnout in the profession is pretty high. Often da civilians with higher levels of training are better at some stuff - just because they got into it out of real passion and stuck with it because of that (and because they had other forms of income). Lots of the wilderness cert. folks are that way, eh? They're bright people who are doin' it because they love wilderness and feel this is how best to be prepared. So quality-wise it's all over da place, and hard to make definitive statements. Who do yeh want takin' care of you on a mountain side, the urban officially licensed EMT-B or the AMGA mountain guide with EMT-W certification who might not be licensed in the state? Probably the latter until yeh make it to the trailhead. Beavah

Yah, OGE is right, eh? Of course just because that's the way things should be done doesn't mean it's the way things really are done in lots of places. School officials and school boards and the local folks who elect 'em often really want to discriminate against some and not others. If he and his scouts refuse to support the PTA (or PTO) then they are basically refusing to support groups that help their public schools. That's cutting off a nose to spite the face. Or it's voting their own interest. By and large, when a school or school group chooses to discriminate against one part of its population in terms of access to school facilities, that part of the population in turn refuses to support school bond issues and millages that pay for those facilities. That's why it's extremely short-sighted for a school to opt for a "closed forum". It just angers their constituents, because you have to lock out the PTO and da summer band camp along with the scouts. So da better way to go as a school is always to welcome everyone to use the facilities that they paid for. Scouts, Wiccans, the local church, the Red Cross Emergency shelter, the Buddhist ladies' quilting club, whatever. That way everyone in your area has goodwill toward the schools and is more likely to support 'em at the ballot box. When school officials opt for "closed forums" and locked, empty buildings, that really is cuttin' off their community to spite themselves. Beavah

Welcome to da forums, scouterabouter. Many ways to do what you suggest. I know of one local church that has a common scouting board of directors/committee across all three programs. They do all the common big picture work, providing campership support, overseeing finance and capital expense stuff, selecting unit leaders. Then each program has a parent volunteer group under the direction of the unit leader ( SM, CM, Advisor) and a volunteer coordinator. That might work for yeh, especially if da CO is well involved. It separates program governance from worker stuff, which prevents conflict. Yeh can make a lightweight version of that with just da CC and unit leader of each program, led by the COR. Yeh just have to be careful to define its scope, so that no one unit feels put upon. Some units with large assets like a boat or a scout hut establish a separate foundation and board just to hold and manage those assets. That can work OK, too. Beavah

Yah, NJCubScouter, yeh got me. Beavah

Yah, as we were talkin' about EDGE I was lookin' up what some of the background on it was, and I came across this bit from the BSA Program Office in Irving (remember da Program Office was created durin' Mazucca's first restructuring to pull together people from the various program levels). New Training Pilot Because of complications obtaining suitable licensing arrangements for the Blanchard materials from Ken Blanchard Companies, Inc. for the core elements of the situational leadership model used in 21st Century Woodbadge and National Youth Leadership Training as well as the print copies of the Patrol Leader Handbook and Senior Patrol Leader Handbook, the BSA has been forced to review its training materials with the intention of removing the Intellectual Property claimed by Ken Blanchard Companies, Inc. from the aforementioned works. The state of negotiations with Ken Blanchard Companies, Inc. make it likely that an alternative arrangement for BSA leadership training materials will need to be in place no later than January 1, 2012. The BSA has been pursuing and hopes to announce an arrangement shortly with John C. Maxwell, popular leadership theorist and author of "Leadership 101: What Every Leader Needs to Know" and "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You" to incorporate Maxwell's leadership methods into the BSA's training materials in place of those models claimed as intellectual property by the Ken Blanchard Companies, Inc. We are excited to be taking this step to secure the long-term integrity of the BSA training materials with minimal licensing fees. We believe this step will also advance the mission of the organization by modernizing the leadership methods in which scouts and scouters are trained. If adopted, the new leadership approach will be incorporated into the next revision of the Wood Badge and NYLT materials which will be accelerated for release in early 2012. NYLT will be renamed "Scouting Leadership 101 for youth" and will be open to Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouts, and Venturers serving in unit leadership positions. A basic online training for adults entitled "Scouting Leadership 101: the 12 basic laws for unit leaders" will begin development in the early fall with anticipated deployment in June 2012. To round out the training, a one-day course syllabus entitled Unit Leadership Seminar (ULS) will replace the current Troop Leader Training 3-hour program. ULS will incorporate a core leadership curriculum in the morning, with separate modules for troops and crews in the afternoon. Only adults who have completed Scouting Leadership 101 or the new version of Wood Badge will be authorized to instruct Unit Leadership Seminar in their unit programs. For further information, see "Program Updates" in the Program Office section of the BSA website at http://www.scouting.org/program ------ So I guess that answers that question, eh? I wonder if they'll revamp EDGE as part of da process of converting over to da Maxwell stuff? Also looks like the new ULS materials are goin' to continue the TLT tradition of being all-indoors stuff. Beavah

Yah, the only PFD "failures" I've ever seen are long-term fabric deterioration due to UV exposure. And those still "worked" as flotation, since the fabric only tore along a seam. The foam was sill held in place. For keelboat sailin', I wear a self-inflating PFD with a sailin' harness. Sorta a tougher version of what's under your airline seat. In theory, one can imagine a knife or a gunshot puttin' a hole in the air bladder. Never seen it happen. B

Yah, interestin'. I actually go the other way on this, which will no doubt get me called a heathen . I don't think it's reasonable to expect older lads to behave like good leaders without having seen an example of good leadership. Talking about good leadership or reading books on good leadership or discussin' management theory of good leadership ain't goin' to do it. Boys have to see it. So if yeh have a troop where yeh have this dynamic, separating the adults just isn't the way to go, eh? The only good leaders are the adults, and by separating 'em you do two things: 1) you take away the boys' opportunity to learn from good leaders in action and 2) you demonstrate that what the best leaders do is leave weaker campers on their own while they do their own thing. That's not what yeh want. So in this case what yeh need is more adult mentoring, not less. Yeh start that with a TLT campout or series of campouts, just for the PLs, where the adults lead. Somethin' hard and high-adventure-like, where the PLC lads aren't automatically good at it, so they get to feel what it's like not to know or be good at something, and get to see what a good leader does to support them and treat them right. Then yeh maybe use an adult as a functional PL with a youth APL for a while (though you'd call 'em an "adult assistant" and "PL"). So the youth all get to see what good leadership is like, and the PL has a model to live up to. Then, as each PL starts to "get it", yeh fade the adult out and trust the PL on his own, and just meet frequently with the PL to troubleshoot and talk frequently with da patrol members to see how it's goin'. Then, when they're ready, yeh fade back to real patrol method and youth leadership. The best PLs move up to SPL/ASPL and help train the next generation, and it becomes mostly self-perpetuating on the youth end. Just like young fellows will learn bad leadership from watching bad leaders, they'll learn good leadership from watching good leaders. Beavah

Yah, anyone ever seen that old Sylvester Stallone movie "Cliffhanger?". In da opening sequence, a climbing harness spontaneously self-destructs. 1/4 inch aluminum buckles bend and snap, every scrap of webbing pulls apart... all under the static weight of a 110 lb woman. It's hysterically ridiculous, but it does advance the plot. That's what I imagine here every time Engineer61 talks about failing PFDs, eh? Some demonically possessed self-destructing life jacket, like a scene out of Final Destination 6. It's hysterically ridiculous, but it does advance the plot he wants to create. A properly fit PFD that is at all well maintained will function perfectly fine in da conditions described, and provide a healthy amount of insulation from the cold to boot. When PFDs "fail" it's places like Class IV+ whitewater river hydraulics, where there's enough force of river current to rip the PFD off. That ain't goin' to happen in a few riffles on a lake. Beavah

I didn't buy them, so I don't know the ratings, I just know that I have to boot them around in my garage from time to time. Yah, hmmmmm.... Yeh know, Engineer61, that's a mighty big chip you're carryin' on your shoulder, eh? So let me tell yeh, one father to another. Yeh have to get over it if you're goin' to have a successful relationship with your wife's child, or ever come close to being his "dad." Kids are interested in what kids are interested in, eh? Only a small fraction of kids are interested in the same things their parents are. If yeh try to force 'em to be like you in interest or career or whatnot, all yeh get is unhappiness. Rebellion. Maybe depression and drug use. Same as if yeh give 'em too much freedom or show too little interest. If instead yeh support 'em in their own interest, and show a real interest and concern, even stretch yourself a bit to pretend to "get it" just because they're interested, then yeh can build that relationship. And eventually, your kids will do the same by stretching themselves to share your interests a bit. And don't fool yourself by thinkin' "Well, when he's around I show interest". Kids see through us like we're glass. They can pick up on our attitudes even when we think otherwise. Now it could be that yeh don't want a relationship with your wife's son, or that your attitude even reflects that you resent that he came along with the package. I suspect that's likely, even, given your resentful comments about "paying" for the lad. In that case, well, there's not much to say, eh? It doesn't strike me as a happy way to live and I'd encourage counseling, but it's a choice. Just don't expect those of us who like kids so much that we volunteer our time for kids that aren't our own to understand or sympathize with yeh. As to sleeping bags, I have 3. A lightweight 32 degree synthetic that I use when it's above 45, a down 10 degree bag with that funky weatherproof coating, and a deep-cold down -30 degree bag. That seems to cover da range really well. Of course when yeh get real cold yeh also need to double-up on ground pads. My old bones have really taken to the new Big Agnes style inflatables. Beavah

Jet526 mentioned that the BSA went with EDGE to avoid royalties. I heard the same thing from the Course Director of the Wood Badge course that I am currently staffing. Yah, just curious, AvidSM. Did your WB Course Director happen to mention what it's a rip-off of? Jet526 seems to think it's a rip-off of da Hersey & Blanchard lightweight organizational behavior stuff. That sorta makes sense for EDGE as a leadership model (leastways, if yeh think there's any merit to the Hersey & Blanchard stuff). The leader's style changes based on da skills of the group and da nature of the task. But it doesn't make any sense at all for EDGE as an educational model. Beavah

I agree about knots. Need to know the uses of the knot. I would put that as part of the Explanation in EDGE If yeh just explain, then you're expecting 'em to memorize da explanation. I'd just have some fun trying the knot out on different tasks. That way they see and remember. OGE, I reckon that's how most scouts learn most things, eh? They just watch other scouts and try things out. Or, for da ones who are readers, they do like quazse said and they read and try things out. I think that worked better with some of da old handbooks, though. The recent ones seem a more shallow and school-like. I always laugh when someone tries to explain how to set up a tent. Just do it. In fact, next campout challenge your TG to set up tents with new scouts without talking at all, and see if it makes it better or worse. Beavah Beavah

Yah, this is an interestin' example of da problem with nationwide requirements set to the lowest common denominator, eh? Quite a few areas of the country have been under drought conditions for some years running, with high fire risk and long-term burn bans in place. Others have wood transport prohibitions because of invasive bugs, coupled with no-gathering rules in parks and limited local wood supply. Sign of things to come, eh? And, too, more troops are slowly adoptin' a LNT ethic that de-emphasizes the need to build a fire everywhere, in part because of these other issues. Remember, too, the BSA suffered a $7M judgment not that long ago when campers built a fire during a burn ban that got out of control. Here's da thing, though. Just because in some units and some areas reducing the requirements might make sense, when yeh apply it to da whole world what yeh get is ever weaker requirements. Areas without burn bans and critters have their programs weakened. It's a bit like da way G2SS adds a new rule for everybody when somebody does somethin' silly. We all get constrained to the least common denominator. Perhaps what we should do is start to allow council-level modifications to the requirements with approval. Heck, if we're honest about it most units do this anyways. At least that way it could be official. So councils with extensive burn bans can allow no-light firebuilding, but others in rainforests can still require fires. That way councils in places with lots of water/boating can require more experience boating, too, since their leaders probably have it and the boys probably need it. I can't answer why it isn't necessary to light a stove. That one seems worthy of a rant. Beavah

Yah, it's just amazin' all da things snake oil can be. . It magically expands to encompass any teaching technique yeh think is worthwhile. It's all part of "Enable", don't yeh see? That's what's really great about simplistic, vague jargon. Our brains are wired to find patterns and fill in da blanks. So anybody who is already an OK instructor can look at EDGE and say "yah, sure" and then add 10 things to "Enable" and rearrange da order based on their own experience. But that's their experience talkin', not EDGE. Da measure of EDGE is whether it works if followed in a simple, straightforward way by a novice instructor with no prior experience. And there's no evidence that it does, nor is there any evidence that it even should because it doesn't correspond to any of the techniques for which there is sound research backing. Of course if yeh really believe in EDGE like it's a magic potion, then da next step is to call in to question all of the scientific research on teaching and learning and da human brain. The Department of Education in summarizing hundreds of careful research studies can't possibly know as much as a few volunteers and pros in Irving. Can't let evidence get in da way of our belief. It's always been interestin' to me, since we first introduced this EDGE thing, how little of our training or materials for either adults or youth actually follow da model. It's like we really don't believe it ourselves. I found the IES summary kinda fascinatin', especially when yeh actually read more than the blurbs I quoted. Unlike EDGE, they correspond better to my experience in scoutin' and elsewhere. I never teach knots without talkin' about uses and trying 'em in different uses. Otherwise the boy might know how to tie a bowline but not ever think to use one when it's called for, or use one where it's not a good choice. Beavah

There's nuthin' wrong with hiking or campin' solo. I do it all the time, it's quite pleasant. Yeh just have to stay within your ability level with an extra margin of safety. For scouts, though, I'd encourage at least a buddy, and a group of 4 is better. Now here's another question to stew on, especially for da group that believes in "partial" merit badges which last forever. Just a bit ago we had a thread on the young lad in Florida who died while taking his 20 mile hike for Hiking MB. It had been a year since the last of his shorter fitness/prep hikes. As a result, he was out of shape and not acclimatized to the heat, factors which seem to have led directly to his death. So do yeh make your Hiking MB boys do the badge as it seems to be intended, with a series of prep hikes that lead up directly to the 20-miler? Or do yeh allow this extend break from training / "partial" merit badge stuff even though it compromises health and safety? Beavah

I just don't see the whole objection to it. It's fundamentally sound. And yeh base that statement on ... what, exactly? A colleague in education pointed me to the Dept. of Education clearinghouse of "What Works" in education based on sound research (http://ies.ed.gov). The practice guide for teachin' techniques that they offer there doesn't seem to correspond very well to EDGE. Here's what it has for recommendations: 1) Space learning over time. Arrange to review key elements of content after a delay of several weeks to several months after initial presentation. EDGE: Fail. Nuthin' like that in EDGE, though it's interestin' that I've seen several scouters here write about how they introduce this kind of delay when teaching or checking for advancement. 2) Interleave examples with problem solving exercises. EDGE: Fail. EDGE proposes that yeh proceed linearly through the steps. First Explain, then Demonstrate, then Guide... The research says it works best if yeh interleave 'em, goin' back and forth. 3) Combine graphics & demonstrations with verbal descriptions. EDGE: Fail. Again, research suggests that da best practice is to demonstrate and explain together, startin' with the demonstration which draws interest. 4) Connect and integrate abstract ideas with concrete representations. EDGE: huh? This seems to be edu-speak for introduce the deeper concepts alongside the less abstract, concrete stuff. So introduce the deeper concept of physiological responses to injury when doin' more concrete first aid for shock. Nuthin' like that in EDGE. 5) Use evaluation to promote learning. a) Start with pre-questions to introduce a new topic b) Use quizzes to re-expose and reinforce key content. EDGE: Fail. EDGE has nuthin' about how to use quizzes or evaluation, let alone suggesting you start by raising questions instead of explanations. BSA Advancement: Fail. Retesting is shown by the research to improve understanding and effective learning. 6) Help students allocate study efficiently by assisting with evaluation and helping them learn how to judge how well they've learned. EDGE: Fail. Nothing in EDGE about helpin' students to reflect on what they know or how well they know it, and help 'em then focus on the things that need more work. 7) Ask deep explanatory "hard" questions. Use instructional prompts that encourage students to pose and answer "deep-level" questions on the material. EDGE: Fail. Nothing in EDGE about this. BSA Advancement: Fail. The requirements are all simple-task oriented, and fail to push scouts toward deep understanding of da material. Yah, hmmm... So that's a 100% failure rate for EDGE when yeh look at what really works for teachin'. Doesn't strike me as fundamentally sound, but I'm only an amateur in da field. Beavah